Loading...
1977-PLANNING BOARD 1977 ___� s � � � J Ctv 11f ���zletii, � '�ttss�zcl#�zsE##s � m (OuP .0ale t (SrCPtt PLANNING BOARD MEETING 1/6/?7 AGENDA__ , 1. Election of Chairman for Planning Board 2. Approve Minutes of the Meeting of December 16, 1976 as copied and mailed to Members for advance reading. Motion Second 3. Form A a. Salem Redevelopment Authority - off Essex St. 4. Old Business • a. Update of projects b. Zoning proposal c. Greg Senko - City Master Plan 5. Correspondence 6. Adjourn Motion Second • • 0' ; iii#� of �.5��le�ll, �1M�52Ic1�USP##� �;,;',w �� �luttuittg marl (One Oalem Greett MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD JANUARY 6, 1977, 7:51 P.M. , THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Paul D'Amour, William Wheaton; Abby Burns, Ted Sadoski, Walter Power, Brian O'Keefe, Staley McDermet Members Absent: Raymond Sweeney Chairman Staley McDermet called the meeting to order with a quorum present at 7:51 P.M. Chairman Staley McDermet submitted his resignation from the Planning Board. Nominations were opened to fill the vacancy of Chairman for the Planning Board. Abby Burns nominated Walter Power. The nomination was • seconded by William Wheaton. There were no other nominations . The Chairman declared the nominations closed. A vote was taken and Walter Power was unanimously elected. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour, seconded by Brian O'Keefe and unanimously voted to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of December 16, 1976 as copied and mailed to the Members for advance reading. Chairman Walter Power declared the motion carried. Form A Salem Redevelopment Authority - off Essex Street, formerly by St. Peter St. Attorney George Vallis was present to explain what the Salem Re- development Authority intended to do. He explained that the parcels shown on the plan are registered land and a--portion of the over-all Minutes of 1/6/77 Page 2 • plan previously signed by the Planning Board on December 23, 1976. The purpose of the plan is for recordation with the Land Registration Office. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour, seconded by William Wheaton and unanimously voted to endorse the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Old Business Pickman Park City Solicitor William Tinti will be meeting with Mr. Beatrice on January 7, 1977 in order to refine the draft of the proposed conditions for Pickman Park Subdivision. It was the sense of the Board members present that a letter be written to Attorney Beatrice, with a copy hand-delivered to Bill Tinti, explaining that since the current extensions for the Pickman Park project expire on January 27, 1977, it would be • advisable that Mr. Beatrice request another extension for three months. The Planning Board should be able to finalize the plan within that time. Loring Hills The Planning Board Sub-Committee for Loring Hills will meet in the near future. Greg Senko - City Master Plan City Planner, Greg Senko, explained that although the update of the City Master Plan is three months behind schedule, it will be completed by the first of April. Greg also explained that $12-14,000 will be requested from the Community Development Funds so that a person could be hired to work exclusively on the Master Plan. Relevant to the Community Development Funds, Greg explained that he was familiar with many of the applications which will be formally submitted • Minutes of Meeting of 1/6/77 Page 3 • at the January 11, 1977 Community Development Public Hearing. For example, funds will be requested for the completion of Phase II of the sewers, funds will be requested for land acquision in the Forest River Area, as well as funds for rehabilitation of the Commercial areas of the City. Greg requested that a Sub-Committee of the Planning Board be formed to work with the Planning Department regarding the remaining Community Development Fund Hearings . Board members Abby Burns, Brian O'Keefe, Paul D'Amour and Ted Sadoski volunteered to be members of this Sub- Committee. There will be a meeting of this Sub-Committee on January 13, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. at the home of Abby Burns . Zoning PRoposal Staley McDermet informed the Planning Board that the proposed zoning changes will be submitted to the City Clerk on Tuesday, January 11, 1977. • Following this, the proposed zoning changes will be submitted to the City Council for consideration. After the City Council returns these zoning changes to the Planning Board, Chairman Walter Power will contact Councillor Swiniuch regarding a date for a joint Public Hearing on these proposed zoning changes . Staley McDermet briefly ie�viewed severaI.changes in the.,prQposed zonirS; amendments., tftal6y pointed out that minimum. requd.,renent8L- for residential dwellings is missing and he will speak to William Tinti tomorrow concerning this. Staley informed the Board that a minimum requirement of $,000 sq. feet has been added to the so-called "grandgather clause" found in the present zoning ordinance (Section VIII, Nonconformity, Paragraph B, Section 1) . • Minutes of Meeting of 1/6/77 Page 4 • Staley explained to the Board that the Wetlands District and Flood Hazard District has been combined to form one zoning ordinance. Regarding the issuance of Special Permits by the Planning Board (Section 4 of this proposed amendment) Staley explained which conditions stated in the amend- ment are to be met for each district before a Special Permit may be issued. Conditions a-d apply to both the Flood Hazard and Wetland Districts; con- ditions e-h apply only to a Wetland District; conditions i-k apply only to the Flood Hazard District; and conditions a-d, i-k, 1-o apply to the Coastal High Hazard zone. Section 5 of this proposed amendment deals with the procedure to be f6llowed in order to apply for a Special Permit. Section 7 of this proposed amendment explains the procedure necessary to obtain a variance. The minimum HUD requirements for flood plain • management are noted in this ordinance by an asterisk ( ) . A brief discussion followed concerning the possible lack of public awareness of the specific locations of the Wetland and Flood Hazard Districts . It was the sense of the Board Members present that Greg Senko check into the cost of reducing the map of the Flood Hazard Districts for the purpose of reproducing it in the Salem Evening News . In this way the land owners in Salem would be better aware of what effect the proposed amendment might have for them. It was also suggessted that possibly maps of these areas could be displayed in a public building that would be opened evenings and Saturdays for public viewing. Correspondence received at the office was reviewed and placed on file. It was the sense of the Board Members present that Chairman Walter Power write a letter to Mayor Levesque explaining that two vacancies • now exist on the Planning Board. Six names of possible new members will also Minutes of the meeting of 1/6/77 Page 5 • be submitted to the Mayor for his consideration. The letter will also explain that a third vacancy will occur in March when the term of one of the present Board Members expires. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe, ,seconded by Paul D'Amour and unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, • • Ctu of �zleut, �c�s cl��zse##s � � m • " '";gr° ��attttitig ,'marl Otte -Ft1PItt (Arm PLANNING BOARD MEETING 1/20/77 AGENDA 1. Approve Minutes of the Meeting held Jan. 6, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members for advance reading. MotionSecond 2. FormA a. Mary PuW - 3 Freeman Road plw 4o G;�jvrsEo 1 2/317 3. New Business_ Board of Appeal Agenda for 1/25/77 • Consideration of extension request for the Pickman Park Subdivision 4. Old Business Pickman Park Loring Hills 5. Correspondence 6. Adjourn Motion: Second • llf �IlPtit, M85�tc1�USP#t8 One .0detn (green MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD JANUARY 20, 1977, -7:00 P.M. , THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Staley McDermet, Abby Burns, Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, Ted Sadoski, Walter Power Members Absent: William Wheaton, Ray Sweeney ,l The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session. at 7:00 P.M. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour, seconded by Ted Sadoski, and unanimously voted to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of January 6, 1977 as copied and mailed' to Members for advance reading. The Chairman • declared the motion carried. Form A Mary Puleo - 3 Freeman Road Mr. Foote of Attorney Serefini's office and Mr. Otti were present to explain what was intended. Mr. Foote explained that the proposed action concerned registered and unregistered land. For this reason a covenant would have to be obtained stating that the three parcels in question will become one . A motion was made by Ted Sadoski, seconded by Paul D'Amour and unanimously voted to endorse the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control law with the stipulation that the linens for this Form A be held until suitable documentation was submitted relative to the covenant. The Chairman declared the motion carried. • a E�y Minutes of Meeting of 1/20/77 Page 2 Old Business • Pickman Park A meeting was held on Monday, January 17, 1977 of the Pickman Park Sub-Committee, City Solicitor William Tinti and Peter Beatrice. The density of the proposed Pickman Park Subdivision has been reduced from 420 dwelling units to 300 dwelling units and the subdivision will consist of duplexes and quadruplexes. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski that a Special Meeting of the Salem Planning Board be held on Tuesday, January 25, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of considering the proposed settlement for the Pickman Park Subdivision and recent actions relative to Loring Hills Developers Trust. The motion was seconded by Paul D'Amour, unanimously voted, and the Chairman declared the motion carried. Mr. William Tinti and Mr. Peter Beatrice are to be advised of the • time and location of this meeting. Staley McDermet presented a sepia of a City Street Map that will be used to inform residents of Salem of the location of the proposed Wetland and Flood Hazard Districts . Prints of this map will be placed in different locations around the City. Abby Burns reported on the Community Development Fund Sub- Committee meeting that was held on January 13, 1977. ' Abby informed the Board that Greg Senko and David Lash presented information concerning the proposed Community Development Fund allocations. Abby Burns and Brian O'Keefe spoke to Mayor Jean Levesque on January 20, 1977 concerning this Sub-Committee meeting. • Minutes of the Meeting of 1/20/77 Page 3 • New Business Zoning Proposal The City Council at their January 13, 1977 meeting voted to refer the proposed ammendments to the Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Board. These proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance were received from the City Clerk by the Planning Department on January 20, 1977. Staley McDermet advised the Planning Board that he has spoken to Councillor Swiniuch and that the proposed Chapter 808 Zoning Changes, proposed Cluster Development, proposed Planned Unit Development, and the proposed Wetland and Flood Hazard District will be scheduled for the first night of the Public Hearings, and the proposed Planning Moratorium will be scheduled for the second night. Paul D'Amour made the motion that a joint Public Hearing be- tween the Planning Board and City Council concerning the proposed zoning amendments be held on February 15 and February 16, 1977 at a place to be designated by the City Council and the Planning Board Chairman. The motion was seconded by Tadius Sadoski and the vote was unanimous . The Chairman declared the motion carried. Consideration of Extension Request for Pickman Park Chairman Walter Power advised the Board that the extensions for the submission of a definitive plan for the Pickman Park Subdivision will expire on January 27, 1977. Walter has received a letter from Attorney Beatrice on behalf of the DiBiase Brothers requesting a three month extension with regard to the Board's approval of the Pick- man Park Subdivision Plan. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour, seconded by Abby Burns and unanimously voted that a three month extension be granted for the submission of a definitive plan for the Pickman Park Subdivision. Chairman Walter Power declared the motion carried. Minutes of the Meeting of 1/20/77 Page 4 • A letter will be written advising Attorney Beatrice of the Board's action. Board of AppealAgenda,_ ' The Agenda for the January 25, 1977 meeting of the Board of Appeal was discussed. Correspondence Staley McDermet informed the Board that Architects Venturi and Rauch will be at One Salem Green on January 25, 1977 in order to discuss the work they will be doing on the Heritage Plaza West project. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour, seconded by Abby Burns and unanimously voted that the Planning Board Meeting be recessed until after the Community Development Fund Hearing. The Chairman declared • the motion carried. ��X X The Planning Board reconvened at 8:50 P.M. at Old Town Hall. Chair- man Walter Power called for discussion of the Community Development Fund Hearing. Councillor Len Cawley was present and explained that various merchants on Canal St. and Dodge St. have expressed concern regarding the effect the sewer construction will have on their businesses . Councillor Cawley expressed concern that no contingency funds have been proposed on the draft budget for the Community Develop- ment Funds. He stated that the merchants on Dodge St. and Canal St. will require additional signs during parts of the sewer construction in order to receive deliveries and conduct business. David Lash of the Planning Department explained that allowances for • temporary signs during sewer construction have already been planned for. Minutes of the Meeting of 1/20/77 Page 5 David suggested that Mr. Cawley speak to City Engineer Anthony Fletcher regarding his plans for sign coverage during sewer construction. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour to accept the Allocation 6f the Community Development Funds as presented at the Community Develop- ment Fund Hearing of January 20, 1977. The motion was seconded by Abby Burns . Paul D'Amour, Abby Burns, Ted Sadoski, Brian O'Keefe and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained from voting. Chairman Walter Power declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Abbey Burns and seconded by Ted Sadoski to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 P.M. • Respectfully submitted, • �t�.tOA9t{ �4 of �rzle�ii, �MSS�1cI�lI£E##� Oup Ott1Ptri (f)rppn PLANNING BOARD MEETING 2/3/77 AGENDA 1. Approve Minutes of the Meeting held January 20, .1977 as copied and - mailed to Members for advance reading. Motion Second 2. Old Business a. Public Hearing for Zoning Amendments b. Form A of Mary, Puleo 3. New Business • a. Preliminary Definitive Plan for the Pickman Park Subdivision b. Accounts Payable for January c. Board of Appeal Agenda for February 8, 1977 4. Correspondence 5. Adjourn Motion Second 4 (gi#g of • 3 x ' `" ;y,� F �Iattttittg marl Wnr Oalem Green MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 3, 1977, 7:30 P.M. , THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Staley McDermet, Abby Burns, Paul D'Amour, William Wheaton, Ted Sadoski, Walter Power Members Absent: Brian O'Keefe, Ray Sweeney The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7:30 P.M. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Paul D'Amour to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of January 20, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members for advance reading. Abby Burns, Paul D'Amour, William • Wheaton, Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Old Business Public Hearing for Zoning Amendments Staley McDermet informed the Board that he had spoken to Councillor Swiniuch and after some discussion it was decided that the Zoning Hearings will be held in Old Town Hall. Staley is to check into the loud speaker system that will be used for the hearings. It was suggested by Chairman Walter Power that the podium be set up on the side opposite the stairs, in order that the potential disruption arising from people entering and leaving can be eliminated. Staley also informed the Board that the maps of the proposed Wetland/Flood Hazard District are on display at the Plan- ning Department, the office of the City Clerk and the main Library. • Nelson Benton of the Salem Evening News is to do a news story on the proposed Zoning Amendments . Minutes of Meeting 2/3/77 Page 2 • Form A of Mary Puleo Staley advised the Board that the covenant needed for this land transfer has been obtained. There are still a few items that are needed to be added to the plan submitted. This will be accomplished in the near future. New Business Staley McDermet advised the Board that the State Legislature is reviewing the Sub-Division Control Laws. Now would be the time for any comments the Board would like to make regarding possible changes to the Sub-Division Control Laws . Ted Sadoski is to review this material and report on it at the next meeting. The Accounts Payable list for January was reviewed and a motion was made by William Wheaton, seconded by Abby Burns to approve the Accounts • Payable list as presented. Abby Burns, Paul D'Amour, William Wheaton, Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Board of Appeal Agenda for February 8, 1977 It was noted that the Board of Appeal Agenda of February 8, 1977 is the same agenda as the one for December 29, 1976. At the December 16, 1977 meeting of the Planning Board it had been the consensus of the members that a letter should be written to Chairman Gray recommending that the petition of George & Robert Maguire regarding a house on Koscuisko Street be denied. A copy of this letter is to be forwarded to Chairman Gray. Correspondence received at the office was reviewed and placed on file. • Minutes of Meeting 2/3/77 Page� 3 . A motion was made by Paul D"Amour and seconded by William Wheaton to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 P.M. Abby Burns, Pauld D'Amour, William Wheaton, Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Respectfully submitted, • • r� <�<�9 Ti#u ltf leiii, �A'dMss�tcl#usP##� Planning �gvarb (lone lettlem (firm PLANNING BOARD MEETING 2/17/77 AGENDA 1. Approve Minutes of the Meeting of February 3, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. Motion Second 2. Form A a. Philip Cahill - 46-48 Lafayette Place 3. Old Business a. Zoning Hearings • 4. New Business a. Board of Appeal Agenda 5. Correspondence 6. Adjourn Motion Second • r (fli# of w. - //p C �Iauuittg ,'�Darl s'��w.cvs"3 �ttP �FllPlll �LPPri MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 17, 1977, 7:30 P.M. , THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Staley McDermet, Abby Burns, Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, Ted Sadoski, William Wheaton, Walter Power Members Absent: Ray Sweeney The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in.session at 7:30 P.M. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Abby Burns to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of February 3, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members for advance reading. A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Form A Philip Cahill - 46-48 Lafayette Place Staley McDermet explained that the owners of the property in question wish to split an existing lot to form two lots . The frontages for the proposed lots would be approximately 94 ft. for one and approximately 100 ft. for the other. A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by Paul D'Amour to endorse the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S. McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. • • Minutes of Meeting 2/17/77 Page 2 Old Business • Zoning Hearings A discussion was held on the Zoning Hearings that were held on February 15th and 16th, 1977 at Old Town Hall. Brian O'Keefe stated that he felt more discussion should be held on the Moratorium before the Planning Board forwards it to the City Counsel for action. Staley McDermet reminded the Board that the Wetland/Flood Hazard Amendment has to be passed by March 15th if Salem is to continue to participate in the Flood Insurance Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He suggested that the Board act on the first four amendments at this meeting and consider any changes to the Planning Moratorium at the next meeting. Brian O'Keefe noted that he has spoken to David lash and that there are some minor changes to be incorporated in the proposed Wetland/Flood Hazard Amendment. Staley McDermet informed the Board that David would be coming to • the ,meeting. and would explain these minor changes. Ted Sadoski questioned the effect the proposed Wetland/Flood Hazard Amendment will have on the Pickering property. He pointed out that with the passage of the Wetland/Flood Hazard Amendment there could very well be additional requirements and permits needed by the owners of the Pickering property before they could begin construction. It was also suggested that the proposed Wetland/Flood Hazard Amendment could possibly serve as a deterent to future development of the Harbor. Relevant to the first three Amendments, various changes were suggested as a result of the comments made during the Zoning Hearings. Staley McDermet phoned William Tinti as to the proper legal language for various proposed changes. • Minutes of Meeting 2/17/77 Page 3 A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Abby Burns that Section • XI of the 808 Changes be amended by deleting number 6 under Nonconforming Struc- tures . A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B . O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by P. D'Amour that 3(c) of the proposed Planned Unit Development Ammendment be amended by eliminating the phrase "Maximum height" since height limitations shall be in accordance with the underlying zoning districts. A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W.Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Brian O'Keefe that Section XVII of the proposed Zoning Ordinance be amended by the addition of the word and in the following manner: "any special permit granted under this section shall lapse within two years, and including such time required to • pursue or await the determination of an appeal. . ." A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B . O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Ted Sadoski that Section XXI of the proposed Zoning Ordinance be amended by the addition of the following phrase at the end of paragraph G. "The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant and the Board of Appeal shall notify the applicant of his responsibility of filing with the Registry of Deeds ." A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. • Minutes of Meeting 2/1777 Page 4 , Discussion of the proposed Wetland/Flood Hazard Amendment was continued • with the presence of David Lash. Ted Sadoski questioned what the results would be if the proposed Wetland/Flood Hazard Amendment was not enacted. David explained that if this Amendment was not in effect by March 15th a possible delay of immediate suspension could be effected for a few weeks, but after that Salem would be suspended from participation in the Flood Insurance Program of HUD. This would mean higher insurance rates from private companies and would eliminate federal monies for mortgages. It could also effect other federal monies, for example the Community Development Funds, allocated to the City of Salem. David informed the Board that he had contacted the owners of the Pickering property and that he will be having a meeting with their architects in the near future. David pointed out that the Coastal High Hazard Zone is above the • 11 foot contour and that the Pickering property is in the "A" Zone which is below this contour. Also, if the owners of the Pickering Property are planning on obtaining a .mortgage, flood insurance will be necessary. David next outlined the revisions to the Wetland/Flood Hazard Amendment that were recommended by the Boston staff of the HUD Flood Insurance Adminis- tration. Relevant to the proposed Wetland/Flood Hazard Amendment the following motions were made: 1. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Brian O'Keefe to delete subsection 2(a)ii, Definitions, and add a new,subsection: ii. All saline waters and land from the mean high tide seaward to the municipal boundaries . Mean 'high tide is the elevation of 8.8 feet Mean Low Water (4.44 feet Mean Sea Level) . ! Minutes of Meeting 2/17/77 Page 5 A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. • S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. 2. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Abby Burns to delete subsection 2(b) , Definitions, and add a new subsection: b. The .Flood Hazard District follows the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain which is defined as the relatively flat lowland which adjoins a watercourse or other body of water and which is subject to periodic flooding by the watercourse or water body at a storm frequency of 100 years. Specifically, the Flood Hazard District is defined as all areas designated as flood hazard areas (zones A, A3, V3) as shown on the maps titled "FIA Flood Insurance Rate Maps" Nos. 01 through 06, City of Salem, Massachusetts, dated March 15, 1977, on file with the City Clerk which are incorporated herein by reference.* The Flood Hazard Districts affected by coastal flooding (zones A3, V3) are • based on an elevation of 15.36 feet Mean Low Water (11.0 Mean Sea Level) . Boundary lines trace this elevation contour. Where it can be properly shown that land is above this elevation, that land shall not be considered as being included in the District. A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. 3. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by William Wheaton to delete subsection 3(1) , Permitted Uses, and add a new subsection: i. For single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings, or duplex houses existing at the time this Section is enacted, the expansion of these (or their accessory) uses to a maximum of fifteen (15) percent of that portion of the lot: covered when this section is enacted, provided that such • expansions conform to all other provisions of this Ordinance, and do not constitute substantial improvement of a structure. Substantial improvement Minutes of Meeting 2/17/77 Page 6 • means any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the actual market value of the structure either (a) before the improvement is started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occured. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either (1) any project for im- provement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions or (2) any alteration, restoration, or rehabilitation (but not expansion) of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or State Inventory of Historic Places. Structures erected or expanded under • this subsection shall use construction naterials and utility equipment that are resistant to flood damage, and construction methods and practices that will minimize flood damage in accordance with the Massachusetts State Building Code.* A. Burns, P. DSAmour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. 4. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by William Wheaton to delete from subsection 4(j) , Special Permit Uses, the phrase: ". . .or flood-proofed in compliance with the requirements of Section 748.0 of the Massachusetts State Building Code* or any subsequent amendments ." and substitute the following: ". . .or the structures shall be flood-proofed to that level in compliance with the applicabe requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code.*" • Minutes of Meeting 2A7/77 Page 7 A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. 5. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Paul D'Amour to delete the remainder of subsection 4 after 4(j) and substitute the following: Further, where the proposed use will be located within a Coastal High Hazard Area (zone V3 on the FIA Flood Insurance Rate Maps) , the Planning Board shall also find the following conditions to be fulfilled: k. New structures or substantial improvements shall be located landward of the reach of mean high tide.* 1. New structures or substantial improvements shall be elevated on adequately anchored pilings or columns, and securely anchored to such piles or columns so that the lowest portion of the structural members of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated to or above the 100 year flood • level. Space below the lowest floor shall be free of fixed obstruction.* m. The support of new structures or substantial improvements shall not be, in whole or in part, by the use of fill. A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. 6. A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Brian O'Keefe to delete from subsection. 5(d) , Special Permit Procedures, the phrase: ". . .that construction methods are in compliance with Section 748.0 of the Massachusetts State Building Code to the extent that they will withstand. . ." and substitute the following: " . . .as to the elevation of flood-'proofing measures and as to compliance with the applicable sections of the Massachusetts State Building Code concerned with. . ." • A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton and W. Power voted yea. S'.. McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Minutes of Meeting 2/17/77 Page 8 7. A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Brian O'Keefe to • delete subsection 7(b) , Variances. A. Burns, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton, and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Paul D'Amour that the changes voted by the Planning Board at this meeting be incorporated into the proposed Zoning Amendments and that the first four amendments be forwarded to the City Council with a letter stating that the Planning Board strongly recommends the passage of these first four Amendments. A. Burns, P'. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, T. Sadoski, W. Wheaton, and W. Power voted yea. S . McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. The Planning Moratorium will be acted upon at the next regular Planning Board Meeting. New Business Board of Appeal Agenda The agenda for the March 1, 1977 meeting of the Board of Appeal was discussed. It was the consensus of the members that letters should be written to Chairman Gray recommending that the petitions of Salem Realty Trust, Jane and Kenneth Robinson and Constantinas and Tin Georgakis be denied. Mr. Wheaton advised he would write the letters. Correspondence The Agenda for a conference sponsored by the American Lung Association was noted. Paul.D'Amour is to attend. Ted Sadoski is to review the Zoning Enabling Act for the next meeting. A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by Ted Sadoski to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 P.M. • Respectfully submitted, (1�i# of �� g ��►►�►► xg ,'Snarl (Out Oalpm (Surn PLANNING BOARD MEETING 3/17/77 AGENDA 1. Approve Minutes of the Meeting of March 3, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members Bor advance reading. Motion Second 2. Old Business a. Loring Hills 3. New Business a. Heritage Trust Special Permit b. New Zoning on the Corner of Congress St. and New Derby St. - S . McDermet • 4. Correspondence 5. Adjourn Motion Second • r (lii# of ��leiit, ��Mss�tcl#�z�e##s Onp .0alp ri (grren MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD MARCH 17, 1977, 7:30 P.M., THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Paul D'Amour, Abby Burns, Staley McDermet, Richard Lutts, Brian O'Keefe, William Wheaton, Ted Sadoski, Walter Power Member Absent: Ray Sweeney Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order with a quorum present at 7:30 P.M. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour, seconded by Abby Burns and unani- mously voted to approve the minutes of March 3, 1977 as corrected. The Chairman declared the motion carried. • A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Brian O'Keefe to adjourn the Planning Board Meeting and go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing Loring Hills. which is currently under litigation. the vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by William Wheaton to adjourn the Executive Session and reconvene the regular Planning Board Meeting at 8:10 P.M. The motion was seconded by Brian O'Keefe and the vote was unanimous. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Pickman Park It was explained to the Board that the definitive plan for Pickman Park is not yet completed, but will be presented at the first meeting in April. Ted Sadoski restated his concern that the Preliminary Plan did not provide adequate turnarounds at the end of dead end streets. He i Minutes of Meeting 3A?I?? Page 2 J • also stated that he felt that in areas where there were houses on both sides the width of the road should be 35 feet. William Wheaton pointed out that a turnaround does require quite a bit of land and that he believed they were not necessary in dead end areas where there were no houses . Ted Sadoski agreed that the turnarounds may not be necessary for all the dead end streets, but pointed out that in his review of the Zoning Enabling Act,currently under study by the State Legislature, he found that they were not in favor of dead end streets where there were a group of houses. The Preliminary Definitive Plan for Pickman Park was considered by the Board in detail and several proposed dead end streets were singled out for comment. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski that the developers of Pickman • Park should give additional attention to the method of changing direction in the areas marked on the proposed plan, with the knowledge that the Planning Board is leaning towards requiring turnarounds at the end of certain dead end streets . The motion was seconded by Paul D'Amour. Paul D'Amour, Abby Burns, Richard Lutts, Brian O'Keefe, William Wheaton, Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained from voting. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Staley McDermet is to approach the developers with the Planning Board's thoughts on this matter. Staley McDermet pointed out that the plans for Pickman Park have evolved from the concept of owner occupied residences to the point where they now may be more that 50010 tenant occupied. William Wheaton stated that there was the possibility, especially with the quadruplexes, that there Minutes of Meeting 3/17/77 Page 3 Y • would be absentee landlords . Because of this Bill felt that the Board should rethink the concept of the proposed "Association" made up of the owners of the duplexes and quadruplexes. One idea he presented was that the tenants be allowed some representation in the proposed association. Brian O'Keefe was not sure this could be done from a legal standpoint. Walter Power stated that he felt it was up to City Solicitor William Tinti to incorporate any such concept into the legal language of the final agreement. Walter is to speak to Bill Tinti concerning the Board's thoughts on this matter. New Business Heritage Trust Staley informed the Board that Heritage Trust has applied for a Special Permit under the new Wetland/Flood Hazard Zoning Ammendment for their • proposed project at Pickering Wharf. Staley noted that the application has been distributed to the City Clerk, Building Inspector, City Engineer, Board of Health and Conservation Commission for their comments. These various city agencies have 35 days in which to comment and will be due on April 20, 1977. Staley suggested that the required Public Hearing for this application be held on April 21st, after which the Planning Board would make its final decision. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski that the Public Hearing for the Special Permit application from Heritage Trust be held on Thursday April 21, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. on the third floor of One Salem Green. The motion was seconded by Abby Burns. Paul D'Amour, Abby Burns, Richard Lutts, Brian O'Keefe, William Wheaton, Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained from voting. The chairman declared the motion carried. • Staley McDermet informed the Board that the Subdivision Regulations have to be revised to accomodate the Wetland/Flood Hazard Zoning Ammendment. The Federal Governement allows six months for this procedure. David Lash Minutes of Meeting 3/17/?7 Page 4 i • has sent the preliminary Subdivision Regulations out. New Zoning on the Corner of Congress St. and New Derby St. Staley informed the Board that the Naumkeag Bank wishes to rezone the garage at the corner of Congress St. and New Derby Street to B-5- The owners have petitioned for this change. It will go before the City Council for first passage on March 21, 1977. I£ the City Council passes it and refers it to the Planning Board a joint public hearing could be held with the City Council on April 11, 1977 with a Special Meeting for the Planning Board to vote on the proposed zoning change. In this way the Planning Board's action could be referred back to the City Council on April 12, 1977. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Staley McDermet that a joint public hearing be held with the City Council on April 11, 1977 • for the purpose of considering the proposed zoning change to B-5 of the garage located on the corner of Congress St. and New Derby St. Ted Sadoski, Staley McDermet, Walter Power and Richard Lutts voted yea. Paul D'Amour, William Wheaton, Abby Burns and Brian O'Keefe voted nea. The Chairman declared that the motion was not carried. After a brief discussion a motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Statley McDermet to reconsider the previous motion. Staley McDermet, Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Brian O'Keefe, Paul D'Amour, Richard Lutts, Abby Burns and William Wheaton voted nea. The Chairman declared that the motion was not carried. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by William Wheaton that a joint public hearing be held with the City Council on April 21, 1977 for the purpose of considering the proposed zoning change to B-5 of the garage • located on the corner of Congress St.and New Derby St. Brian O'Keefe, William Minutes of Meeting 3A7/77 Page 5 • Wheaton, Abby Burns, Paul D'Amour, Richard Lutts and Walter Power voted • yea. Staley McDermet and Tadius Sadoski voted nea. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Staley McDermet is to speak with Richard Swinuich con- cerning the exact time and convience of the date decided on by the Planning Board. May 5, 1977 is to be the alternative date if the City Council is unavailable for April 21st. Staley is also to inform Richard Swinuich that the consensus of the Planning Board favors the rezoning of the area in question. Paul D'Amour gave a brief description of the conference he attended sponsored by the American Lung Association. He stated that the conference was quite informative and the brochures that were distributed would be available for the members consideration. Staley McDergpet informed the Board that matching funds were available • from the Massachusetts Historical Commission to develop a preservation plan which could be incorporated as a part of the Master Plan. Staley stated that part of the money could be allocated from the Community Development Funds . The approximate cost for this was estimated at $10,000. It was noted that Historic Salem is not contributing. William Wheaton stated that he could not see what new would be accomplished with another study on historic areas and their possible use for the present and future. Ted Sadoski stated that he would like to see more specifics of the proposal before any decision was made. He also felt that an overview of the Master Plan and an estimate of the monies needed for its completion should be considered. Staley explained that more specific information would be made available, but at this time the Planning Department wanted to know if the Planning • Board was amenable to the idea and was asking for direction. Minutes of the Meeting 3/17/77 Page 6 • William Wheaton stated that a study on the waterfront area was more • urgently needed than another study of the historic disdrict. Paul D'Amour suggested that the Historical Commission request the money from the City Council if they feel the study would be significant. Brian O'Keefe agreed that further study of the waterfront area was needed and that he felt that a review of the report by Blair Associates in 1964 was not really adequate for inclusion in the Master Plan. Walter Power expressed his disappointment in the "piece-meal" fashion in which the Planning Department consults with the Planning Board regarding the Master Plan. A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Paul D'Amour to deny allocation of monies for ; an_additional preservation plan of J the historic district. Paul D'Amour, William Wheaton, Walter Power, Ted Sadoski, Abby Burns, Richard Lutts and Brian O'Keefe voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by William Wheaton, seconded by Paul D'Amour and unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • J� , Ti#v of �$Mlvnt, ��MSSMCI�usE##s " � w '�� ��cttlltittg ,�Darl OUP Oule Il Guen PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4/7/77 AGENDA 1. Approve Minutes of the Meeting of March 17, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. Motion Second 2. Old Business a. Pickman Park b. Discuss Moratorium 3. New Business a. Board of Appeal Agenda for April 21, 1977 b. 9:00 P.M. - Mr. Rimmer - Discussion of proposed temporary wholesale used car lot on Highland Ave. • c. Accounts Payable for March 4. Correspondence 5. Form A' a. George Maguire agent for Hubert White - 17 '& 19 Bryant St. 6. Adjourn Motion Second • Minutes of Meeting 4/7/77 Page 7 • Form A's George Maguire Agent for Hubert White - 17 & 19 Bryant St. In considering the Plans submitted for this Form A, Ted Sadoski noted that 17 Byrant would be fronting on a right of way and not onan accepted street. Staley McDermet stated that Bryant St. would have to be extended for this to qualify as an acceptable Form A. George Maguire pointed out that the residents of this neighborhood have always "used this dirt road as a street" . Ted Sadoski quoted from the Subdivision Regulations "that the division of a tract of land into 2 or more lots shall not be deemed to constitute a subdivision within the meaning of the subdivision control law, if at the time when it is made, every lot within the tract so divided has frontage on (a) a public way, or (b) a wayshown plan theretofore on a p re approved in • accordance with the subdivision control law, or (c) a way in existence when the subdivision control law became effective in the City of Salem, having, in the opinion of the Planning Board, sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the proposed use of the land abutting thereon or served thereby, . . ." George Maguire inquired of the Board what would be accomplished if he withdrew the Form A before any action was taken by the Planning Board. Brian O'Keefe stated he would have to prove that the road in question is a public way. When George Maguire asked what would constitute a public way, Staley replied that gutters, drainage and pavement would probably be necessary. Walter Power suggested that the City Engineer be consulted by Mr. Maguire for advice in this matter. • George Maguire withdrew the Form A and Walter Power declared the Form A withdrawn without prejudice. • ��.��� c�( li oftzletit, r �ttss�zcl�u�P## ;� �g . �[uttttilt$ �uarl Minutes of Meeting 4/7/77 Page S • Hibbard Realty Trust - 42-50 Essex St Attorney George Crane was present to explain what was intended. He explained that the Planning Board had already approved a Form A for this property in December of 1975. The property comprises 4 multi-family dwellings on 4 lots shown as A,B,C and D with rights of way for the benefit of each lot for vehicular access and parking. Attorney Crane explained that the owners want the right of way between C and D to show a driveway now in existence. This would allow parking and access for Lot B. Paul D'Amour questioned why it was necessary to submit a Form A for this . Attorney Crane replied that the owners wish to register the land. Brian O'Keefe summarized that Lot A is already a legal right of way and approval of this Form A would add an additional right of way. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski to endorse the Form A as not requiring • approval under the Subdivision Control Law. He further added that the segment shown with arrows on the previous Form A (12/75) be repeated. The motion was seconded by Abby Burns . Abby Burns, Richard Lutts, Paul D'Amour, Ted Sadoski, Brian O'Keefe and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. New Business Discussion of the proposed temporary wholesale used car lot on Highland Ave. Mr. Rimmer and Mr. William Pelletier were present to explain what was intended. Mr. Rimmer explained that he was going before the Board of Appeal in order to get a Special Use Permit. The land in question is zoned B2 and Mr. Rimmer is requesting a B4 use. He added that although the Board of Appeal is the granting agent for this permit, he was aware that the Planning Board will sometimes write a negative recommendation to 3, 4- `� ' 'f g' �12tttltitta �IIatl (ane .Ottlrm Grrru Minutes of Meeting 4/7/77 Page 9 • the Board of Appeal concerning some permit requests. For this reason he wished to outline his proposed plans to the Planning Board. Mr. Rimmer explained that the proposed used car lot would not be open to the public, but only to dealers. They would not be displaying cars; there would not be great numbers of people entering the lot and there also would not be strings of lights on the property. They expect to clean up the lot and provide rental property which would add taxes for the City and employ 15-20 people . Mr. Rimmer mentioned that Councillor Saraceno had suggested that they request this Special Use Permit for a period of five years, at the end of which Mr. Rimmer would be ready to develop the lot fully and for a different purpose. Mr. Rimmer also stated that there would be no construction on the lot for this business venture. Ted Sadoski questioned whether auctions would be held and Mr. Rimmer • said no. He further explained that the idea of the wholesale used car lot would be to turn over the used cars quickly. Paul D'Amour questioned how many cars would be on the lot at one time. Mr. Rimmer estimated that there would be 20-100 cars there at one time. Abby Burns questioned whether the lot in question was at a high elevation. Mr. Pelletier said it was . Paul D'Amour questioned whether a fence could be built to shield the used ars from view. Mr. Rimmer stated that the land was too high for this to be effective. Staley McDermet questioned how the used cars were to be moved in and out. Mr. Rimmer replied that it would be accomplished by truck. Staley pointed out that the access for this property is P p p y bad and that the trucks would be exiting onto Highland Ave, right after a crest. Staley suggested that only the first opening be used as an entrance and exit or that the • openings be one way. Mr. Pelletier stated that they expected to move 150 cars a month. AT-#g �tf �zleiii, C �M�srzc�l�tse# • � '-,"''�`_;,;` g �l�tutittg marl Minutes of Meeting 4/7/77 Page 10 Ted Sadoski w'inquired whether there q ill be any repair work.done on the • property and Mr. Pelletier said there wouldn't be. Ted Sadoski pointed out that it was not the perogative of the Planning Board to recommend to the Board of Appeal the granting of a Special Permit. Ted added that if the Planning Board felt that the Special Permit should not be issued, Mr. Rimmer and Mr. Pelletier should be notified of this . Board of Appeal Agenda for 4/21/77 The agenda for the'April 2I;-'1977 meeting of the Board of Appeal was disscussed. It was the consensus of the members that a letter should be written to Chairman Gray recommending that the petition of Dr. J. Robert Shaughnessy Chronic Disease Rehabilitation Hospital be denied. Mr. McDermet advised he would write the letter. Accounts Payable for March The Accounts Payable list for March was reviewed and a motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Abby Burns to approve the Accounts Payable list as presented. Abby Burns, Richard Lutts, Paul D'Amour, Ted Sadoski, Brian O'Keefe and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Old Business Pickman Park Walter Power informed the Board that there would be a Special Meeting of the Planning Board on Thursday, April 14, 1977 for the purpose of discussing the proposed Pickman Park Subdivision Plan. Staley noted that turnarounds have been incorporated in several of the dead ends noted by the Planning Board at their meeting of March 17, 1977. • Staley noted that there was one circle turnaround added and that the dead ends had been redesigned so that each would end in a blunt end. (situ oflent, �IMtICI�uSEttS . � - �Iauniug �uarl Minutes of Meeting 4/7/77 Page 11 Walter Power informed the Board that he and Staley McDermet had • attended a neighborhood meeting relevant to the proposed Pickman Park Subdivision Plan. Walter noted that the developers had agreed to send a set of plans to the Citizen Group. Ted Sadoski stated that he felt the plans should be delivered by the developer so that a precedence would not be set of the Planning Boards providing plans to different or- ganizations . Walter Power stated that he had some reservation about the distri- bution of additional plans . He wondered whether that "would make every- one a planner." Ted Sadoski pointed out that once a plan is submitted it becomes a public document. If a developer wishes to distribute additional copies of the plan, it is up to him. With regard to the basic question of wnershop relevant to the • proposed Pickman Park Subdivision Plan, Walter Power is to obtain information on duplexes . Paul D'Amour questioned whether the developers of Pickman Park have submitted what amounts to a Form B or a Form C . If a Form C has been submitted, the Planning Board has 65 days in which to act. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Ted Sadoski to adjourn the regular Planning Board Meeting and go into Executive Sestion for the purpose of discussing Loring Hills Developers Trust which is currently under litigation. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. The Planning Board returned from Executive session at 10:40 P.M. A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by Paul D'Amour to adjourn the Regular,Meeting of the Planning Board at 10:41 P.M. • The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. Respectfully submitted, ( i# of ""�uv�hoa VYI1P �ttlPm �YfPri • • ,y� : Ctv of iciii, C ��c�s�zci#usP## ;,,s �g �Iuttttitta �uarl Mur 0alem preen SPECIAL MEETING BETWEEN PLANNING BOARD AND PICKMAN PARK DEVELOPERS - APRIL 14 , 1977 Members present: W. Power, R. Lutts, T. Sadoski, P. D'Amour, B. O'Keefe, A. Burns, S...McDermet. Also present: William J. Tinti, John Emerson, J. McDowell, P. Beatrice (and secretary) , J. Carter. Meeting Called to order at 7 :40 P.M. Update on final plans and changes in the plan were presented by John Emerson and comments made: 1. two off street parking places per unit • 2 . sidewalks everywhere where buildings are present. Staley explained that the development has been separated to reduce traffic on Pickman Road. Concern was voiced at a neighborhood meeting over the fact Pickman Road is only 22 feet wide, and it was pointed out there is no way it can be widened. Mr. Sadoski said he can't accept the lack of turn arounds, and feels it essential to have more. After much discussion it was agreed that these areas have turn arounds : Marshall Drive Van der Griff between 93 & 94 between 85 & 86 #74 #51 Areas which could not have turnarounds : Arnold Drive Lot #75 Lot #60 It was also agreed that islands will be constructed in the middle of the turn arounds. Approximate dimensions are 80 ' -0" outside diameter of turn around, 40 ' -0" outside diameter of island. 2 . • It was agreed that Staley contact Mr. & Mrs. Cormier on Moffat Road concerning the closeness of the road to their lot. It was decided the Conservation Commission parking lot will have 25 cars maximum and a gravel surface. The three phases are to be labeled on the key plans. An association will be set up to maintain the land so that the purchaser of a unit will be responsible to the Association and will adhere to rules and regulations. It was noted that the street constrictions shown on the presentation plan were not shown on the detailed definitive plan. It was agreed that Marion Road would have constrictions at the intersection of each side road and McKinley Road would have constrictions regularly placed along it. There will be 104 two-unit buildings and 24 four-unit buildings. Mr. Tinti said owners should have full responsibility for streets and roads. Roads should be held in common by the owners, which will necessitate the removal of all property lines currently shown on roads. Discussion was held regarding the absence of grass strips between the curbs and sidewalks, and by a 3-2 vote the Board • decided to leave the plan as is (no grass strips) . The Board voted that an aggregate be used on the sidewalk instead of black asphalt. All utilities shall be placed underground, including electrical, telephone, signal and street lighting systems. People in the neighborhood have shown concern about students possibly moving into quadroplexes since this is in the Salem State area. It was agreed that the developers will show a plan of each unit to allay the fears of the neighbors. Dwelling units will be individually owned - separate meters, heating, etc. Each unit will be vertical , and separated from each other by vertical party walls. However, due to the practical problem of dividing each building lot into separate lots (one lot per dwelling unit) it was decided that while each unit within each building would be sold separately, the building lot would be held in common by the (four or two) owners of each building. It was decided that this was another preliminary submission and a last preliminary submission would be presented to the Board at a short special meeting on Thursday, April 28, 1977. After that meeting the final definitive plan would be completed. • R 3. • In the meantime, this preliminary plan would be submitted to the Building Inspector, City Engineer, Board of Health and Conservation Commission for comments. A letter from Attorney Beatrice was presented which requested a three month extension (to July 27 , 1977) on the Preliminary Plan dated75 2 9 1 and the Definitive Plan da / / ted 9/4/75. It was voted to grant the extension as requested. Meeting adjourned at 10 : 00 P.M. Copies : Planning Board Members William J. Tinti P. Beatrice John Emerson Carter & Towers Conservation Commission Please note that these minutes have not been officially approved by the Planning Board. • • of 'Went, C��tt�s�tc�ixse##� S �"`'"'� p �lattltitt� �uarl -G � Otte O+ttlem (j6rren PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4/21/77 Agenda 1. Approve Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Salem Planning Board and the Committee of the Whole of the City Council held April 11, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members for advance reading. Motion Second 2. Approve Minutes of the Meeting held April 7, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members for advance reading. Motion Second 3. New Business a. Annual Meeting of the Mass. Federation of Planning Boards b. Reminder: Meeting on Pickman Park on 4/28/77 .. TitV of ��leiu, ��IM�st�cY�u�Ptts ,,� �g �luntting �uar� (our oulem (grern MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD APRIL 21, 1977, 7:00 P.M. , THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Staley McDermet, Abby Burns, William Wheaton, Brian O'Keefe, Paul D'Amour, Tadius Sadoski, Walter Power Members Absent: Richard. Lutts, Ray Sweeney The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7:00 P.M. William Tinti was present to explain the decision that was handed down by the Appeals Court relevant to Loring Hills Developers Trust. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts decided that the Salem Planning Board did not exceed their power in turning down the plan since the Board of Health • had already turned the Plan down. Bill pointed out that the Appeals Court has just issued a similar judgement for a case involving the Barnstable Planning Board. Again the Court upheld the Planning Board's action on the grounds that the Board of Health had already turned the plan down. Bill pointed out that the Court did not address themselves to the other issues raised by the Planning Board. Specifically, the questions of the inadequacies of municipal sewers, or how much information the developer is required to give the local Planning Board were not addressed. The Planning Board's decision was upheld because "A Planning Board may not override an e adverse recommendation by the board of health with respect to a subdivision plan submitted for approval." Bill stated that Loring Hills Developers Trust would now have to start • their submission process for their subdivision plan from the beginning again. Hepointed out that Mr. Quigley has :already appealed the Appeal Courts decision to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Court has thirty days Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 2 to decide whether they will consider the case. Bill felt that there is only a small chance that the State Supreme Court will consider this case . Ted Sadoski inquired if Loring Hills could now reapply to the Board of Health for approval and, if granted, will they still be protected under the old zoning. Bill replied that the developers could give the Board of Health the additional information needed regarding topography, drainage and sewers and then the Planning Board would be forced to approve the subdivision plan under the old zoning. Ted also asked•if Bill felt that Loring Hills would commence a suit against the Board of Health if the Supreme Court does not decide to hear the /) case . Bill replied that that could be his next course of action, but that the financial situation of Loring Hills Developers Trust may encourage a more realistic compromise then they have offered up to now. Bill also pointed out that a new subdivision plan will have to be presented to the Planning Board before the Planning Board has to act. Bill ended the dis- mussion by stating that the City will never be in a stronger position to accomplish an equitable compromise with the developers . Hearings for Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permits Heritage Trust The Chairman declared the Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. Review comments were received from the Building Inspector, City Engineer and the Conser- vation Commission. The Building Inspector concurred with the proposal, but both the City Engineer and the Conservation Commission stated that they believed additional information is needed before a permit is issued. City Engineer Anthony Fletcher stated in his comments that,"Engineering comment/critic can not be made until preliminary plans showing drainage, sewerage, etc. are available. If streets shown on L-1 (1-2 not included) are to be private, there is no comment to be made on what was submitted." Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 3 Philip Briggs of Add Inc. in answer to this comment stated that the streets will be private . The Conservation Commission in their review of the application recom- mended that a permit be given to work on the sea wall only. The reasons for this recommendation, with reference to Section P of the Zoning Ordinance are as follows: 1. Subsection 4c is not properly addressed as detailed design of these systems is required to make a decision; 2. For Subsection d volume and surface area of dredging should be specified and it should be restricted to a period from October to the end of May; 3. Subsections 41 and 4 m require design drawings to determine whether or not piles support the total structure, including floors, as this is a requirement for building in a V zone of a Flood Hazard District; • 4. There is no certification supplied as required by Subsection 5d for pile construction; 5. No list of required permits as required by Sub section 5e was supplied. Philip Briggs acknowledged that detailed engineering plans were not yet available, but he stated that before the seawall could be constructed, engineering plans would have to be submitted to the Conservation Commission under the Wetlands Protection Act anyway. Philip then went on to explain the overall plan for the area. He stated that the area would consist of two, three and four story buildings erected on piles mechanically fastened to a structural concrete slab first floor system in compliance with the Massachusetts State Building Code. He also informed the Board that the newly purchased Hawthorne Garage is the • proposed site for the Historic movie. Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 4 • Brian O'Keefe asked who would own the streets in the proposed site. Philip replied that the streets would be open to the public but would be private land. The responsibility, control of, and maintenance of these streets would be with the developers . Ted Sadoski questioned whether the Planning Board could grant approval for this Special Permit since the Conservation Commission believes the information supplied is inadequate. Staley McDermet stated that although opinions are solicited from various City Agencies they are not required and the final decision rests with the Plannigg Board. The Planning Board can approve all of the work proposed or part. In addition, approval can be granted with various conditions added. Paul D'Amour questioned the possibility of first floor flooding of the structures . Mr. Briggs stated that the elevation of the first floor will • be at or above the 15.36 foot elevation set by the Federal Government for Flood Hazard areas . He added that no basements are planned. Since on site surface drainage will be handled with a system of catch basins directly piped into open water, Paul D'Amour questioned the nuffiber of cars that will be parking in the project. Philip Briggs replied that the Pickering Wharf project will include parking for approximately 136 cars and should present no problem in runoff. Mr Briggs also stated that all site utilities will be run under- ground and will be constructed to resist differential settlement between buildings and site. Paul also questioned what plans, if any, Heritage Trust had for the part of Derby St. bordering the site of Pickering Wharf. Mr. Briggs replied that the developers intended to improve the street, but "not take it over." Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 5 Ted Sadoski stated that he didn't feel the Board could take any final action regarding the issuance of this Special Permit until more detailed plans were submitted to the Conservation Commission, City Engineer and the Bard of Health. Arthur Collins replied that even with the issuance of this permit the City Engineer, and the Conservation Commission can "make additional corrections along the way." He stated that too much delay could hurt the project and that the additional approvals needed would provide "checks and balances along the way" . Ted Sadoski stated that he felt this additional information could be obtained in a relatively short amount of time. Arthur Collins replied that there was city sewerage , water and drainage on the site already.. • Walter Power inquired whether conditional approval could be granted pending additional information requested by the City Engineer and the ConCom. Staley replied that this could be done . A motion was made by Brian O 'Keefe and seconded by Paul D 'Amour that the public hearing for Heritage Trust be adjourned. Abby Burns , Brian O ' Keefe , Paul D 'Amour , Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried . Public Hearing for Charles Puleo The Chairman declared the hearing for a Wetlands Special Permit opened at 8 : 15 P .M. Review comments received from the City Engineer, ConCom and the Building Inspector expressed is concurrance with the Plan outlined. Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 6 Attorney John Serefini, Jr . explained that Mr . Puleo wishes to build a single family dwelling on his property at 5 Freeman Road. His land lies in the Wetland buffer zone. Mr . Edmund Parady of 11 Freeman Road stated that he "objected to any further construction on this property. " Mr . Parady went on to explain that a culvert crossing Mr . Charles Puleo ' s property had been installed by Mr . Puleo ' s father and that the culvert has prved inadequate . He stated that the culvert was "constructed of old discarded hot water tanks , merely butted end to end with tar paper strips used as seals . " He went on to say that "the situation right now has been • compounded by the fact that large piles of excavated soil and rock on the Puleo property are piled over the area of this culvert adding further stresses . " He then explained that in the 15 months he has owned his property he has had flooding 7 or 8 times because of the undersized culvert . He "fears that this culvert may at any time completely collapse and completely block the drainage of this large area, which would put a lake 20 ft . deep over all our property. " Mr . Wegrzyniak of 7 Freeman Road stated that before this culvert was put in 22 years ago he had a ' dry cellar ' , now there is frequent flooding . Attorney John Serefine, jr . stated that the inadequate culvert in question is a pre-existing condition having no • relevance to Charles Puleo ' s proposed house which will be located 60 feet from the culvert . He also stated that Mr . Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 7 Puleo will not be using this culvert for his drainage. Mr . Serefini did acknowledge that Mr . Puleo had started digging the cellar for his proposed house , but had stopped as soon as he was informed that permits would be necessary before he could start construction. Brian O'Keefe questioned whether the construction of the house would cause the culvert to change. Mr . Serefini replied that the culvert was located "far away from the proposed site for the house. " Mr . Edmund Polchlopek of 12 Freeman Rd. stated that he did not object to the construction of the house but felt that if the culvert was, blocked or damaged during the construction of the house , Mr . Puleo should bear the financial burden for fixing it . Attorney Serefini stated that all that is before the Board is the construction of a single family dwelling, and the "pre-existing condition of the culvert is not relevant to the permit . " A motion was made by Paul D 'Amour and seconded by Brian O 'keefe to adjourn the Public Hearing for Charles Puleo and to reconvene in CityCouncil Chambers for the zoning hearing. Abby Burns , Brian O 'Keefe, Paul D }Amour , Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained . The Chairman declared the motion carried. Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 8 Salem City Council and Salem Planning Board on Petition for Amendments to the Salem Zoning Ordinance Chapter 35 City Council President Richard Swiniuch called the public hearing to order at 8 : 50 P .M. Attorney Barry Plunkett , representing Heritage Trust , explained that Heritage Trust has recently purchased the garage at the corner of Congress St . and Derby Street from the Naum= keag Bank. Heritage Trust wihes to utilize this garage as the site for a historical movie theater and museum. Attorney Plunkett explained that under the current B-4 zoning of this area this would not be a permitted use. For this reason Heritage Trust requested that the area be zoned B-5 which • would permit this usage . Attorney Plunkett also added that t the change to B-5 would be consistent with the surrounding area since the area surrounding this property was rezoned B-5 last summer . Staley McDermet , speaking for the Planning Department , stated that the Planning Department had always favored the inclusion of the property at th'e corner of .Congress St . and Derby St . in the original rezoning of that area to B-5 . It was only because of the objections raised by Naumkeag that this property remained B-4 . Councillor Cawley also testified in favor of the petition to rezone the area on the corner of Congress St . and Derby St . • Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 9 • Brian O 'Keefe, speaking for the Planning Board, stated that the Planning Board had favored the change in zoning for the area in question when the rest of that area was changed to B-5 . It was only the objections of the Naumkeag Bank that had prevented the rezoning of the corner of Derby St . and Congress St . last summer. Councillor Nowak questioned whether the lobster boats currently docked on the proposed Pickering Wharf site were being evicted . Arthur Collins stated that the situation hadn ' t changed . : The lobstermen were tenants at will and would have to leave by May 15 because of construction in the area . Mr . Collins stated that when the construction is over the • lobstermen can come back. He explained that security for the area during construction is essential . He further stated the possible hazards involved during construction further necessitated their leaving . Councillor Grace inquired how many off-street parking spaces would be available in the Pickering Wharf project . Philip Briggs replied that there would be parking for 136 cars and 5 buses . Philip also noted that the length of the historical movie was approximately 20 minutes and they expected a turnover every 1/2 hour . Councillor Swiniuch pointed out that there was additional parking for buses across from Parker Brothers . Councillor Plante questioned the capacity of the theater . Mr . Briggs replied there was seating for 150 . Coun= cillor Plante state he could see the buses staying parked for Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 10 hours so that people could view the shops . Councillor Swiniuch again reminded the councillors of the parking across from Parker Brothers . Councillor Plante questioned the starting date of construc- tion. Arthur Collins replied that they hoped to begin by May 15th. He also pointed out that financing for the first phase of construction was predicated on the proposed rezoning. He added that Phase 1 would consist of the theater and 7 shops and should be completed by late summer . Tom Leonard explained that the project would eventually be composed. of 3 or 4 phases . He pointed out , that further building would depend on the public response to the preceeding phase. Councillor Saraceno stated that Heritage Trust had initially stated that they regarded the lobstermen as an asset to the project . Arthur Collins stated that the developers still felt that wayand when construction was ended s n ed the lobstermen could return and their equipment would be stored in one of the shops . Mr . Collins reminded the Council again that the lobstermen had been informed of the move in January. Tom Leonard added that although Heritage Trust was "aware of the social significance" of these lobstermen, Heritage Trust was in business to make a profit . The lobstermen would be welcomed back, but they couldn ' t "come back for nothing. " They would have to pay what the market conditions warrented . Councillor Saraceno • inquired whether the lobstermen were aware that they would have to pay a rental . Tom Leonard and Arthur Collins replied that they were. • Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 11 Councillor Saraceno inquired if the developers really thought it was necessary to sell fuel at the dock. Arthur Collins stated that the proposed marina would not have repair facilities but that it would be most inconvient for the boats docking there if gas was not provided . Tom Leonard further stated that one of the "draws" for the apartment rentals on the site was the docking facilities. I Walter Power apologized for the Planning Board being late to the hearing, but asked that if discussion pertaining to the proposed rezoning was finished ,could the Planning Board be excused . Council President Swiniuch stated that the hearing • was not yet over . Addressing Arthur Collins , Richard Swiniuch stated that the insuring of 3 berths for the lobstermen had come about through a "gentlemen ' s agreement" between the lobstermen and the developers and now the lobstermen were being "thrown out" . Arthur Collins replied that he had set up a meeting with the brothers last July, but they failed to show up . They did show up for a meeting in January when they were informed of the necessity of them temporarily vacating the berths . Arthur pointed out that most marinas did not want lobstermen, but that Heritage Trust was making every effort to accomodate them. Councillor Plante made a motion to close the Public Hearing The vote was unaimous and the Councill President declared the • motion carried . Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 12 • A motion was made by Paul D 'Amour and seconded by Ted Sadoski that the Planning Board adjourn from City Council Chambers and reconvene at One Salem Green at 9 : 40 P .M. Chairman Walter Power called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 9 : 45 P .M. with a quorum present . After a brief discussion a motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by William Wheaton that the Planning Board recommend to the City Councill that the area recently purchased by Heritage Trust at the corner of Derby St . and Congress St . be rezoned to B-5 . William Wheaton, _., ; L<, Ted Sadoski, Brian O ' Keefe, Abby Burns, Paul.'.D'Amour and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained . The chairman declared the motion carried. • After a discussion of the various issues raised at the Public Hearing regarding the application of the Heritage Strust for a Special Permit under Section P, Wetlands and Flood Hazard Dis- tricts, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, a motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Brian O 'Keefe to approve the application as complying with the requirements for the issuance o.f the permit , with the following conditions : 1 . Construction details of utilities (Section 4 . c) , anchorage of structures on pilings (Section 4 . 1) , and support of structures (Section 4.m) must be provided so that compliance can be evaluated. 2 . Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect • with respect to the items stated in condition 1 above must be provided (Section 5 . d) . Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 13 • 3 . A list of Federal, State, and other local permits required by the applicant must be provided (Section 5 . e) . Information relative to these three conditions must be submitted to and approvedby the Planning Board before a building permit is issued . William Wheaton, Ted Sadoski, Brian O ' Keefe, Abby Burns , Paul D'Amour and Walter Power voted yea . Staley McDermet abstained . The Chairman declared the motion carried . A motion was made by Brian O' Keefe, seconded by Ted Sadoski and unanimously voted to approve Minutes of the Meeting of April 7, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members for advance reading. The Chairman declared the motion carried . A motion was made by Paul D'Amour, seconded by Brian O 'Keefe • and unanimously voted to approve the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Salem Planning Board and the Committee of the whole of the City Council held April 11, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members for advance reading . The Chairman declared the motion carried . Discussion was next held relevant to the public hearing regarding the issuing of a Special Permit to Mr. Charles Puleo . Ted Sadoski stated that although the review comments received from various city agencies concur with Mr . Puleo ' s plan, if anything happens to disturb the existing culvert, the Planning Board could possibly be held responsible. Ted felt that a legal opinion was needed before the Planning Board acts on this Special Permit . Walter Power agreed • that a legal opinion would be advisable before further action could be taken. Minutes of Meeting 4/21/ 77 Page 14 • Attorney John Serefini, Sr. was present and spoke of the joint meeting held between the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission with Jerome Long concerning the wetlands mapping . He pointed out that the buffer zone was established to "protect not prohibit" possible construction. He stated that Mr . Puleo would not be using the culvert in question for his drainage, so therefore there would be no additonal strain on the existing culvert. Attorney Serefini admitted that there was a drainage problem and that a letter should be written the City Engineer concerning it . However, Mr . Serefini felt that the construction of Mr . Puleo ' s house and the problems with the pre-existing culvert were two separate conditions and should not be "tied together. " Ted Sadoski stated that because of the new facts that had come to light the Planning Board should be careful to ascertain what responsibility it may have if the problems with the culvert are aggrevated. Ted stated that even if the house is located 60 feet from the culvert if it cracks there is a possiblity that the Planning Board would have to bear the responsibility. Ted pointed out that the Planning Board has 35 days in which to act on this appli- cation. He suggested that the City Engineer and City Solicitor be consulted before any further action is taken . Staley McDermet agreed that with excavating going on and additional fill being placed on the culvert, there might be trouble. Walter Power agreed that this permit involved special problems and that • the City Engineer should further investigate it . Attorney Serefini • Minutes of Meeting 4/21/77 Page 15 again reminded the Board that the two issues should remain separate. Brian O 'Keefe pointed out that the Conservation Commission should also be notified of the problems in the area. Staley McDermet is to consult with the City Solicitor regarding the implications of Subsection 4D on the issuance of this Special Permit. Also if the City Engineer and various other city agencies agree that the construction of the house will not further aggrevate the culvert, can the Planning Board or City be held responsible for future problems with the culvert. Further discussion concerning Charles Puleo will be held at the next Planning Board meeting. Paul D/Amour is to attend the annual meeting of the Mass . • Federation of Planning Boards . There will be a special meeting of the Planning Board to discuss the proposed Pickman Park Subdivision on Thursday, April 28, 1977 . A motion was made by Paul D 'Amour and seconded by Brian O ' Keefe to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 10:40 P .M. Respectfully submitted, • � r �- CO. �A� %� ���2tUlitt� xtnzl PLANNING BOARD MEETING 5/26/77 AGENDA 1. 4letland/Flood Hazard Public Hearings a. James Cahill b. New England Power 2. Approve Minutes of the Meeting of May 12, 1917 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. Motion _ Second _ 3. Form A's a. Salem State b. dames Cahill - 70 Dearborn St. 4. Old Business a. Loring Hills .� b. Master Plan � . 5. New Business a. Accounts Payable for May b. Buddet for the rest of the year c. Transfer of.money for the printing of Zoning Ordinance d. Election • o Ctg of rzleut, ��tlM�s�zcl�ixsetts 3A . m Planning �BDnrl (Onr Oalrm Gann MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD MAY 26, 1977, 7:30 P.M., THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Ted Sadoski, Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, Abby Burns, Walter Power Members Absent: William Wheaton, Staley McDermet, Richard Lutts Wetland/Flood Hazard Public Hearings The Chairman declared a quorum present and the Public Hearings opened at 7:45 P.M. The first Wetland/Flood Hazard Special Permit application considered was that of James Cahill. Joanne McManus of 67 Dearborn Street was present to represent Mr. Cahill. Ms. McManus explained that the project would entail the construction of a pier, float and gangway which would be used only by the family and possibly a few neighbors. There would be no dredging, the pier would be permanent and the float and gangway would be taken in during the winter months. Mr. Eugene Rakoc of 2 Felt St. stated he was a neighbor of Mr. Cahill and that he was concerned that the pier might be used for business by Mr. Cahill. Ms. McManus replied that it was being constructed strictly for private use. Chairman Walter Power noted that the various city agencies, whose opinion was requested on this matter, concurred with the project described. Ralph Hobbs noted that he approved of the proposed project as long as it was specifically for "family use". Chairman Walter Power declared the public hearing for James Cahill closed at 7:54 P.M. Minutes of 5/26/77 Page 2 . The Chairman declared the public hearing for the Wetland/Flood Hazard Special Permit Application for New England Power open at 7:55 P.M. Mr. John Shea of New England Power spoke to the Board of the pro- posed project. He explained that on March 8, 1977 applications were made to the Salem Conservation Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers and the DEQE on behalf of this project. On March 29, 1977 a public hearing was held with the Conservation Commission relevant to the Wetlands Protection Act as it applied to the proposed reconstruction of the Wharf at Salem Harbor station. Mr. Shea explained that the work site is in the area of an existing wood pile dock structure approximately 700 feet long with appropriate ship berthing equipment. Mr. Shea explained that the present sheet pile bulkhead is in failing condition and in some places is leaning against the • dock. Mr. Pierce of New England Power went on to explain that a new stabilizing steel sheet pile bulkhead with steel soldier beans at 9 ft. intervals along the bulkhead is proposed to be installed 4' landward of the existing steel bulkhead. Mr. Pierce explained that the proposed bulkhead will have ;, rock anchors and the soldier pile will be driven into rock. Mr. Pierce further explained that they propose to install 2 ship berthing dolphins, 2 barge fender dolphins and an oil unloading platform with 2 oil- unloading arms all of which would be pile supported and cut into the existing dock structure. Mr. Pierce stated there would be no dredging involved and that the proposed work would primarily consist of driving piles. David lash asked if there was going to be any building on shore and also what was going to happen to the existing communications building. • Minutes of Meeting 5/26/77 Page 3 Mr. Shea explained that there was to be no further building on shore and • that the existing communications building is portable and could be moved to above the 16' elevation mark in order to comply with the restrictions outlined in the Flood Hazard Zoning. Walter Power asked if there was to be any change in the oil boom. Mr. Pierce replied that the oil spill barrier boom will be extended to further assure minimizing any possible oil spills. Dolores Jordan of 97 Derby St. asked if the materials for this project would be transported by way of Derby St. She pointed out that for the last four months the residents of Derby St. had been subjected to extreme noise and possible structural damage to the foundations of their homes because of the activity surrounding the present sewer construction. She asked that the Planning Board consider the type of truck used, and the • possible damage that could be incurred by the homes in the area as a result of the transporting of building materials. Mr. Shea explained that there would be transporting of approximately 800 tons of steel pilings, but there would not be any transporting of fill, which he felt had more potential for being damaging to the area in question. Brian O'Keefe asked when the first phase of this project was scheduled to begin. Mr. Shea explained that the work was out to bid now and that construction was scheduled to begin within the month. He further explained that the materials needed would be transported during the month of July. He added that the transporting vehicals would have a police escort. John Whitehead of 3 Derby St. asked if the materials could be brought in by barge or by a route other than Derby St. - for example Fort Ave. Mr. Shea pointed out that the steel pipe was 115' long, which would rule • Minutes of Meeting 5/26/77 Page 4 out the Fort Ave. route. David lash pointed out that the Riley Plaza entrance to Washington Street would be narrowed because of the sewer construction and that there might be difficulty in these transporting vehicals turning in this area. Mr. Shea pointed out that if barges were used they would need to ship to the site location and there was already existing traffic on the wharf. He did promise, however, to look into it further. Mr. Pierce stated that the possibility of barging the materials would be discussed, but that he felt there would be additional costs if theamaterials had to be barged. Ted Sadoski pointed out that the means by which the materials are transported is really out of the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. He suggested that the members of the Derby St. Association meet with repre- sentatives from New England Power to discuss the situation. He further added that these meetings could be coordinated by the Planning Department if needed. Brian O'Keefe questioned whether the transporting of the construction material could be accomplished by a combination of truck and barge. Mr. Shea said that this possibility would also be investigated. Ted Sadoski added that the shipping schedule of the construction material should be submitted to the City Engineer. Harbormaster Ralph Hobbs stated that it was a necessity that the wharf come up to state and federal standards as soon as possible. Ted Sadoski added that the Planning Board would like to be informed if there were any problems with the discussions between New England Power and the Derby St. Associates. • Minutes of Meeting 5/26/77 Page 5 • Abby Burns questioned what assurance there really was that New England Power would seriouslyconsider the possiblity of transporting the building materials by barge. Mr. Pierce replied that cost estimates would be obtained. Mr. Beattie stated that New England Power has been making every effort to please the residents of Salem and that if they said they would investigate the possibility of utilizing barges for transport, then they would. He also pointed out that New Engladd Power was the largest taxpayer in Salem. Paul D'Amour informed the Board that he has viewed the proposed construction site and has seen where areas of the Dock are "pushed out". Mr. Shea stated that the original plans for the reconstruction of the Dock had been made on March 8th and that this has been the first time that the possibility of utilizing barges had been mentioned. Mr. Shea pointed out that approval for this project has already been obtained from the Conservation Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers and that the Division of Waterways was in the process of writing a license for New England Power at this time. Mr. Pierce stated that after further consideration he felt the construction materials could be transported in approximately 30 truck loads and would be transported between 7:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. with a police escort. The Chairman declared the hearing closed at 8:33 P.M. The Chairman declared a quorum present and the Regular Planning Board Meeting in sesion at 8:34 P.M. • A motion was made by Ted Sadoski, seconded by Abby Burns and unanimously voted to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of May 12, 1977 as corrected. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Minutes of Meeting 5/26/77 Page 6 • Form A's Salem State Bill Murphy from Salem State was present to explain the Form A. He explained that as a result of the last Planning Board meeting the plan for the Form A had been redrawn to include the suggestions made by the Planning Board at that time. He further stated that agreements to buy lots designated on the Plan as lots 1,2,5,6, and 7B have already been obtained. An agreement to buy lot 4 was also close to completion. He informed the Board that the deeds had not been filed yet. In considerigg the Plans, Walter Power pointed out that the minimum frontage requirement is 100 feet and the plan shows 95' frontage. Ted Sadoski in quoting from the Subdivision Regulations pointed out that , "the division of a tract of land into two or more lots khall not • be deemed to constitute a subdivision within the meaning of the subdivision control law, if at the time when it is made, every lot within the tract so divided has frontage on.. .(c( a way in existence when the subdivision con- trol law became effective in the City of Salem, having, in the opinion of the Planning Board, sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic in relation to the proposed use of land. .," Ted stated that because of this, the frontage requirement could be fulfilled by Day Ave. Ted than asked if there were any plans to construct any buildings on the lots in question. Mr. Murphy stated there was no construction planned at this time. He further stated that the college would be eventually petitioning the City to abandon Day Ave. He explained that the only plans at the present would • include athletic fields for the school. Minutes of the Meeting 5/26/77 Page 7 • Arthur Staripolis of 34 Charles St. stated that he felt the improve- ment of the land in question was fine, but he expressed concern that there was a potential danger from some of the track activities such as javelin and hammer throwing. He pointed out that a hammer had already landed in his backyard and that he"feared for the safety of the children in the area." Ted Sadoski pointed out that a stipulation could be made in the purchase sale4ragreement with the present owners of the property that a fence or other barrior be constructed for the protection of residents in the area. Mr. Staripolis further questioned what assurance there was that the college might not decide to blacktop the area in the future. Mr. Murphy replied that that was not planned at the present time, but that he could not state that there "would be no building for eternity." Walter Power • pointed out that after Day Ave. is acquired, the College would have the right to build in the area. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski, seconded by Brian O'Keefe and unanimously voted to endorse the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control law, with the stipulation that there will be no buildings constructed until Day Ave is acquired. The Chairman de- clared the motion carried. Philip Cahill Attorney Johnson was present to describe what was intended. He stated that a form A involving this property at 46-48 Lafayette Place was approved by the Board at the February 17, 1977 meeting of the Planning Board. Attorney Johnson further stated that there had been some problems in the title search since the City had relocated Lafayette St. He stated that • Minutes of the Meeting 5/26/77 Page 8 the deed for the small amount of land created by the relocation of Lafayette St. has been acquired. He explained that because of the acquision of this small piece of land there is now "minute changes in measurement" in the Form A previously approved. He then showed the Board the new plan which supersedes the one submitted in February. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe, seconded by Abby Burns and unanimously voted to endorse the Form A as an not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control law. The chairman declared the motion carried. Old Business Loring Hills A discussion was held pertaining to the notification of abutters for Public Hearings. It was the consensus of the members present that in • the future it would be the responsibility of the developer to notify the abutters and certify to the Board that this has been accomplished. Discussion of the road to the proposed nursing home will be discussed at the next meeting. Master Plan Greg Senko will be requested to attend the next Planning Board meeting to discuss the Master Plan. New Business Members reviewed the accounts payable for May. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe, seconded by Abby Burns and unanimously voted to approve the Accounts Payable as presented. The Chairman declared the motion carried. • Minutes of the Meeting 5/26/77 Page 9 Budget for the rest of the year It was explained to the Board that a letter had been written to the Mayor requesting that $860 be transferred from Account #25500241 (consultants) to Account # 25500205 (mimeo and printing) in order to cover the expense of the printing of the zoning ordinance. In addition, funds amounting to $637.18 were requested to be transferred from varmous accounts to account #25500401 (Assn. Meeting Expenses.) . After a brief discussion a motion was made by Ted Sadoski, seconded by Abby Burns & unanimously voted to endorse the transfer of funds as described. The chairman declared the motion carried. Election Nominations were opened for Chairman of the Planning Board. Paul D'Amour nominated Walter Power. The nomination was seconded by Abby • Burns. There were no other nominations. The Chairman declared the nominations closed. A vote was taken and Walter Power was unanimously elected. Nominations were opened for Secretary of the Planning Board. Ted Sadoski nominated Abby Burns. The nomination was seconded W Paul D'Amour. There were no other nominations. The Chairman declared the nominations closed. A vote was taken and Abby Burns was unanimously elected. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe, seconded by Abby Burns and unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:19 P.M. The chairman declared the motion carried. • Minutes of the Meeting 5/26/77 Page 10 A motion was made by Ted Sadoski seconded by Abby Burns and unanimously voted to reconvene the Regular Planning Board meeting at 1Os20 P.M. The chairman declared the motion carried. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Brian O'Keefe, seconded by Abby Burns and unanimously voted to approve the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Permit application submitted by James Cahill for the construction of a pier off of his property. The chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour seconded by Ted Sadoski and unani- mously voted to approve the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit appli- cation submitted by New England Power. The Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe, seconded by Ted Sadoski and unanimously voted to adjourn the Planning Board Meeting at 10-25 P.M Respectfully submitted, 44 y� (Ili itfleut, tt�s�zcl�u�E## � � m PLANNING BOARD MEETING 5/12/77 AGENDA 1. Approve Minutes of the Meeting held April 21, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members for advance reading. Motion Second 2. Form A's a. Salem Redevelopment Authority - 226 Essex St. b. Salem Redevelopment Authority - Corner of Washington St & Church St. c. George Maguire agent for Herbert White - 17 & 19 Bryant St. 3. Old Business a. Wetlands Special Permit - Charles Puleo b. Loring Hills modified plan - set hearing date c. Master Plan 4. New Business a. Board of Appeal Agenda for May 17, 1977 b. Wetland/Flood-:Hi2ard'Special Permit"Hearing for New England Power, and James Cahill - 5/26/77 5. Correspondence 6. Adjourn c Motion Second s (&i#v of �rzlettt, 'Massadluutts w. Planning >,s .,• F Oartl t � (Onr Oalrm (Arren CORRECTED 5/26/77 MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD MAY 12, 1977, 7:30 P.M. THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: William Wheaton, Paul D'Amour, Staley McDermet, Brian O'Keefe, Richard Lutts, Ted Sadoski, Walter Power Members Absent: Abby Burns The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7:35 P.M. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski, seconded by Paul D'Amour and unanimously voted to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of April 21, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members tubers for advance reading. The Chairman de- clared the motion carried. Form A's Staley McDermet discussed a Form A that had been submitted by Salem State. After a brief discussion it was the consensus of the members present to return the plan to be redrawn so that : 1. Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 shown on the plan be combined to form a single lot. 2. Lots 2A & 2B be combined to form a single lot 3. Lots 3A & 3B be combined to form a single lot 4. Lots 5A & 5B be combined to form a single lot 5. Lots 7A & 7B be combined to form a single lot Salem Redevelovment Authority - 226 Essex St The Form A submitted briefly outlined that a parcel of land located at 226 Essex St. is to be conveyed to Ernest Khouri. Discussion followed 01 relevant to whether adequate information had been provided for this Form A. Minutes of 5A2/77 Page 2 • Paul D'Amour made a motion that the Form A be returned because of lack of information. There was no second to this motion. A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Ted Sadoski to endorse the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. William Wheaton, Paul D'Amour, Richard Lutts, Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Brian O'Keefe nay ~ i Staley McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Salem Redevelopment Authority_..- Corner of Washington St. & Church St. Information submitted on this Form A explained that "Lot A on the plan submitted was conveyed to the Salem Redevelopment Authority on December 10, 1969 and the description in the deed refers to the plan submitted, but for some inexplicable reason the plan was not recorded." Again the Board discussed whether adequate information had been submitted. • A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Richard Lutts to endorse the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. William Wheaton, Richard Lutts;T.-Sadoski W. Power, and-S. Mcdermet voted- yea. .'� Paul D'Amour and Brian O'Keefe voted nay. The Chairman declared the motion carried. George Maguire Agent for Herbert White - 17 & 19 Bryant St. This Form A had been originally considered by the Board at their meeting of April 7, 1977. At that- time the Form A had been withdrawn. Staley informed the Board that he has viewed the road in question and that it paved with asphalt. Staley informed the Bard that Bill Tinti had advised that an affadavit of use be obtained from the owner as well as an affidavit that Herbert White owns the right of way in question. • Paul D'Amour stated that the City Engineer does not consider the right of way in question a street. It was pointed out that that was true for many of the streets in Salem. Paul also expressed concern that Minutes of 5/12/77 Page 3 • the street might be blocked off some time in the future. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Brian O'Keefe to endorse the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Con- trol Law if affadavits are produced by the owner as to use and ownership of the right of way. William Wheaton, Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, Richard Lutts, Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Staley was authorized to judge if the conditions of this motion are carried out by the owner of the property. Old Business Wetlands Special Permit - Charles Puleo In Considering the application of Charles Puleo for a Special Permit, letters were read from the City Engineer and the Conservation Commission. • The City Engineer stated that he had no objections to the construction of the house if no further filling or drain structures are permitted and If site drainage be contained to the site, or to normal street run-off. Tony went on to write that his department is now investigating the pro- blem of the inadequate culvert. The Conservation Commission wrote that they felt that the construction of the House would have no effect on existing conditions. They did feel, however, that the Planning Board should continue in their efforts in correcting the existing inadequate culvert on Mr. Puleo's property. Ted Sadoski stated that the Planning Board is not an "enforc&ng agency" and that any further action on the question of the culvert should come from the City's engineering department. Staley stated that William Tinti expressed no "special objections" i to the application in question. In fact, Bill stated that he felt the Planning Board was obliged to approve it '~ t .. '- Minutes of 5/12/77 Page 4 A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Richard Lutts to approve the application as complying with the requirements for the issuance of a Special Wetlands Permit, with the following conditions: 1. No further filling or drain structures are permitted. 2. Site drainage shall be contained to the site, or to normal street run-off. William Wheaton, Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, Richard Lutts, Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Loring Hills Modified Plan Charles Quigley was present to discuss the modified subdivision plan. • The plan considered showed parcel B and parcel G separate from the remainder of the property. Mr. Quigley pointed out that the pumping station is smaller than a previous plans and is now geared to the area which it will serve. He also pointed out that a turnaround has been added before the driveway to the nursing home. Mr. Quigley pointed out that although` plans are now for a driveway to the nursing home, there would be provisions for a 57' right of way in case a road is warranted by future development of the property. Paul D'Amour questioned whether some funding would be provided by MHFA. Mr. Quigley answered "possibly". Mr. Quigley also pointed out that for the facilities being pro- posed at this time, it would not be necessary to provide 12 parking spaces per dwelling unit. To further substantiate this view, he pointed out that Loring Towers eventually converted part of their parking area to recreational facilities because there was more parking area then was needed. Mr. Quigley also stated that he would be willing to give the Minutes of 5/12/77 Page 5 • City a bond for enlarging the parking area if it should prove necessary in the future. William Wheaton stated that he felt it was a good idea to limit unnecessary parking facilities and increase open space. Brian O'Keefe asked what plans there were for the pond adjacent to the proposed Marion Manor site. Mr. Quigley replied that the pond was to be used as a "feature point" in the proposed development. Walter Power stated that it should be put in the final agreement that if there is further construction on the rest of the property, IS:: 7L t.r . _ + e a suggested that a bond be obtained in case of this eventuality. Ted Sadoski pointed out that if the land was sold off in the future than the proposed "agreement" would not be binding. He stated that any provisions of this sort would have to be written on the plan itself. • Mr. Quigley stated that he was planning on providing:;45 parking spaces for the nursing home which would meet the state'specifications. The height limit for Marion Manor is;95 -feet. Staley explained that the method forrmeasuring-,this 95 feet would be to have Ahe elevations submitted 'show actual height-above grade. These would then be accepted as verification. Mr. Quigley explained that one balcony would be provided for 2 dwelling units. Paul D'Amour asked why 2 exits were not profided for each dwelling unit. Mr. Quigley replied that it was not a requirement. Staley pointed out that the modified subdivision plan needs to show which part of the road on these parcels is new. A profile of the existing road as well as the new road should be included. A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Brian O'Keefe that a Public Hearing '�be held on Tuesday, June 7, 1977 for the purpose • of considering the proposed modified subdivision plan of Loring Hills Developers Trust. William Wheaton, Paul D/Amour, Brian O'Keefe, Richard r Minutes of the Meeting of 5/12/77 Page 6 • Lutts, Ted Sadoski and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDermet abstained The Chairman declared the motion carried. Discussion continued relevant to the proposed plans for Loring Hills. Paul D'Amour reported on his investigation on the possible tax structure for the proposed development. Mr. Quigley has stated that Loring Hills will pay convential taxes on Marion Manor and the Nursing Home. In speaking to HUD, Paul reported that they stated they had no objection to the tax structure agreed to by the developer. MHFA, however, stated that they would regulate the rate of taxation if the provide money for Mu Y P Y the development. Brian O'Keefe stated that he was of the opinion that if an agreement of Intent with the City was obtained from the developer, the State would not be able to override it. • Staley reported on a conversation he had with Walter Grosik. Walter stated that ,this including subsidies-is-'the basis of-rent for assessment and taxation purposes is cu`r'rently ri,litigatiope also pointed out that 121A is being rewritten so that subsidies will not be included. He also felt that a statement ibf Agreement with the City and the developer would be binding. Richard Lutts expressed concern that a structure such as Marion Manor was being built in the first place. He asked if there was any way to stop its construction. William Wheaton explained that when the plan was first submitted the area was zoned R3 and because the zonilig from 1969 was still in effect, there were few restrictions relevant to height or density. Paul D'Amour stated his objections to further low cost housing in the City. Bill Wheaton pointed out that there was • nothing in the City's Zoning pertaining to the economic level of the residents. Minutes of 512/77 Page 7 • v,u.o cer Plan Paul D'Amour pointed out that the Planning Board still has money allocated for the Master Plan. He also stated that various deadlines for work completion on the Master Plan by the Planning Department have long since passed. It was the consensus of the members present that Walter Power write a letter to Greg Senko asking him to report on the Master Plan at the May 26th meeting of the Planning Board. In addition, the Board would like to know what has been done relevant to a possible waterfront study for inclusion in the Master Plan. It was also noted that the sample conservation restrictions submitted by the Conservation Commission would also be discussed at the next meeting. New Business Board of Appeal Agenda The agenda for the May 17, 1977 meeting of the Board of Appeal was discussed. It was the consensus of the members that letters should be written to the Chairman recommending that the petitions of Fred Vining, Ugo & Elio DiBiase, and Robert Green be denied. Mr. Wheaton advised that he would write the letter concerning Fred Vining's petition. The letter relevant to Ugo & Elio DiBiase has been written previously and a copy will. be forwarded to the Board of Appeal. Mr. NCDermet advised that he would write the letter relevant to the petition of Robert Green. Wetland/Flood Hazard Special Permit Hearing for New England Power and James Cahill • Staley noted that it would be more efficient if one person were placed in charge of the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permits. This person could then keep the Board better informed as to the possible effects Minutes of Meeting 5A2/77 Page 8 of the various applications. Brian O'Keefe nominated,Paul D'Amour to be responsible for the investigations of the Wetland/Flood Hazard Special Permit Applications:, Richard Lutts seconded thernomination. William Wheaton, Paul D'Amour,.Brian O'Keefe, Richard Lutts, Ted Sadoski, and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDerment abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Brian O'Keefe that a Public Hearing be held on May 26, 1977 relevant to the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit applications of James Cahill and New England Power. William Wheaton, Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, Richard Lutts, Ted Sadoski, and Walter Power voted yea. Staley McDerment abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Correspondence received at the office was reviewed and will be • placed on file. A motion was made by BAan O'Keefe and seconded by William Wheaton to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 10:30 P.M. The vote was unanimous. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Respectfully submitted, • fi jh� rry/ w (alae 3 .em (Srren PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6/2/77 AGENDA 1. Form A a. Hewitt Construction Co. , Greenledge St. Co 2. Old Business a. Loring Hills b. Wetland/Flood Hazard Special Permit Applications c. Planning Board Dinner • 3. New Business a. Conservation Restrictions 4. Correspondence j. Adjourn Motion Second /� � 1:yt��7 iTf �iI�!'31t., ,.�itT�ScICdTl1�aE��S 14IIar� �ar�w� �riP 5u�:lYl {�LPPlt Minutes of the Salem Planning Board aiseting '.Meld June 2, 1977, 7:30 P.14. , Third Floor Conference Room One Salem Green, Salem Massachusetts Members Present: Abby Burns, Brian O'Keefe, Richard Lutts , Paul D'Amour, Ted Sadoski, ;falter Power Member Absent: William Wheaton The Chairman declared a. quorum present acid the meeting in session at 7:4.0 P.M. Form A Hewitt Construction Company Attorney George Vallis was present to describe what was intended. He explained that Hewitt Construction Co . owns the five lots being considered, • the smallest of which is 12,000 sq.. feet. He stated that the area is located in a R-1 district and that it was the intention of the developer to construct five single family units on this land. Ted Sadoski pointed out that frontage requirements for R-1 Districts have been changed as a, result of the new zoning amendments. Attorney Vallis withdrew the Form A. Old Business Loring Hills Brian O'Keefe informed the Boar.' that the Supreme Judicial Court has decided to consider the case of Loring Hills Developers Trust vs. the Salem Planning Board. He stated that he had no additional information at this time, but that he would be in contact with City Solicitor William Tinti before the next regular Planning Board Me-etin.g. • Page 2 Minutes of 6/2/77 Wetland/Flood Hazard Spacial Permit Application • Walter Power informed the Board that when the Board voted on the issuance of the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permits for James Cahill and New England Power there were not the six Board members present that is necessary for a decision to be made on a 'Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit. At this time a motion was made by Brian O'Keefe, seconded by Paul D'Amour and unanimously voted to approve the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Permit application submitted by James Cahill for the construction of a pier off of his property. The Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe, seconded by Paul D'Amour and unanimously voted to approve the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit application submitted by New England Power. The Chairman declared the • motion carried. . 10 White Street . Messrs. Tassanari and Burba were present to discuss their Wetlands Flood Hazard Special Permit application. They informed the Board that they had been in contact with the Assessors Office and been informed by them that the assessor's office does not have the time to compile the needed list of abutters. Mr. Tassanari stated that he will have a meeting with the Assessors Office next Tuesday, but that he was not at all sure that there would be any change in the situation. Dir. Tassinari further stated that they had all the other permits necessary to complete the work at White St. However, when he and Dir. Burba applied for a Building Permit in order to remodel the heads and stalls located on the property, they were told that they would have to • first get a Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit. He also explained that these permits would have to be obtained as soon as possible if they were going to be able to be open for business this summer. page 8 3 Minutes of 6/2/'r7 Ted Sadoski stated that the work on the buildings would require a Public • Hearing and that it was important that the City Engineer be able to consider the plans in question. It was the consensus of those present that the public hearing be held Monday, June 20 at 7:30 P•P'I- Paul D'Amour reported to the Board that he had spoken to Walter Grosnick relevant to the difficulty being experienced in obtaining lists of abutters. Walter explained that they were a girl short in the Assessor's Office and that compiling lists of abutters was their last priority. Walter Power asked Paul D'Amour to make up a form letter to give to applicants to assist them in tippling for 'a 'Jetlands/Flood Hazard "Special Permit. This fora letter would outline what procedures they are responsible for when applying for a. Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit. planning Board Dinner • Walter Power informed the Board that he has spoken with the Mayor regarding the Planning Board Dinner and that when an invitation list was compiled by the Planning Board it :could be presented to the Mayor for his approval. it was the consensus of the Board Members After a brief discussion present that the Daniels House be the first choice and the Lyceum the alternative for the location of the dinner. Abby Burns is to investigate hat June these possiblities. It was also the consensus of those present g 23rd be the date of the dinner. However, if Abby finds that this date is not possible she will decide on an alternative. The tentative invitation list is as follows: Planning Board Members Tony Fletcher mayor Jean Levesque Susan :adison • Greg Senko Slilll3m �rlrit:l Jac'': Powers Maley McDermet r Minutes of 6/2/77 Page 4 • PIew Business n Conservation Restrictions Ted Sadoski stated that he approved of the Conservation Restrictions relevant to the buffer zone next to the proposed Conservation area but not to the buffer zones surrounding the rest of the proposed subdivision. Ted questioned who was going to be responsible for enforcing these re- strictions. He also stated that there were enough regulations and bureaucracy existing now and that the 'no build' restriction already agreed upon was enough. Brian O'Keefe suggested that the developers be approached for their opinion on this matter. Attorney Beatrice is to be sent the proposed Conservation Restrictions and asked for his comments on them. Abby Burns pointed out that ardens, tents, etc. were allowed under • these restrictions. Walter Power stated that he felt something in the nature of an utility shed should be allowed, even though this would be forbidden under the first of the proposed restrictions . Walter also felt that the proposed recre- ation facilities proposed by the developers be included in the list of allowed acitivities in the Conservation Restrictions. Walter further stated that other than these minor changes he found nothigg upsetting regarding the proposed Conservation Restrictions . He added that if the area in question just remain a no build area, then there would be no difference between the buffer zone and the other 'no-build' areas Brian O'Keefe stated that he agreed with Ted Sadoski. He futher stated that when you start trying to list what would be specifically allowable • and specifically not allowable the list would become "ridiculous" . He added that since the Board has no idea about what the -owners of the duplexes and quadruplexes ,rill eventually propose to do with land, the Board would be running the danger of "playing god" with these restrictions. Brian i Minutes of 6/2/77 Page 5 i • stated that he felt the buffer zone should just remain a green area. Walter Power noted that Brian French had asked that no final decision be made on these restrictions until someone from the Conservation Commission could be present. Brian French is to be notified that the Board will act on these restrictions at their next meeting. t i Correspondance Copies of "Planning as a Better Way of Life" were distributed to the u; ,I members of the Planning Board. Comments will be made at the next i •. meeting. There was also a stus report on proposed changes to the 808 Zoning. I_ Noted were proposed reductions in time for the review period and appeal time. i i • A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Abby Burns to ; I adjourn the Planning Board Meeting at 0/:40 P.i°i. Respectfully submitted, i I • of Vill, wx; p �l�tuttiug marl (ane Ottlem Green PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6/2/77 AGENDA 1. Form A a. Hewitt Construction Co. , Greenledge St. Co 2. Old Business a. Loring Hills b. Wetland/Flood Hazard Special Permit Applications c. Planning Board Dinner . 3. New Business a. Conservation Restrictions 4. Correspondence 5. Adjourn Motion Second r '� F �lattllittg �Darl s"�uu tea° QDttP �Oalr ri (Surn Minutes of the Salem Planning Board Meeting Held June 2, 1977, 7:30 P.M., Third Floor Conference Room, One Salem Green Salem Massachusetts Members Present: Abby Burns, Brian O'Keefe, Richard Lutts, Paul D'Amour, Ted Sadoski, Walter Power Member Absent: William Wheaton The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7:40 P.M. Form A Hewitt Construction Company Attorney George Vallis was present to describe what was intended. He • explained that Hewitt Construction Co. owns the five lots being considered, the smallest of which is 12;000 sq. feet. He stated that the area is located in a R-1 district and that it was the intention of the developer to construct five single family units on this land. Ted Sadoski pointed out that frontage requirements for R-1 Districts have been changed as a result of the new zoning amendments. Attorney Vallis withdrew the Form A. Old Business Loring Hills Brian O'Keefe informed the Board that the Supreme Judicial Court has decided to consider the case of Loring Hills Developers Trust vs. the Salem Planning Board. He stated that he had no additional information at this time, but that he would be in contact with City Solicitor William Tinti before the next regular Planning Board Meeting. • Page 2 Minutes of 6/2/77 • Wetland/Flood Hazard Special Permit Application Walter Power informed the Board that when the Board voted on the issuance of the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permits for James Cahill and New England Power there were not the six Board members present that is necessary for a decision to be made on a Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit. At this time a motion was made by Brian O'Keefe, seconded by Paul D'Amour and unanimously voted to approve the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Permit application submitted by James Cahill for the construction of a pier off of his property. The Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe, seconded by Paul D'Amour and unanimously voted to approve the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit application submitted by New England Power. The Chairman declared the • motion carried. 10 White Street Messrs. Tassanari and Burba were present to discuss their Wetlands Flood Hazard Special Permit application. They informed the Board that they had been in contact with the Assessors Office and been informed by them that the assessor's office does not have the time to compile the needed list of abutters. Mr. Tassanari stated that he will have a meeting with the Assessors Office next Tuesday, but that he was not at all sure that there would be any change in the situation. Mr. Tassinari further stated that they had all the other permits necessary to complete the work at White St. However, when he and Mr. Burba applied for a Building Permit in order to remodel the heads and stalls located on the property, they were told that they would have to • first get a Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit. He also explained that these permits would have to be obtained as soon as possible if they were going to be able to be open for business this summer. Minutes of 6/2/77 page 8 3 • Ted Sadoski stated that the work on the buildings would require a Public Hearing and that it was important that the City Engineer be able to consider the plans in question. It was the consensus of those present that the public hearing be held Monday, June 20 at 7:30 P.M. Paul D'Amour reported to the Board that he had spoken to Walter Grosnick relevant to the difficulty being experienced in obtaining lists of abutters. Walter explained that the girl short in the Assessor's P Y were a Office and that compiling lists of abutters was their last priority. P g Walter Power asked Paul D'Amour to make up a form letter to give to applicants to assist them in appling for a Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit. This form letter would outline what procedures they are responsible for when applying for a Wetlands/Flood Hazard. Special Permit. Planning Board Dinner • Walter Power informed the Board that he has spoken with the Mayor regarding the Planning Board Dinner and .that when an invitation list was compiled by the Planning Board it would be presented to the Mayor for his approval. After a brief discussion it was the consensus of the Board Members present that the Daniels House be the first choice and the Lyceum the alternative for the location of the dinner. Abby Burns is to investigate these possiblities. It was also the consensus of those present that June 23rd be the date of the dinner. However, if Abby finds that this date is not possible she will decide on an alternative. The tentative invitation list is as follows: Planning Board Members Tony Fletcher Mayor Jean Levesque Susan Madison • William Tinti Greg Senko Jack Powers Staley McDermet Minutes of 6/2/77 Page 4 • New Business Conservation Restrictions Ted Sadoski stated that he approved of the Conservation Restrictions relevant to the buffer zone next to the proposed Conservation area but not to the buffer zones surrounding the rest of the proposed subdivision. Ted questioned who was going to be responsible for enforcing these re- strictions. He also stated that there were enough regulations and bureaucracy existing now and that the 'no build' restriction already agreed upon was enough. Brian O'Keefe suggested that the developers be approached for their opinion on this matter. Attorney Beatrice is to be sent the proposed Conservation Restrictions and asked for his comments on them. Abby Burns pointed out that ardens, tents, etc. were allowed under • these restrictions. Walter Power stated that he felt something in the nature of an utility shed should be allowed, even though this would be forbidden under the first of the proposed restrictions. Walter also felt that the proposed recre- ation facilities proposed by the developers be included in the list of allowed acitivities in the Conservation Restrictions. Walter further stated that other than these minor changes he found nothigg upsetting regarding the proposed Conservation Restrictions. He added that if the area in question just remain a no build area, then there would be no difference between the buffer zone and the other 'no-build' areas Brian O'Keefe stated that he agreed with Ted Sadoski. He futher stated that when you start trying to list what would be specifically allowable • and specifically not allowable the list would become"'ridiculous" . He added that since the Board has no idea about what the owners of the duplexes and quadruplexes will eventually propose to do with land, the Board would be running the danger of "playing god" with these restrictions. Brian Minutes of 6/2/77 Page 5 stated that he felt the buffer zone should just remain a green area. Walter Power noted that Brian French had asked that no final decision be made on these restrictions until someone from the Conservation Commission could be present. Brian French is to be notified that the Board will act on these restrictions at their next meeting. Correspondance Copies of "Planning as a Better Way of Life" were distributed to the members of the Planning Board.. Comments will be made at the next meeting. There was also a stus report on proposed changes to the 808 Zoning. Noted were proposed reductions in time for the review period and, appeal time. • A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Abby Burns to adjourn the Planning Board Meeting at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � ; c� �tiitJ 111 ��52ilYdit, �T�IMbSsttCY�USE�tS / J�""m'�.°Q'P' (ane"�ttlem lfieen i PLANNING BOARD AGENDA July 7 1977 1. Approve Minutes of the Meeting of Fune 2, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. Motion Second 2. Form A a' New England Telephone and Telegraph Company- Jefferson Ave. 3. Old Business a. Loring Hills b. Conservation Restrictions ' C. Pickman Park extension 4. New Business a. Planning Board Aid and Municipal Garage b. Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permits C. Warrant for July 5. Adjourn Motion Second — l 3 xs of "5-mlent, (one Oatem (green Minutes of the Salem Planning Board Meeting Held July 7, 1977, 7:30 P.M. , Third Floor Conference Room . One Salem Green Salem Massachusetts Members Present: Walter Power, Paul D'Amour, Ted Sadoski, Abby Burns, Donald Hunt, .John Brown, Richard Lutts, Brian O'Keefe Member Absent: William Wheaton Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit Hearing Chairman Walter Power called the Public Hearing to order at 7:37 P.M. The Chairman explained that the hearing was called for the purpose of considering the proposed construction of a pier, ramp, and float on Mrs. Bronislawa Moore's property at 437 Lafayette St. Staley McDermet explained that the stationary pier was the only proposed construction. Mr. Raymond Dansreau of 1 Raymond Ave. questioned whether there would be any filling done at the site. Staley replied that there would be no filling associated with the proposed construction. Mrs. Jane Lyness of 416 Lafayette St. questioned the dimensions of the ramp and wanted to know how much of the beach is going to be eliminated with the construction of the pier. Ted Sadoski after consulting the site plan explained that approximately 20- feet of the beach area would be eliminated. Mr. John Miller asked to see the site plan. Chairman Walter Power closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 P.M. Chairman Walter Power declared the regular meeting of the Planning Board • in session at 7:51 P.M. •Minutes of 7/7/77 Page 2 A motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Paul D'Amour to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of June 2, 1977 as copied and mailed to Members for advance reading. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. Form A New England Telephone and Telegraph Company - Jefferson Ave. Attorney Martin Healey was present to explain what was intended. He explained that the existing lot lines are owned by New England Telephone, but that the corner of Parcel 1 shown on the plans had not been conveyed to New England Telephone. He pointed out that the 2 lots have never been recorded as one. Ted Sadoski noted that if the plan showed the two par- cels that New England Telephone wishes to combine to form one with ade- quate frontage, the parcel of land not involved in.the joining need not be shown. Attorney Healey withdrew his Form' A and will have the linen changed before he resubmits it. Conservation Restrictions A discussion was next held on the proposed Conservation Restrictions for Pickman Park. Attorney Beatrice was present and outlined the changes the developers wish to make in the proposed Conservation Restrictions. He also stated that in the original agreement it was stated that there would be conservation restrictions in the Phase III area but no mention had been made relevant to conservation restrictions for the buffer zones surrounding Phases I and II. • Minutes of 7/7/77 Page 3 The changes suggested by Mr. Beatrice are as follows: 1. Under 411 of the Conservation Restrictions, Mr. Beatrice requested that 4' fences be allowed in the common area of Phase III. 2. Attorney Beatrice requested that a reference to 414 be added to the restrictions outlined in 412. 3. Attorney Beatrice requested that the words"and maintenance" be added to 4C so that it would read "the installation and maintenance of under- ground utilities." 4. Mr. Beatrice also questioned the last paragraph of the proposed restrictions which would grant to the City a"permanent easement of access to enter said parcel, by its Conservation Commission, for the purpose of inspecting the premises and enforcing the foregoing restrictions and remedying any violation thereof." • Mr. Beatrice felt that this type of blanket permission would be an invasion of privacy and that he felt the Conservation Commission should have to notify the owner of the property being inspected and that they should schedule an inspection only when there has been a specific complaint issued. Staley McDermet stated that he felt that notifying the owner before an inspection was similar to giving notice before a raid. Ted Sadoski stated that the Conservation Commission has no right to enter private property without notifying the owner. After a short discussion a motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Richard Lutts that the Conservation • Minutes of 7/7/77 Page 4 Commission notify the property owner prior to a inspection and that an inspection has to have been intiated by a specific complaint. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Brian .O'Keefe and seconded by Abby Burns that it be stated on the Conservation Restrictions that the restrictions apply only to Phase III. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. It was the consensus of the Board members present that the restricted areas of Phase III be delineated on the actual plan. Attorney Beatrice stated that that would be done. Discussion was next held on the possibility of Conservation Restrictions being placed on the buffer zone surrounding Phases I and II. Ted Sadoski stated that the::' were already enough restrictions and "bureaucratic red • tape" and that the "no build" agreement for the buffer zone was enough of a restriction. Staley stated that the term "no build" might prove to be ambiguous. Ted replied that the zoning ordinance would provide the definition of what constitutes "building". Donald Hunt stated that he felt that separate conservation restrictions for the buffer zones surrounding Phases I and II would not add any additional red tape or grant additional power to the Conservation Commission. Brian O'Keefe stated that he felt the restriction of "no build" was sufficient. Staley stated that he would agree that the buffer zones surrounding Phases I and II do not need the restrictions as stringent as the areas of Phase III but that to rely only on "no build" was not adequate protection for the buffer zone. Staley McDermet and Attorney Beatrice are to discuss this further and present the results to the Board. Minutes of 7/7/77 Page 5 A motion was made by Donald Hunt and seconded by Abby Burns to add the words "and maintenance" to 4C of the Conservation Restrictions for Phase III so that it would read "the installation and maintenance of underground ,utilities." Discussion was next held on the request of.Mr. Beatrice to allow fences of 4' in the restricted areas of Phase III. Mr. Beatrice stated that the placement of these fences would not prohibit passage through the area and that they could be necessary to protect gardens that are allowed in the restricted areas. Staley stated that if fences of any kind are allowed, the open space phillosophy behind the development would be violated. Mr. Beatrice repeated that the fences would not prevent people from passing through the area, but would serve to protect any gardens there. Paul D'Amour pointed out that there was other land available for • gardens not in the restricted area. Staley repeated that the idea of cluster development allows for open areas and that any kind of fence would go against this idea. Staley also stated that he thought it would be possible for a tax abatement to be obtained on the restricted land. A motion. was made by Richard Lutts and seconded by Ted Sadoski that wire fences of a height of 4' be allowed as long as a throughway through the area was maintained. Walter Power, Ted Sadoski and Richard Lutts voted yea. Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, Donald Hunt, John Brown and Abby. Burns voted nea. The Chairman declare the motion not carried. Walter Power stated that it should be added that areas already agreed on to be the site of future common recreation areas be included under allowed activities in the Conservation Restrictions. Attorney • ' Minutes of 7/7/77 Page 6 • Beatrice stated that these areas would be on the final plan and that it would not be necessary to note them on the proposed restrictions. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Abby Burns to accept the Conservation Restrictions as amended. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. Pickman Park Extension A letter has been received from Attorney Beatrice advising the Board that the current extensions for the Pickman Park Subdivision plan will expire on july 27, 1977. Attorney Beatrice requested that a three month extension with regard to the Board's approval of the Subdivision Plan be granted. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Brian O'Keefe that • the PlanningBoard a three month extension grant with regard to the Board's approval of the Pickman Park Subdivision Plan. The vote was unan- imous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. The Board next considered a request from Mr. Beatrice to release a $14,000 Bond that was given to the Planning Board in February 1972 by Salem Acres Inc relevant to the Witchcraft Heights Subdivision. A letter has been received from Tony Fletcher stating that "the only re- maining item before release of this bond was a catch basin. Tony added that he has reviewed the drainage situation throughout the Spring and that he is satisfied that a catch basin is not needed. • Minutes of 7/7/77 Page 7 • A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by Richard Lutts that the $14,000 bond be released to Salem Acres Inc. Abby Burns, Richard Lutts, Ted Sadoski, John Brown Walter Power, Brian O'Keefe and Paul D'Amour voted yea. Donald Hunt abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried. It was also stated that the Pickman Park Subdivision Plan be submitted under Cluster development and not as a form C. Loring Hills Staley McDermet outlined the changes to the Modified Definitive ve Plan dated May 13, 1977 that were listed in Section 1 of the Certificate of Action dated June 16, 1977. Staley stated that the Modified Definitive Plan has been modified to include everything listed in Section 1 of the Certificate • of Action. Bill Tinti was present and stated that the parties involved were close to an agreement. Bill went on to outline the seven instruments that will have to be accomplished before there can be a final agreement. 1. A deed from Loring Hills for a i2 undivided interest in Parcel H (34.4 acres). This will be a conditional deed and will revert to Loring Hills Developers Trust if the City does not pay !� the agreed appraised value in a specified time period. Bill Tinti pointed out that the time limit for this purchase has not been established yet. 2. An option to purchase Parcel H. No date has been set for the length of this option. Bill further explained that the necessary appraisals of this land should be finished this year and that it is the intention of the City to purchase this land in a year. Minutes of 7/7/77 Page 8 • 3. An agreement related to taxes. Bill stated that he has spoken to Mr. Groszyk and that Mr. Groszyk feels that provided a 121A corporation is not established, there should be no problems relevant to taxes. Mr. Groszyk feels that as long as there is no 121A corporation, the City will be able to include subsidies in the tax rate. Bill stated that Loring Hills Develope-rs Trust is willing to sign an agreement not to form a 121A Agreement. 4. A stipulation and release of rights, except as to Parcels B & G Loring Hills may have under previously filed plans covering the property owned by him and shown on plans filed in 1975. 5. Conditional approval that parcels B & G be used for Marion Manor and a Nursing Home as filed. 6. An instrument to terminate the three law suits involved with this • developement. 7. A covenant not to sue relevant to disputes over previou$ly filed plans. Ted Sadoski asked if the developers were agreeable to the instruments outlined. Bill stated that final wording was needed on these documents. Bill also stated that because of the attempt to foreclose on the Developers there would have to be judicial approval from Judge Adams relevant to these agreements. Bill felt they could be finalized by the next Planning Board Meeting. A discussion followed as to the amount of time the City will be allowed in order to purchase Parcel H. Mr, Quigley stated that he felt four years was too long a time to allow for this purchase. Bill Tinti informed the Board that the City's ability to purchase the land is dependent • on when the money from BOR becomes available. Mr. Quigley stated that he would speak to his attorney concerning the time limit. Bill informed the Board that he would remain aware of their desire for a four year Minutes of 7/7/77 Page 9 option to purchase. White St. Marina Messrs. Tassinari and Burba presented the Board with a list of permits they have already obtained. They also stated that the piles shown on the original Flood Hazard Special Permit application have been eliminated so that there will be no work being done in the V3 Zone. In reviewing the comments submitted from the Conservation Commission it was noted that the Conservation. Commission stated that the V3 line shown on the plan was wrong. Brian O'Keefe asked how the location of the V3 line could be verified. Dr. Tassinari stated that the line had been established by the engineer who stamped the plan. Staley pointed out that if the survey proves to be incorrect the dev&lopers will be unable to obtain flood inswrance. • Public Works Garage Tony Fletcher was present to speak with the Board relevant to the proposer; public works garage. He stated the work would be done in a A3 zone. He informed the Board that the building containing offices would be at the 15.36 ft elevation level required. However, the two other buildings that will serve primarily as garages will be at a 13.75 ft. elevation level. Tony stated that it was going to cost $100,000 to raise the one building to the required elevation and that he could not justify an additional $100,000 to raise the other 2 buildings. He also pointed out that he had to break ground for this project by September 25 or the City will loose the grant. Tony stated that he knew the Board would have to deny the application because of the building elevation, but that he would like to have the public hearing as soon as possible so that he could go to the Board of Appeals to request a variance. Minutes of 7/7/777 Page 10 It was the consensus of the Board members present that a Public Hearing could be scheduled for August 4. Tony is to contact the Board of Appeal in order to try to set up a meeting with them for the same night as the Planning Board's Public Hearing. . Planning Board Aide David Lash spoke to the Board of getting a CETA person to serve as a Planning Board Aid. David informed the Board that he would present a job description at the next Planning Board Meeting, but that he wished to start the paperwork with CETA. It was the consensus of the Board that David could start the preliminary steps with CETA. A motion was made by Abby,Burns and seconded by Paul D'Amour to adjourn the Planning Board Meeting atll:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • � m of �irr'v�"`�p �lcililltlt� �Oartl (One Oalrm Green Planning Board Agenda July 21, 1977 1, Approve Minutes of the Meeting held July 7, 1977 as copied andP resented to members. Motion Second 2. Form A a. Salem Redevelopment Authority - Front St. 3, Old Business a. Wetlands Special Permit Applications - Tassinari & Burba • Mrs. Bronislawa Moore b. Set date for Public Hearings: Pickman Park New England Power 4. New Business a. Greg Senko: Heritage Plaza West Master Plan Planning Board Aide 5. Correspondence 6. Adjourn Motion Second r w of 'S-'alent, ��M�suclfnse#t� 3 - .� ��ctttllitt$ �Oarl (Out 0Q1Prit i6rPru Minutes of the Salem Planning Board Meeting Held July 21, 1977, 7:30 P.M. , Third Floor Conference Room One Salem Green Salem Massachusetts Members Present: Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, Walter Power, William Wheatom, Ted Sadoski, Richard Lutts, Donald Hunt Members Absent: Abby Burns, John Brown The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7:30 P.M. Form A Salem Redevelopment Authority - Front St. Attorney George Vallis was present to explain what was intended. • Attorney Vallis explained that the attached plan shows Lot RC-13A having frontage on a public street. The plan also shows lot RC-13B1 which is to be conveyed with Lot RC-13B,which lots when combined will form a building lot having frontage on New Derby St. After a brief discussion a motion was made by William Wheaton, seconded by Paul D'Amour and unanimously voted to endorse the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Old Business Tassinari and Burba Special Permit Application A discussion was next held on the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit application submitted by Messrs. Tassinari and Burba. In con- sidering the comments of the various Boards on the project, it was again noted that the Conservation Commission has stated that the V-3 line • indicated on the plan is incorrect. It was the consensus of the Board that the line indicated on the plan which resulted from a survey of the property be accepted as the true line. w Minutes of 7/21/77 Page 2 • A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Brian O'Keefe to approve the application as complying with the requirements for the issuance of the permit with the following conditions: 1. Approval is limited to work on the bath house and office marine storage building only, as shown on the Plan of Land in Salem, prepared for Roberto B . Tassinari by Essex Survey Service, Inc. , dated May 18, 1977, also as shown on five sheets numbered 3-245 by Donald James Flynn, Registered Professional Engineer, and dated Jan., 1977 for the office marine storage building, and dated March 1977 for the bath house. Said approval is further limited below. 2. The proposed new line of piers on the southeast side of the office marine storage building is NOT approved and is not to be built. • 3. Finished floor elevation of the bath house is to be 16.0 feet, Mean Low Water, and finished floor elevation of the office marine storage building is to be 15.6 feet, Mean Low Water. 4. No utility work, site work, paving, or any other work except the above work on the two buildings is approved. The vote was unaimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. Mrs. Richard Moore - Special Permit Application Discussion was next held on the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit application of Mrs. Richard Moore. The application submitted calls for the construction of a pier, ramp and float on the property located at 437 Lafayette St. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Richard Lutts to approve the application dated June 8, 1977 as complying with the requirements for the issuance of the permit. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. I 3A Planning �Bvart vss a. e4 Our I�Fl1Prit (6tPPri • v Minutes of 7/21/77 Page 3 • Dates for Public Hearings It was the consensus of those present that the Public Hearing for Pickman Park be held Wednesday, September 7, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. It was also the consensus of those present that a Public Hearing for a Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit to be submitted by New England Power be held August 18, 1977. It was also noted that if a Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special permit application is submitted in time by Hank O'Donnell his public hearing will also be scheduled for August 18, 1977, Greg Senko In speaking of the Master Plan Greg informed the Board that the data collection for four of the nine sections of the Master Plan is near completion. He also stated that a person has been selected to be placed in charge of completing the Master Plan. The person selected, Sherry • Cooper, will have a contract for 1 year at a salary of $17,000. and will be responsible for the writing of the Master Plan. Sherry is a graduate of Penn State and has worked in the Norton Planning Department. Sherry will also be responsible for working with the Planning Board after the data has been compiled and analysis is needed. Greg pointed out that of the $30,000 allocated to the Master Plan from the Community De- velopment Funds, $1000 has been spent in obtaining the data for the population section of the Master Plan, $17,000 has been allocated for Ms. Cooper's salare and this will leave $12,000 for any additional expenses needed to complete the Master Plan. Ted Sadoski stated that Greg, in the past, had advised the Board that $30,000 would be sufficient to complete the Master Plan since an equivalent amount would be provided by the Planning Department. Ted • expressed concern that the $12,000 left to complete the Master Plan would not be sufficient. Greg pointed out that Planning Department per- sonnel have already worked on the Master Plan to get it to its current status. Jim Scanlon has worked on the transportation section and N (Q`.D FI�tilliltauarl HE I (Our .0alrut Gunn • • I Minutes of 7/21/77 Page 4 David lash on the Conseration aid Recreation Section. He also stated that • the Planning Department personnel could no longer spend large blocks of time on the Master Plan, which is why Ms . Cooper was hired. Ted also stated that he questioned how valuable the input from the Planning Board would be since so little information relevant to the Master Plan had been forwarded to the Planning Board. Greg replied that the area the Planning Board's expertise would be most valuable would be in the analysis of the data in order to obtain conclusions and proposed solutions for future development and direction for the City. Greg stated that up to the present time, the work done on the Master Plan has been data collection. When this has been completed, Board members will receive copies of the data for their analysis and comment. It is after the Board members receive the completed data that Ms. Cooper will be working most directly • with them. William Wheaton stated that he could not see extensive in- volvement by the Board in the area of data collection, and that the Board's main concern should be in the proposed solutions which could be obtained from the data collected. Donald Hunt questioned whether hiring a person unfamilar with the City was a reasonable plan. William Wheaton pointed out that relevant to analysis and solutions proposed, the Planning Board's experience would be best utilized. Greg pointed out that the Master Plan had to be completed if the City wished to continue receiving State and Federal Funds. Greg went on to inform the Board that since June 1st a summer employee for the Planning Department has been compiling data relevant to transportation. The data being considered includes 1972 counts that were done for the connector road study and accident counts for 1976. One example of • possible future analysis would be the one way street patterns in Salem. Using Bridge St. as an example, Greg pointed out the lack of planning exhibited in the current establishment of one way streets. Also utilized of �zleiii, �M�s�zcl�u�e##s • �, •,� -':� g �dattttittg �uarl • • Minutes of 7/2/77 Page 5 • in the Master Plan will be traffic projections for 1985 and 1995• The 1995 traffic projections will also be used relevant to land use (i.e. what will happen to land use with the projected traffic for 1995) • Brian O'Keefe questioned the extension of the Blue Line to Lynn. Greg replied that a draft of this project will be available in August along with a projection date for the project. Ted Sadoski stated that the members of the Planning Board should receive copies of this draft. Greg stated he would send them. Walter Power stated that the Master Plan should also be instrumental in establishing possible feeder routes for the proposed connector road. Greg pointed out that this was the type of information which would be contained in the policy statement. Greg further reiterated that it would be at the policy level that the Planning Board would be most closely involved. Brian O'Keefe questioned whether recommendations would be made in the policy statement. Greg replied yes. Greg explained that the population projections were being done at Salem State and would be presented at the August 4th meeting of the Plannigg Board. Greg informed the Board that the Conservation and Recreation section of the Master Plan would include the Wetlands Mapping done by Jerome Long. Greg explained that the Planning Department was in receipt of 1 set of mylars of the Wetlands Mapping and that they are keyed to the assessors maps. Walter Power asked when they could be shown and discussed with the Board. Ted Sadoski added that if they were available they would be useful in the consideration of Wetlands Special Permit applications. • Greg replied that they would be presented and explained to the Board in the near future. '� !�1(+rg �r�itutitt$ �uarl (Otte Oultut (6LPPtt • • Minutes of 7/21/77 Page 6 • William Wheaton asked for a projected date for completion of the various stages of the Master Plan. Greg replied that the inventories would be completed in 6 mos , and then the question of policy would be dealt with. The results of all this would then be put on the computer. Greg added that it will be a year before a zoning overlay of land use would be available. Ted stated that the color slides of the Wetlands mapping are needed now by the Planning Board. Ted explained that with the new Wetlands/Flood Hazard Zoning the Board often lacked necessary information to make a trulyyinformed decision on the applications for Special Permits. Greg Senko is to forward a list of the slides to the Board. Greg informed tha Board that a draft has been completed for Heritage Plaza West and that copies will be forwarded to Board Members to read and comment upon. When questioned on a possible waterfront study for inclusion in the Master Plan, Greg stated he would speak to the Board at a later date of the Coastal Zone Management Plan and the 208 Program and the possible use they may be relevant to this kind of study. In speaking of the proposed Planning Board Aide, Ted pointed out that originally the Planning Department was to provide the support needed by the Board. Greg explained that both the Planning Board and the Planning Department have expanded to such a degree that this is no longer possible. Walter Power pointed out that a CETA position would only last one year. Greg stated that at the present time this was the only possibility and that the time could be spent outlining the need that exists and justif�ygg the need for a permanent employee. Greg will have the job description for Elanning Board Aide completed shortly. Respectfully submitted, • y� s'; M of "$a1eiu, r��IM�s�zcl�usP##� a ��dlI1Tt11$ �Ilal'� '�"�uu:.�o''''� 1�1iP �F11P111 �IPPIT • .1 • 6�'Cuwlt.. of ��zlent, �IM�s�tclfu�,e�ts �ldltriilTa 39Uarrl Mnr l +alrm (Arrrn PLANNING BOARD WEETING 8/4/77 Agenda 1. Approve Minutes of the Meeting held July 7, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. Motion - Second 2. Wetlands Hearings a. Proposed Municipal Garage b. Paul Lyons C- Thomas Sullivan 3. Form A a. New England Telephone 4. Old Business a. Loring Hills b. proposed Conservation Restrictions 5. Correspondence 6. Adjourn Motion Second Planning marc (One j�ttlrm Grren Minutes of the Salem Planning Board Meeting Held August 4, 1977, 7:30 P.M. Third Floor Conference Room One Salem Green Salem Massachusetts Members Present: Walter Power, Ted Sadoski, Paul D'Amour, Abby Burns, Donald Hunt Members Absent: Brian O'Keefe, William Wheaton and John Brown Wetlands Special Permit Applications The Chairman opened the public hearing to consider the Wetlands Flood Hazard Special Permit application of Paul Lyons' at 7:40 P.M. Paul Lyons was present to explain what was intended by the application. He stated that he wished to construct an extension on an existing building • at 20 Commercial St. He further explained that the proposed extension would be approximately 100 feet by 35 feet and that it would extend the building close to the road. Ted Sadoski questioned the use of the building and Mr Lyons replied that the building was that of Salem Welding. Paul D'Amour pointed out that after the proposed construction the building would be approximately 20 feet from the street and as such would require a variance from the Board of Appeal relevant to the set back requirements. Paul Lyons stated he was aware of this. Thomas Sullivan of 54 Felt St, spoke in favor of the work proposed and urged the Planning Board to approve this Special Permit application. Mr. William Simmon's of 29 Mason St. stated that the proposed building extension was not shown on the engineering plan and he was conserned that if the Special Permit was approved, the extension would be larger than • now described. Staley MCDerm&t stated that when the decision relevant to Minutes of 8/4/77 Page 2 • this Wetland/Flood Hazard Special Permit was written up the plan would bed referenced. Paul Trembly who drew the plans submitted by Mr. Lyons stated that he would draw the proposed extension on the plan and mark the distance from the street. Walter Power noted that in the comments on the project submitted by the Board of Health, it was recommended that there be no increase in the number of employees as a result of the construction of this extension. The Chairman declared the hearing closed at 7:59 P.M- The Chairman opened the public hearing to consider the Wetlands Flood Hazard Special Permit Application of Thomas Sullivan at 7:40 P.M. Thomas Sullivan was present to explain what was intended by the appli- cation. Mr. Sullivan explained that a heating system has been recently installed in the existing building at 18 Commercial St. Because of this heating system an oil tank with a capacity to hold 3,000 gallons of m2 fuel is needed. Paul Lyons spoke in favor of the proposed project. The comments from the Conservation Commission requesting the computations for flotation of the tank were noted. City Engineer Anthony Fletcher noted that the computations submitted to the Engineering and I Fire Department of the City showed that the 'hold down' was sufficient. It was also noted that the Building Inspector had commented that a variance would have to be obtained from the Board of Appeal relevant to this project. The Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:03 P.M. • Minutes of 8/4/79 Page 3 The Chairman opened the public hearing to consider the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit application of the City of Salem to construct a public works garage on Jefferson Ave, at 8:04 P.M. City Engineer Tony Fletcher was present to explain what was intended. Tony explained that the project would consist of three buildings. The largest building would be approximately 98 feet by 219 feet. The two other buildings of the project will be used for vehicle storage and would be 60 feet by 260 feet and 30 feet by 100 feet. Tony further explained that only the main building would be placed above the 15.36 feet elevation required by the Wetlands/Flood Hazard section of the zoning ordinance. Tony stated that he could not justify the cost of raising the other two buildings to an elevation of 15.36 feet. Tony' stated that with the con- tours of the site being used for the proposed public works garage, to raise the floors of these two buildings would result in the project resembling "an alpine village". Councillor Saraceno questioned what effect the garage would have on possible flooding in the area. Tony expained that drainage would be into the drain on Jackson St. and into the South River. He further stated that the drain from Jackson St. to the ciphen will be cleaned. Councillor Saraceno questioned how far the buildings would be from Margin St. Tony estimated that the main building would be approximately 60 feet from Margin St. and that the 2 garages would be approximately 240 feet from Margin St. Saraceno next questioned the distance of the buildings from Jefferson Ave. Tony replied that the main building would be 11 feet from the curb at Jefferson Ave. Councillor Saraceno pointed • Minutes &f 8/4/77 Page 4 • out that additional set back was required by the zoning ordinance. Tony replied that it was planned that all functions would be in the rear of the building. Saraceno next questioned the noise level of the proposed garage. Tony replied that it was difficult to say what the garage would add to the noise level of the area. Tony pointed out that there was industry and noise from the railroad already in that area and that the garage should not add significantly to it. Relevant to vechicular traffic, Councillor Saraceno inquired whether the trucks from the garage could utilize the established truck routes except for emergencies. Tony stated that he was unable to promise that "City trucks would not use City Streets." He did point out, however, that the buildings would not be using oil so there would be no trucks delivering • oil to the premises. He also pointed out that only one entrance has been planned in an attempt to cut down on congestion in the area. Councillor Saraceno pointed out that there were many children playing in the streets of the area. Tony agreed that Hawthorne, Sumner, Winthrop and Prescott Streets would not be used except for an emergency. Councillor Saraceno next inquired as to how`nany vehicles would be regularly using the proposed garage. Tony replied that an average of 16 vehicles would be utilizing the garage. He pointed out that the Parks Department and the Police Department vehicles would have maintenance at the garage but would not be stored there. He further added that in the winter the average number of vehicles regularly using the garage would be increased to approximately 20. • r Minutes of 8/4/77 Page 5 • In responding to Councillor Saraceno's question on placement of fences, Tony stated that there would be a low fence in the front of the project and much higher fences around the rest. Councillor Saraceno explained that the abutters of this project are unaware of the proposed design of the buildings. Tony replied that he would supply enough copies of the plans for all the abutters, but that he was unable to deliver them to the abutters. Councillor Saraceno stated he would hand deliver the plans himself. Mrs. Perone of Sumner St. stated that she was against the proposed garage because of the congestion and noise already in the area. She felt that the garage would increase these problems. The Chairman declared the hearing closed at 8:24 P.M. Chairman Walter Power declared the regular meeting of the Planning Board in session at 8:25 P.M. A motion was made by Paul D Amour and seconded by Ted 5adoski to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 7, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. Form A New England Telephone Attorney Healey was present to explain the changes that have been made to the Form A application since he withdrew the Form A at the meeting of July 7, 1977. Attorney Healey explained that the plan now submitted for endorsement"has been prepared solely on the basis of the description contained in this deed into the current owners." Attorney Healey went LIT on to explain that "Parcel A as shown on a plan entitled: 'Land in Salem, Mass. Boston and Maine 'Railroad to Hia Pearl Corporation' dated January, Minutes of 8/4/77 Page 6 • 1961 and filed as Plan G in Plan Book 96 and that portion of Parcel 1 shown on a plan entitled: "Land in Salem, Mass. Boston and Maine Railroad to Cohen, Mahony and Ward, Inc. recored in Bood 4463 at Page 357 as No. 265 of 1958 are annexed and made one parcel shown as the 5.06 acre parcel on this plan." After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Paul D'Amour seconded by Abby Burns and unanimously voted to endorse the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Public Hearing Date It was the consenses of those present that the public hearing for New England Power relevant to their Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit Application be held on September 7, 1977 at 7:15 P.M. • Loring Hills City Solicitor William Tinti was present to geve an update on the Loring Hills negotiations. He explained that the instruments could not be signed until after Messrs. Quigley and Brettman go back to court on September 28, 1977. Bill explained that because of the forclosure pro- ceedings that have been intiated against the woners, Messrs. Brettman and Quigley are presently under an injunction which does not allow them to sign any legal documents relevant to the property. When the owners go back to court on September 28th the instruments will be presented to the judge and a request will be made to lift the injunction. When and if the inJ ration is lifted, the instruments will be signed. Bill also stated that there were still two points that had not been • agreed to relevant to the instruments. The first point of disagreement Minutes of 8/4/77 Page 7 • concerns the time period allowed for the city to pay 2 the appraised value for the acquisition of Parcel H. Bill stated that David Lash had told him that 2 years was a resonable time period. Paul D'Amour stated that Brad Northrup had stated that 2 years was not sufficient. Bill suggested that Brad and David submit in writing what time period they felt was adequate. Bill is to speak to them relevant to this. The other point still being formalized is the question of tax assessment. The Board is in receipt 6f a letter from Walter Groszyk outlining the procedures which the Assessors Office feels they can use in this case. I Mr. Groszyk explains in the letter that the "Income approach" will be used in appraisals of this property. Copies of this letter will be sent to Board members. Attorney Tinti asked Attorney Serafini if his clients would be willing to initial this letter from Walter Groszyk to indicate • understanding of its contents. Attorney Serafini agreed. Bill informed the Board that copies of the instruments will be sent to Board members. Relevant to the conservation restrictions sent by Attorney Beatrice to the Board relevant to Pickman Park, Bill stated that he would review them for the Board. Ted Sadoski asked about the ramifications of Pickman Park being sub- mitted under Cluster zoning. Staley pointed out that the zoning ordinance requires all the information required by a Form C. Bill Tinti stated that the plans would have to be dated after the Cluster development became effective. As to any further differences because of the new zoning, he would have to review the plans. Zoning Ordinance In discussing the zoning ordinance, Ted Sadoski stated that on page • Minutes of 8/4/77 Page 8 • 5 of the ordinance it states that "the Capital improvements program shall be prepared by the Planning Board, assisted by the Planning Department." Ted stated that he thought that in discussions relevant to the Controlled Growth Ordinance in 1975, it had been decided that the Planning Department would do the capital improvements program with assistance from the Planning Board. This is to be investigated. Relevant to the zoning map, Ted questioned whether the Planning Board was still required to sign it. Staley replied that the official zoning map has been ammended, but not replaced. When it is the Planning Board will sign it. A brief discussion relevant to the lack of enforcement of the Sign Ordinance was held. Greg Senko is to be asked for more information. • Correspondence received at the office was reviewed and placed on file. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Abby Burns to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • a w""�g �I�tttttittg �uarl of �G�''@� �riP �ttlPm �tPPtt PLANNING BOARD MEETING XXXXXXX 8/18/77 1 . Approve Minutes of the Meeting held July 21 , 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. Motion Second 2. Old Business a. Greg Senko - Master Plan 3• New Business a. Flood Hazard Subdivision Regulations amendments - David Lash • 4. Board of Appeal Agenda - August 30, 1977 • 4 of , I _ �ATilrl \tn (One �nlpw 6rrrn PLANNIEaG BOA=RD ?IEd_ING ((9/1/77() 1. Approve Minutes of the Meeting held August 4,1977 as copied and nailed to members for advance reading. Motion Second 2. Old Business P, Greg Senko - Master Plan Planning Board Aide Collins Cove Study Public Works Garage r b. Staley McDeraet - Picknan Park Public Hearing 3. Correspondence • 4. Adjourn Motion Second a R-1 (I�if of ��leut, ���tss�tcr��z�e�ts s"fcum co° (Orir 0alrat Garn MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 1, 1977, 7:30 P.M. THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Presents Walter Power, Ted Sadoski, Paul D'Amour, Abby Burns, Donald Hunt, Brian O'keefe, William Wheaton, John Brown Richard Lutts The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7s40 P.M. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Richard Lutts to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of August 4, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. The vote was unanimous and the chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Abby Burns to • approve the Minutes of the Meeting of August 18, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. The vote was unanimous and the chairman declared the motion carried. Municipal Garage City Solicitor Bill Tinti was present to discuss the recent denial by the Board of Appeal of a variance for the proposed Public Works garage. In giving background, Bill stated that the site for the proposed garage was zoned industrial and was in a flood plain area. He also stated that since two of the proposed buildings were going to be below the 15.36 feet elevation required by the Wetlands/Flood Hazard zoning the Planning Board had been forced to deny the request for a ASpecial Permit. For this reason the City had to request a variance for the elevation and set back • requirements. The Board of Appeal expressed "confusion about the petition" and denied the variance. e2 • Minutes of the Meeting 9/1/77 Pag • Bill informed the Board that under the new 40A Section 16 of the 808 zoning there was an instrument available which would allow the Board of Appeal to reconsider the petition filed by the City. Bill explained that if eight members of the Planning Board "consent to reconsideration" the Board of Appeal can again consider the City's petition. Brian O'Keefe stated that the Board should review any alternatives for the placement of the garage before giving their "consent to reconsider." Brian pointed out that the garage could be relocated, but that it would entail the loss of the stables and sandbox. Greg Senko stated that the main building could be relocated on the proposed site to fulfill the set back requirements, but because of the contours of the property, it would make access difficult. John Brown questioned if the entire project was raised to the required elevation, if it would be usable. David lash stated that this • approach had been tried with the initial plans and that such an arrangement would render the project useless and destroy the basic design of the project. Brian O'Keefe pointed out that by placing the garage on Howard St. would ° require demolition and that this alternative site was located in a "worse flood plain." than the one presently under consideration. Brian also pointed out that the EDA grant for the garage had been received today and that the City had to begin construction within 90 days to qualify for the grant. Brian questioned the matter of insurance if two of the buildings are under the 15.36 feet elevation. David lash responded that the city would have to obtain insurance as a condition of the grant. This insurance, however, would be on the construction, not the vehicles. Donald Hunt questioned if Parker Bros. is to buy the land on Howard St. Greg Senko replied that the sale of this property for $250,000 would be • accomplished shortly. He further pointed out that the land on Jefferson Ave. could be purchased for $160,000. .Minut'es of the Meeting 9/l/77 Page 3 John Brown questioned if the City would have to pay for the preliminary • expenses for this project if the Board of Appeal continued to turn down the requested variances. David lash stated that $70,000 worth of expenses had been associated with the project thus far. Staley McDermet pointed out that the City cannot incur expenses before the start of a project and that the architectural expenses up to this point are at the architects risk. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by William Wheaton that the members of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, hereby consent to reconsideration by the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem of the action of the Board of Appeals on a certain Petition filed on behalf of the City of Salem by Anthony V. Fletcher, City Engineer dated August 12, 1977 relating to proposed construction on a parcel of land located a 5 Jefferson Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts. A copy of said Petition is attached to this Consent. • The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. Bill Tinti went on to explain that the second step necessary for the Board of Appeal to reconsider their decision is a new fact that the Board of Appeal may not have been aware of at the time of their decision. Bill pointed out that confusion had been expressed by some members of the Board of Appeal relevant to the decision by the Planning Board to deny the Special Permit application for the municipal garage. Bill further explained that a letter has been written explaining why the Planning Board was required to deny the Special Permit application and that the Planning Board endorses the issuance of a variance by the Board of Appeal in order to enable the construction of the municipal garage. Bill added that with the "consent to reconsider" and the additional information provided by the letter, the Board of Appeal would be allowed to reconsider their earlier decision. Bill also suggested that • all the members of the Planning Board sign the letter and send it to each of the Minutes of the Meeting 9/1/77 Page 4 • members of the Board of Appeals. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Paul D'Amour to approve the letter dated September 1, 1977 and addressed to the Board of Appeal. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. A copy of this letter is attached to the minutes. Bill Tinti thanked the Board for their continued support for the proposed Municipal Garage. Pickman Park Staley McDermet was present to discuss the Pickman Park hearing. Staley explained that there was some problems with the filing of the application for a Special Permit for Cluster Development on the part of Pickman Park. Staley stated that the definitive Subdivision Plan as well as the Special Permit application have to be filed together. The developers of Pickman Park did not • properly file the application for the Special Permit with the City Clerk. In addition one of the requirements for a hearing for a Special Permit application is that a notice of the hearing be posted in City Hall 14 days before the hearing. This was also not done. For this reason the hearing could be challenged as being an illegal hearing. Staley informed the Board that he has spoken to Attorney Beatrice relevant to this. Attorney Beatrice asked to withdraw both the applications and refile both shortly. Attorney Beatrice did not have a copy of Salem's current zoning ordinances or subdivision regulations at the time the plans were submitted. Ted Sadoski questioned whether a Public Hearing could be cancelled after it had been advertised. Staley replied that if the hearing was held it would be illegal. • '"Minutes of Meeting 9/l/77 Page 5 • A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Paul D'Amour that a public hearing for the Pickman Park Definitive Subdivision Plan and Special Permit application for Cluster Development be held on October 6, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. The vote was unanimous and the chairman declared the motion carried. Brian O'Keefe stated that the developers should be informed that it will be their responsibility to make a presentation at the hearing and not the Planning Boards. Bill Wheaton stated that board members should be aware of some of the concerns that will probably be brought up at the Public Hearing. Two of these questions are: 1. Why can't the City buy the land and prevent the building of the development? 2. If the land is to be developed, why can't it be developed as single family • instead of duplexes and quadruplexes. Paul D'Amour stated that he felt the abutters of the proposed development were primarily concerned that there be a buffer zone between them and Pickman Park. Staley stated that feedback would be obtained from the public hearing and that the details of the actual development could be discussed after the hearing. A brief discussion was held as to the location for the public hearing. It was the consenses of the Board members present that the location for the public hearing be decided by Walter Power and Richard Swiniuch. Greg Senko Greg informed the Board that Sherry Cooper will be at the next meeting to discuss the master plan. Brian O'Keefe questioned whether there was to be a section devoted to the • waterfront. Greg replied that Sherry would be using the same format as the -Minutes of Meeting 9/1/77 Page 6 • tresent master plan which is the format of "neighborhood" studies. Greg also informed the Board that Sherry was meeting with the Waterways Advisory Board on September 14, 1977 to discuss the CZM Plan. A discussion was next held on Marion Manor. Greg informed the Board that as of this time, Marion Manor has not been allocated any HUD funding. Greg stated that he will be hearing from the HUD area director in a week relevant to any future plans for allocating HUD funds for the project. Bill Wheaton stated that the Board should consider rezoning as a tool if ownership of the land changes. Greg Senko suggested that a letter be sent to Bill Tinti asking his opinion relevant to this matter. Relevant to the position of Planning Board Aide, Greg informed the Board that David had submitted a job description to CM . Greg next spoke to the Board of the proposed study of Collins Cove. Greg again requested that the Planning Board. allocate $5,000 to cover part of the cost for this study. Greg explained that Heritage Plaza would be a three part application. It will start with an application for $3 million to complete Heritage Plaza West by 1978. After this $5 million will be requested for a South River project which would cover the area from New Derby St. to Peabody St. Ted Sadoski questioned why the North River is not being considered in this plan. Greg replied that the North River is heavily business and industrial and that cormections will have to be made there first. Relevant to the proposed Collins Cove study Ted Sadoski questioned how much the study would cost to implement. Greg estimated that the cost would be approximately $300,000. Brian O'Keefe stated that this study could represent piecemeal development of the harbor. Greg pointed out that the type of • study being contemplated was recommended in the present master plan. Ninu'tes sof Meeting 9/1/77 Page 7 Walter Power reiterated that it could represent patchwork development. He suggested that a study of the entire Collins Cove area with recommendations for dredging to increase the beach area and planned bicycle paths would be more worthwhile. Bill Wheaton agreed that the study was treating too small an area and that the study needs to be enlarged. Greg stated that he would try, to rework the proposed study in order to enlarge it. Greg also asked that a subcommittee be formed to work with Greg on this issue. Planning'Board members on this subcommittee area Brian O'Keefe, William Wheaton, Walter Power, and Donald Hunt. A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by Paul D'Amour to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 P.M. • Respectfully submitted, GMD i� 40 U{ ttlEItt, �. �M�5�1CtI8EtS �' � ,� �Irtuiting ,�uarl (Our O Unt Gann PLANNING BOARD AGENDA 9/15/77 1. Form A Naumkeag Realty Management Corp. 2 . Old Business a. Heritage Trust II - Preliminary presentation b. Pickman Park - Environmental Impact Statement C. Flood Hazard Zoning - David Lash 3. Board of Appeal Agenda - September 20, 1977 • 4. Correspondence • } M ' of "5-Mletu, C��Mssadjuse#ts ' .."`°'�F �l�Ittltitta �Darl (Oar 10ttlem (grern MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD HELD SEPTEMBER 15, 1977, 7:30 P.M. THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Donald Hunt, Paul D'Amour, Richard Lutts, William Wheaton, John Brown, Brian O'Keefe, Walter Power Members Absent: Abby Burns, Tadius Sadoski The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7:30 P.M. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Richard Lutts to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 1, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. The vote was unanimous and the • s Chairman declared the motion carried. Form A Dr. Higley was present to explain what was intended by Naumkeag Realty Management Corporation in their Form A. Dr. Higley presented two sets of plans. One set of plans showed the original three lots of land. The second plan showed the proposed consolidation of the three original lots to form two lots. After a brief discussion a motion was made by William Wheaton, seconded by Richard Lutts and unanimously voted to endorse the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. The Chairman declared the motion carried. Heritage Trust II Representatives from Heritage Trust and David Lash of the Planning Department were present to inform the Board of the proposed plans for the • Pickering Wharf site. David explained that it is a five acre site which would 4Minutes of 9/15/77 Page 2 have one owner and the site would be developed in different phases. David • explained that because it is difficult to obtain mortgage money for one site without the rest of the parcel being developed at the same time, the developers wish to submit a!:Form A to divide the property into 7 parcels and develop two of theseparcelsunder Planned Unit Development (PUD) . David stated that this would provide an "overall integrated plan" for the developers to present to various lending agencies. He further explained that the proposed course of action at this time is to divide the land by means of a Form A and that the lots designated in the proposed plan as Lots 3 and 4 would be developed under PUD. He reiterated that only Lots 3 and 4 would have a mixed use of residential and commercial and that the remaining lots would be commercial development. William Wheaton questioned what would happen to the overall development of the land if after the land was divided, some of the parcels were sold. • David Lash explained that the development of the area has to be approved by the SRA Design Review Board. In this way control will be exercised no mater who the developer is. Mr. Collins, one of the owners of the property, pointed out that for the development to be a success none of the parcels can be sold because it would endanger the remaining parcels. Paul D'Amour questioned why the Planning Board had not been consulted when the question of a Form A and PUD dirst came up. David Lash stated that the developers and Staley and he tried to work out the details of the plan before it was presented to the Planning Board for their consideration. Mr. Collins again explained that the proposed changes in submittal are "relevant only to the mechanism needed for financing and that the design of the development will not be effected. Mr. Collins went on to explain that there has been an upheaval in the • banking industry and that individual banks do not want to be the sole mortgaging agency for million dollar projects. Mr. Collins also stated that relevant to the concern expressed by the Board relevant to a change of ownership of some of the parcels that the developers had no intention Minutes of the meeting 9/15/77 Page 3 • of relinquishing ownership, because that would hurt the rest of the o development. He stated that even when the development was completed the owners would retain ownership of the access roads and parking areas. Mr. Bramble explained to the Board that there were two types of financing necessary to complete the development. There were construction mortgages which were short term and then there are the more permanent type of mortgaging. Mr. Bramble stated that it was this second type of mortgage that was the reason for the PUD proposal. Paul D'Amour inquired when the developers felt the development would be completed. Mr. Collins stated that he "hopes the development will be completed in 18-24 months." He further stated that the roads for the development were roughed out and that they are now awaiting various permits. • William Wheaton questioned whether the Planning Board would be re- linquishing all control over the project if the Form A were granted. David Lash explained that only parcels 3 and 4 would be PUD and that the plans for the remaining parcels meet the current zoning requirements. Mr. Collins stated that " the only way the development would work is if the owners maintain complete control." He stated that it would make no sense to sell the development piecemeal. John Brown questioned what control the various financial institutes could exercise over the current develop- ment plans. Attorney Plunkett explained that the developers were under restrictive covenants with the City until the development was completed and after completion the developers were still responsible for maintenance and snow removal. In addition the Design Review Board has control "the first time around for any development plan for that area." • Minutes of the meeting 9/15/77 Page 4 • Walter Pwwer stated that he believed the development should remain tied together. William Wheaton pointed out that even if the land were sold the Design Review Board still maintains control over any development. Paul D'Amour stated that he felt a Planning Board Sub-committee should be formed to work with Heritage Trust II. David hash pointed out that except for the two proposed PUD parcels, Heritage Trust has already received all the needed variances for the rest of the property. Walter Power-stated that he understood this, but that he was still not convinced that the land could not be split up. David replied that even without the Form A, "the land could legally be split tomorrow," if the developers wanted that. Walter Power stated that he was unwilling to grant approval before additional protection has been provided. • William Wheaton suggested'that the developers Xerox the aggeements that now run with the land and submit this with their application. Attorney Plunkett stated that he felt the Form A and PUD application could be ready in ten days. It was the consensus of the Board that the Puhlic Hearing for Heritage Trust II be scheduled for October 20, 1977 if their application were submitted b e end of a pp y the the month. Pickman Park It was noted that Attorney Beatrice has requested, on behalf of the developers of Pickman Park, that the Environmental Impact Statement required fora Cluster Development Special Permit be waived. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Dondld Hunt, seconded by Brian O'Keefe to deny the request of the Pickman Park Developers to waive the required Environmental Impact Statement. The vote was unanimous and the • Minutes of the Meeting Page 5 • Chairman declared the motion carried. It was also noted that a sign is required to be posted on the land 14 days before the public hearing. A letter is to be sent to Mr. Beatrice informing him that the Environmental Impact Statement is to be prepared and distributed before the public hearing. He is also to be notified of the sign requirement. Flood Hazard Zoning David Lash informed the Board that the amendments to the Flood Hazard section of the zoning ordinance have to be acted upon before November. It was the consenses of the Board members present that the hearing for the proposed zoning amendments be held on October 20, 1977. Relevant to the hiring of a Planning Board Aide, David explained that referals should arrive by Monday. Don Hunt and Walter Power will • represent the Board in the selection of a Planning Board Aide. A brief discussion was held relevant to the interpretations that have been attached to the letters sent by the Planning Board to the Board of Appeal. It was the consensus of the Board members present that a meeting be held between the two Beards relevant to this and a discussion of the master plan and its implications. Board of Appeal Agenda The agenda for the September 20, 1977 meeting 8f the Board of Appeal was discussed. It was the consensus of the members that letters should be written to the Chairman of the Board of Appeal recommending that the petitions of Federal St. Realty Trust and Eastern Spas, Inc be denied. Mr. Wheaton advised he would write the letters. Regpectfully submitted, • i. Planning mart (OneOalem (6reen MINUTES OF THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD AND THE SALEM CITY COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICATIONS OF SALEM ACRES, INC., FOR A CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL PERMIT AND A DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1977 AT 7:45 P.M. City Council President Richard Swinuich opened the joint public hearing with the Planning Board on the applications of Salem Acres Inc. , for a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit and approval of a Definitive Subdivision Plan at 7:45 P.M. Attorney Peter Beatrice, representing Salem Acres, Inc. next spoke relevant to the proposed development. He stated that the plan under consideration at this time consists of 304 dwelling units, 104 of which will consist of duplexes and 200 dwelling units which will be quadru- plexes. He also pointed out that the proposed subdivision consists of approximately 7812 acres, 34.9 acres of which is being given to the City and will be under the custody of the Conservation Commission. He also stated that 7810 of the entire area of the subdivision will be left 'green' . He further pointed out that the developer still had two other active subdivision plans on file with the Planning Board. One plan calls for 21% 4 bedroom single family dwellings, and the other for 425 condominiums . He went on to say that an Association comprised of the owners of the duplexes and quadruplexes, and not the City, would be responsible for road and sidewalk maintenance, snow removal, rubbish collections and landscape maintenance. He admitted that although the formation of this association would be part of the sales agreement with the future owners, it would have • to be renewed in 40 years. He further added that the dwelling units would consist of one and two bedrooms. Jim McDowell of Carter and Towers Engineering outlined the main • streets of the proposed development and stated that "preservation of the present topography" would be a major concern of the developer. Robert Allen of Allen Voorhees & Associates, Inc. , next spoke of the transportation study that was done by his firm. He stated that with the 300 units planned for, he estimated that there would be 360 permanent cars and that his study concluded that there would be 1800 vehicle trips a day, 900 into the development and 900 out. He stated that 1/3 of these trips would be absorbed by Pickman Road and 2/3 of the trips would be absorbed by Jefferson Ave. He pointed out that if the land were developed into single family housing there would be more permanent cars in the development and a much higher number of vehicle trips per day. Jim McDowell stated that the utilities for the proposed subdivision • are to be constructed in accordance with current subdivision regulations. He also added that the storm drainage system was designed for the ten year storm. He noted that the sewer pipes were 12" in diameter and that the developer will widen them if necessary. John Emerson, architect for the developer, pointed out that by using a cluster design for the housing, it would mean that few roads would have to be constructed which would allow for more open green space than other types of development. Walter Power of the Planning Board informed the people at the hearing that the area being proposed for this development use to be zoned R1 but that it was rezoned R3 several years ago. He pointed out that the zoning requirements at the time of Salem Acres, Inc. first submittal of a subdivision plan called for lots of 7000 sq . ft. He stated that the Board • had turned down the developers original plan because of projected traffic problems and the high density that would result. He pointed, out that the present plan called for less traffic, fewer roads and that the develop- yr���CQ�Dt4, �sfh One lgialem (green -3- ment will, for the most part, keep to the present contours of the land. • He also pointed out that the 35 acres given to the City will form part of the proposed Forest River Conservation Area. John Olbrych, of 6 Patton Rd. , questioned the validity of the statistics f£ the traffic study by Allan Voorhees and Associates Inc. He stated that he thought the number of cars per dwelling unit would be 2.1 The representative from Alan Voorhees stated that 2.1 would apply to single family housing, but that the amount of vehicles for these one and two bedroom dwelling units would be between 1.2 and 1.3. Julie Tache, of R.W. Carlson Assoc. , Inc. , Raltors, stated that she felt it was imperitive that this area be rezoned R1. She stated that the neighborhood surrounding th&s development was single family and that she felt their property would be devalued if a development of duplexes and . quadruplexes were constructed. She also stated that there was a demand for single family housing in Salem in the $55,000-$75,000 range. She further expressed her concern that the increased traffic proposed for Jefferson Ave. would make "a bad situation worse". She concluded by asking the developers and Planning Board to consider other plans for the area. Walter Power stated that whether the area was developed along the proposed lines or _Whether it were changed to single family, some increase to present traffic was inevttible. He pointed out that the area will be developed one way or another and that he believed that the proposed plan called for less potential traffic. Attorney Beatrice stated that, at this time, it was thought that the duplexes would sell for $60,000 and the quadruplexes for $110,000. • oF :LZJ �' t i t:r} _ • uailsj utaiugauaj ��� s -4- Staley McDermet, of the Planning Department, pointed out that with the zoning that was in effect at the time of Salem Acres' submittal of its subdivision plan for single family, they could build 300-400 single family dwellings on land that is primarily ledge. Staley went on to say that shortly after`this the'developer .came to the City. with the proposal that they would donate a parcel of land to the City if the area could be changed to multi-family. The City then required that the developer limit the dwelling units, design the units to the existing topography of the area and that no structure be higher than 212 stories . Staley pointed out that if the Board rejected tlis plan, the developers could build single family housing on 7,000 sq . ft. lots, which would greatly increase the traffic impact on Pickman Rd. , which is least able to absorb it. Julie Tasche stated that she did not feel this area should be "sacri- ficed' ,just because land is being donated to Conservation" . She also stated that she did not believe traffic would be increased more if single family housing were constructed as opposed to the current subdivision plan. City Councillor Jean Guy Martineau stated that this development is within walking distance to the college and he could forsee more student housing and absentee landlords . Mr. Trumbley, of 23 Raymond Road, stated that there was already a 20 min. traffic tie up at 4:00 P.M. at the intersection of Canal St. and Loring Ave. and that this development would only increase it. Miltiades Vorgias, of 33 Pickman Rd. , stated that he did not think the land being donated to Conservation was buildable land anyway and that Marblehead already has conservation restrictions on much of that land • and that, in itself, should protect it. He also questioned whether sewerage would end up in the Forest River Area because of this development. yr��.caw�s� KLt4� ��1 ��1Qtlt� J.L��gJ��C���JE.I��l ;` l �` � � _,,`��`�;..:` ,� �[�tttnittg �uarl • �,s�cu°'���� �riP �EflPrit �CPPri • • -5- Attorney Beatrice stated that if the City felt a 30" sewer pipe was necessary to insure adequate protection, then the developer would increase the pipe . Walter Power pointed out that the developer was also pro- posing to install a 1000 ft. of sewer lines to connect to the City system. Phyllis Olbrych, of 6 Patton Rd. , registered her objection to the proposed plan by stating that any multi-family development would cause a hardship to the abutting single family housing. She further stated that the roads aut of the proposed development were inadequate to accomodate the increased traffic and that the safety of the abutting owners would be impaired. She further stated that William Wheaton of the Planning Board had written a paper in 1975 entitled The Economics of Limited Growth in Salem, which advocated single family housing as more advantageous to the tax base of Salem. • Walter Power stated that he, as well as other Board members, were not familiar with this particular paper and that any discussion or possible conclusions drawn from it should be postponed until Bill Wheaton was present and other Board members had an opportunity to read it. He stated that this report would be discussed at a regular Planning Board meeting and that Mrs . Olbrych will be informed of the time and place of this meeting. Donald Hunt of the Planning Board stated that the traffic study done clearly indicates that single family housing would cause more of an increase to traffic and that the cluster development would insure that 80% of the area would be open space. • of ��lctn, �T�IM�s�zcl�uset#s '-,,``' • g �l�tuting �narcl • • -6- City Councillor George Atkins stated that he thought the proposed development was "best for the City." He stated that the 300 structures proposed was more advantageous then the 500 units that would be possible under single family development. He further stated that the donated land would help the City in obtaining the State and Federal funds necessary to acquire the proposed Forest River Conservation Area which would also be an asset for the City. He further pointed out that upon completion of this land acquisition for the Forest River area, Salem would be assured of a sizable green area which would not be built upon. He also pointed out that the single family subdivision plan for this area calls for 'stock houses' not houses in the $55,000-$75,000 range. He stated that this kind of housing could result in the same type of problems mw being experienced by Witchcraft H&&ghts . • Carl Peterson questioned the impact of the development on the present school system. He also stated that Salem would have a need for more schools in the future and he suggested that the City take the land in question for future school needs . Attorney Beatrice stated that statistically speaking, the develop- ment now being proposed would have fewer children than a development of four bedroom single family housing. Phyllis Olbrych questioned why the town of Weston could get Federal money to buy land formally owned by the Jesuits and Salem could not purchase this land. She suggested that the Planning Department investi- gate this further. Brian French, of the Conservation Commission, pointed out that three • years had already elapsed since the beginning of the proposed Forest River acquisition pland and that it would be another year before it was (out oule t (bLPPri • • -7- fully accomplished. He pointed out that funds were not "instantly available" for land acquisition. He also stated that grants could not be obtained for the purpose of preventing development. Mary Lou Tuttle stated that at the time of the rezoning of the area being considered from R1 to R3, it was stated that condiminums would be built. The understanding was that it was not a "blanket rezoning" and that condominmms implied owner occupied housing. She stated that the proposed development sounded like apartment houses and that this con- stituted a "breach of faith" with the intent of the rezoning. Statley McDermey agreed that "owner occupied" was the intent of the rezoning. He pointed out, however, that he thought these dwellings would also be owner occupied since -duplexes would provide very little profit for an absentee landlord. • Councillor LaPlante expressed his opposition to the plan and stated that the City Council could be petitioned to rezone the area and he encouraged the abutters to try to stop the proposed development. He also felt that funding avenues to purchase the land for conservation purposes be further explored. Councillor Francis Grace expressed concern that no matter what "association" was formed, the people who will live in this development will exert pressure in the City to provide them with services instead of being responsible for it themselves . She cited Colonial Village and Witchcraft Heights as examples of what could happen. Earl Winter questioned the quality of any development Mr. Dibiase has been connected wihh. Attorney Beatrice stated that this remark was out of line and not relevant to the proposed development. Walter Power • added that the City Engineer will be inspecting the utilities for the proposed development to insure their quality. S�CUONY.�N .. �riP �'M1Pril �IPPri • • • Council President Richard Swinuich stated that he voted for the original rezoning and he still favored it. He stated that restrictions on this proposed development would eliminate the possibility of another high rise and that the cluster development would greatly increase the square feet per dwelling unit,as opposed to the single family subdivision plan. He also stated that although Salem may need additional schools in the future, this need would be greatly accelerated with the creation of a large single family development. The public hearing was closed at 10:45 P.M. by City Council President Richard Swiniuch. • Respectfully submitted, 3 � (One Oalem lfirren y��1ptOWIU, sem, �T (Our Oatem (garn MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD HELD OCTOBER 20, 1977, 7:30 P.M. THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Paul D'Amour, Tadius Sadoski, Richard Lutts, Brian O'Keefe, Donald Hunt, William Wheaton, John Brown, Walter Power Member Absent: Abby Burns The Chairman declared a quorum present and the public hearing for the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations which relate to flood Hazard at 7:30 P.M. Dakid Lash of the Planning Department was present to explain why these changes to the Subdivision Regulations have been proposed. David explained that HUD in reviewing Salem's Subdivision Regulations have stipulated that the recent flood hazard zoning be incorporated into the Subdivision Regu- lations, in order for Salem to qualify for federal flood insurance. David added that he has spoken to Bill Tinti about the Planning Board's authority and that Bill has stated that it is within the Board's power to act on these proposed changes in the Subdivision Regulations. Brian O'Keefe questioned whether the first proposed amendment, "Items m, n,o,p and q may be submitted on the same sheet as the Definitive Plan or on separate sheets.", meant that these items are to be submitted together. David eeplied that this amendment to the Regulations represented only a slight change in wording from the present Regulations. He pointed out that this statement is presently in the Subdivision Regulations and that the amendment just adds "p and q" to the present "m,n and o". • Ted Sadoski objected to the phrase "on the same sheet" as it appeared in the first proposed amendment. He pointed out that this could be mis- leading because the information required would call for more than one Minutes of 10/20/77 Page 2 sheet. After a brief discussion of these points it was the consensus of • the members present that the sentence to be amended was in reality re- dundant and could be deleted entirely. Brian O'Keefe questioned the intent of the sentence "A subdivision proposal outside the Flood Hazard District shall place on the plans a reference of nonapplicability.", which appeared in the second proposed amend- ment. David explained that this proposed amendment was merely requiring a statement of nonapplicability that would prevent any possible future confusion relevant to a particular subdivision. There were no further comments or questions relevant to these proposed amendments and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. The Chairman declared a quorum present and the regular meeting of the Planning Board in session at 8:01 P.M. After a brief discussion a motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Paul D Amour to adopt the amendments to the Subdivision Regulations as proposed, with the exception of Amendment #1 which will read, "Section III, Procedure for Submission and Approval of Plans, paragraph 1,B(2) is amended after subsection"-1. by deleting "Items m,n, and o may be submitted on the same sheet as the Definitive Plan or on separate sheets." The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Brian O'Keefe to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of September 15, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. A discussion was next held on the current developments with Heritage Trust II. Ted Sadoski questioned whether the control granted to the Design • Review Board would be sufficient to control the direction of the subdivision if something unexpected happened to the current developers, or if for some reason the land changed hands. Brian O'Keefe stated that a subcommittee Minutes of 1020/77 Page 3 • comprised of various Planning Board members should be formed to work with the developers and the Planning Department in order to insure that the Planning Board would be involved in any change in the direction of the development. David Lash objected to the inference that the Planning De- partment had not kept the Planning Board informed. He stated that his meeting with the Board on September 15th was for the purpose of informing the Board of the various possibilities that now existed for the development. He stressed that no final decisions had been made and that it was up to the Planning Board to consider the information they received and utilize it to work with the developers relevant to it. William Wheaton questioned whether after the information was received by the Board on September 15th if anyone went to the Planning Department for further information or clarification. Ted Sadoski stated that he was not present at the meeting, but that he did not feel it was the obligation of Board members to have to go to the Planning Department for information. He further stated that the obligation lied with the Planning Department to involve the Planning Board with any pertinent discussions with the developers so that input from the Board will be insured. Brian O'Keefe suggested that further discussion be tabled until an Subdivision Plan has been submitted to the Board. It was the consensus of the Board members present that John Brown, Paul D'Amour, Richard Lutts, and Ted Sadoski form the subcommittee for Heritage Trust. David Lash informed the Board that only one referral had been received so far from CETA for the position of Planning Board Aide. He added that before this person could be interviewed he had accepted another position. David went on to explain that a man named Michael Moriz had been inter- viewed by Tony Fletcher for a possible job on Winter Island and that he has an educational background in Environmental Design. Since this person is Minutes of 10/20/77 Page a4 highly qualified for the position of Planning Board Aide, David requested • an interview from CETA. The problem at this time is that he is not a Salem resident which CETA would prefer. For this reason, CETA has requested s one more week to find a qualified Salem resident before an interview with Michael will be allowed. David strongly urged the Board to consider Michael favorably for the position. A motion was made by Richard Lutts and seconded by William Wheaton to give Walter Power, Chairman of the Planning Board, authority to select the Planning Board Aide. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. A brief discussion was next held on the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit of Thomas Sullivan for the installation of a new oil tank on his property at 16-18 Commercial St. in Salem. • A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by William Wheaton to grant the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit to Thomas Sullivan with the condition that approval is granted unless an appeal results from the variance granted to Thomas Sullivan from the Board of Appeal. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. The Board next ' cofisidered the results of the public hearing held for Pickman Park. Walter Power stated that Phyllis Olbrych interpreted a written report by William Wheaton in 1975 as endorsing the single family concept in housing and recommending against what is now proposed by the developers of Pickman Park. Since Bill was not present at the hearing, Walter had tabled discussion of the report at the public hearing. After tabling the discussion, Walter has stated that time would be set aside at a Planning Board meeting for a discussion- of this report with Mrs. Olbrych. It was • the consensus of the members present that a discussion of Bill Wheaton's report will be held at the November 17th Planning Board meeting. Mrs. Olbrych will be informed of the date of this discussion. Minutes of 10/20/77 Page 5 • John Brown pointed out that Mrs. Olbrych had inferred at the public hearing that the report had been endorsed by the Planning Board and had been intially requested by the Board. This is not the case and this im- pression should be corrected at the November 17th meeting. Ted Sadoski noted that the Salem Evening News had quoted one of those attending the hearing as stating that legal action would be taken against the City if the subdivision were approved. Walter Power added that the City Council has requested that the Planning Board delay a decision on the Subdisision Plan. Ted suggested that a letter be written to the City Solicitor inquiring under what grounds, if any, could the Planning Board turn down the Pickman Park subdivision plan. Ted stated that he was not suggesting this with any "direction in mind",merely for a legal opinion. • John Brown agreed that the City Solicitor should be consulted because he was not sure of the options open to the Planning Board. Brian O'Keefe stated that the reply from Bill Tinti should be received in time for the November 17th meeting. Brian O'Keefe questioned the statement read by Julie Tasche which she stated was requested by the Planning Department. Brian questioned why the Board had not been informed of this report or the request for it. Walter Power explained that the report issued from an "innocent survey" sent to all Slem realtors for information for the Master Plan. Walter further stated that Mrs. Tasche utilized this general survey as a justification for her positon on the Pickman Park Development. In reviewing the impact areas of the public hearing John Brown outlined the following points: • 1. The first choice of the people attending the haring for the area under discussion was for no development at all. Minutes of 10/20/77 Page 6 2. If 'no development' is impossible than they want the area to be • single family. 3. They also wanted no rise in taxes or traffic as a result of the development and no decrease in their property values. William Wheaton pointed out that if the Subdivision was turned down the developers still hada plan for single family housing on 7000 sq. ft. lots. Brian O'Keefe questioned whether there are any federal funds available for the purchase of the land. Walter Power stated that even if there were funds available, is the land under question the best place to spend it? Ted Sadoski suggested that a letter be sent to the Planning Department inquiring what possible areas of funding, if any, are available for the purchase of this land. John Brown added that the Planning Department also • be asked to further Investigate the funding used by Weston to purchase the Seminary that was brought up at the public hearing. Brian O'Keefe stated that he thought the people attending the hearing felt a "breach of faith" relevant to the intial change of the zoning from R1. Brian stated that he thought more historical data relevant to the zoning change and the public reaction to it at that time should be presented. Ted Sadoski suggested that the minutes from the zoning hearing relevant to this area would be helpful. Ted Sadoski noted that he had heard on the radio that the State has issued a growth policy statement with 36 recommendations. Ted stated that the Planning Department should obtain copies of these recommendations for the Board. John Brown suggested that the City Solicitor also be asked what the • results would be if the Planning Board turned down the subdivision plan. John also questioned whether Peter Holman's estimate of 500-600 single family units as an alternative to the present subdivision plan was correct. ` Minutes of 10/20/77 Page 7 • Richard Lutts pointed out that no matter what was said at the hearing, the final decision was up to the Board's judgment of the situation. David Lash spoke to the Board relevant to some of the questions raised during the previous discussion. He informed the'Board that there were two sources of funding for the purchase of land. They were BOR funding and Mass. Self Help funds. He pointed out that these are the monies being used by the ConCom for the acquisition of the Forest River area. He also stated that 18 months ago the Department of Environmental Affairs changed the point system for possible funding. In the past the point system favored suburban and rural areas, now urban areas are favored. He added that any project already submitted will be considered on the previous-point system, but that any new project will not. David stated that Weston is an example of this "back log" funding. He also pointed out that Weston was an unique case in that it is an influential community that has a mean income of $31,900 and has been able to acquire 3 sq . miles of open space. David informed the Board that the funding now available was Urban Self Help and that this funding required that there be allowed access by the public. Walter Power will be unable to attend the Nov. 3rd meetin of the Board and William Wheaton will chair this meeting. The agenda for the October 26th, 1977 meeting of the Board of Appeal was discussed. It was the consensus of the members that a letter should be written to the Chairman of the Board of Appeal recommending that the peti- tion of Hewitt Construction Co., Inc. be dinied. Mr. Wheaton advised he would write the letter. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Richard Lutts to adjourn the meeting 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ;T� �� ��r.Ittlltli$ �Darl Jk'cc '�r3 WSSP -§§rzl?ISS 6rrrSS PLANNING BOARD AGENDA NOVEMBER 3, 1977 1. Approve Minutes of the Meeting held October 20, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. Motion Second 2. Form A - George Anelokis 3. Old Business a. Sherry Cooper Cooper - Master Plan • b. Heritage Trust II c. Thomas Sullivan Special Permit , d. Pickman Park 4. New Business - 1. DPW 2. Community Development Hearing 5. Adjourn a�c�cwv�JM; � �3 �ll�ztuting ,marl R!'cums.o°''� �riP �F[1Prit �LPPri MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD HELD NOVEMBER 3, 1977, 7:30 P.M. THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Abby Burns, John Brown, Donald Hunt, Richard Lutts, Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, William Wheaton Members Absent: Walter Power Acting Chairman William Wheaton declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7:30, P.M. A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by John Brown to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 20, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. The vote was unanimous and the Acting Chairman declared the motion carried. • Form A Charles Angelakis - Corner of Osborne St. and North St. George Vallis was present to explain what was intended by his client, Charles Angelakis, Attorney Vallis explained that Mr. Angelakis wishes to combine two additional parcels of land to his existing lot to form one lot which has minimum frontage on a public way. Attorney Vallis added that Lot 281 on the plan submitted is being purchased from Wilbur and Eileen L'Italian and Lot 287B on the plan submitted is being purchased from Robert and Maureen Degrass. He explained that the addition of these parcels "will square off" the lot. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Ted Sadoski to approve the Form A as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. • The vote was unanimous and the Acting Chairman William Wheaton declared the motion carried. Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 2 • Hewitt Construction Co. Attorney Vallis also whshed to discuss the letter written to the Board of Appeal on October 25, 1977 relevant to the request for a variance by Hewitt Construction Co. The Board, in this memo, recommended that the Board of Appeal deny the petition for the following reasons: 1. The owner has been filling his land illegally - violating the wetlands Protection Act and the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Zoning. 2. Due to the sensitive ecological character of the land all zoning requirements - including frontage - should be observed. 3. The owners should be encouraged to work with the Planning Board to try and develop a subdivision of the land which would meet all zoning requirements. If the Appeals Board grants the variance, the owners will not be required to file such a subdivision. • 4. Therefore we would strongly recommend that the variance be denied. Attorney Vallis briefly reviewed the history of this land. He stated that on June 2nd a Form A was submitted for this property which would have split the lot into 5 parcels with a minimum frontage of 60 feet. He had been informed by the Board that the zoning had been changed and that 100 feet was now the minimum frontage requirement. The Form A was withdrawn at that time. After this the plan was changed to allow for the creation of 4 lots - one lot with 100 feet frontage and the other three with 90 feet each. Because three of the lots are below the minimum frontage requirements, Attorney Vallis took the plan to the Board of Appeal for a variance on the frontage requirements. He added that he was "quite surprised" when Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 3 the letter from the Planning Board was read. He denied that Hewitt Construction Co. was responsible for any change in the drainage in that area at the present time. Attorney Vallis also stated that although he was aware of the Salem ConCom's interest in the proposed work in a wetland area, he did not understandthe Planning Board commenting on Conservation matters. David Lash pointed out that with the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Zoning, the Planning Board was now directly involved with construction occurring in a wetland�orFlood Hazard District. Bill Wheaton pointed out' £hat the Board was unaware when the letter was written whether the variance being sought was for frontage or whether it was a variance from the Special Permit process. Attorney Vallis stated that most of the lots in the area have only a 50' frontage and that Hewitt's proposed plan, although slightly under the • zoning requirements, allows more frontage than is prevalent in the area now. Don Hunt pointed out that that was why the zoning was changed, to allow for less density - unlike the lots now in existance. Attorney Vallis also questioned the third point in the letter to the Board of Appeal which referred to the proposed plan as a "subdivision". Attorney Vallis maintained that the proposed plan was not a subdivision. Ted Sadoski stated that if it doesn't have adequate frontage, it is a subdivision. Bill Wheaton stated that one of the reasons for the letter was to "wave a red flag" relevant to the present zoning requirements. David Lash stated that the Wetlnad/Flood Hazard zoning ordinance is "triggered" by the building permit. Attorney Vallis stated that he would go back and "do his homework" and read the portion of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Wetland/Flood Hazard districts. • Cherry Cooper - Master Plan Cherry Cooper spoke briefly to the Board relevant to the Master Plan. She explained to the Board that the data collection would be Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 4 completed by late January. She now wanted the Board's views on various '• format alternatives for the Master Plan. Several Board members stated that they had not received the information outlining the various formats. Cherry explained that the Master Plan could contain all the data in one section, or that it could follow each section from the statistics to the summary and recomendations. It was the consensus of the Board members present that further discussion be deferred until the first meeting in December when more information will be supplied by Cherry. Cherry next introduced the candidate for Planning Board Aide, Michael Moriz. Michael's degree from school is in the field of landscape architec- ture. Bill Wheaton questioned what Michael's responsibilities would be. David Lash stated that he would be working with the Board relevant to Form A's and Special Permits - the "nuts and bolts"of the Board's responsibility relevant to the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. • In addition he would process requests of the Planning and visit sites of proposed Form A's and Special Permits when necessary. He would also work with Cherry on the Master Plan relevant to layout and format as well as graphic tables and map work. Thomas Sullivan Special Permit Thomas Sullivan spoke to the Board relevant to the special permit that had been previously granted to him by the Planning Board. Mr. !Sullivan explained that the original plan called for the tank to be placed half in the ground and half above. While digging the hole for the tank, water was hit. For this reason, Mr. Sullivan wishes to place the tank totally above ground. He further stated that the tank would be the same as the original plan, with the same foundation - • only raised. Mr. Sullivan pleaded a hardship relevant to this special Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 5 permit since his factory will be without heat until he is issued a build- ing permit. Ted Sadoski stated that the City Engineer should look at the new plan and give his opinion since no one on the Board is really qualified to make structual decisions. He also pointed out that the new plan was not stamped: David Lash pointed out that this kind of change in plans will occur over and over in relation the the Wetland/Flood Hazard Zoning. David further stated that this would be a good time for the Board to establish procedures to follow when these changes come up. David continued by stating that the Board could decide to complete the entire permit pro- cess with each change or defer decision on changes that are not substantial to either the Building Inspector or the City Engineer. It was suggested that the Planning Board clerk get the City Engineer's opinion on the changes in the plan of Mr. Sullivan on Friday. Paul D'Amour pointed out that if decisions were deferred to the Building Inspector or the City Engineer than the Board could be relinquishing it's authority relevant to special permits. Brian O'Keefe stated that it would be wasteful if additional hearings were scheduled because of non-substantial changes. On the other hand, Brian stated that the Board would not want major changes approved without the Board's prior knowledge. Richard Lutts was of the opinion that the Board was not "approving the building" when dealing with Special Permits. Ted Sadoski stated that this was not so and again stated that the City Engineer should be the deciding factor relevant to the proposed change in Mr. Sullivan's plan. William Wheaton added that the City Engineer could decide on any "nut and . bolt change" to any plan already granted a special permit by the Planning Board: He also stated that it was a possibility that the City Engineer make his comments relevant to the new plan and then refer it back to the Board. Ted Sadoski stated that, in this case, if the City Engineer felt Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 6 the changes in the plan were minor than it need not be returned to the Board for further action. Bill Wheaton questioned whether the Board would feel confortable in relinquishing part of their authority relevant to the Wetland/Flood Hazard Special Permit process to the City Engineer. Ted stated that he felt it was all right in this case, but that a general rule for all future changes in plans issued a Special Permit is not possible. David Lash, in summarizing the Board's discussion thus far, stated that what the Board was saying was that any deviation from an original plan, no matter how small, would have to be referred to the Board before any further action could be taken. David pointed out that this type of procedure could prove to be an unnecessary hardship for people granted a Special Permit. Bill Wheaton stated that he felt the decisions on changes in plans already approved should be up to the City Engineer. Ted Sadoski pointed out that not all problems with changes in plans would be in Tony's area of expertise. David Lash suggested that the Planning Board Aide could rec&ive the proposed changes to plans and then hand deliver it to the City Engineer. If the Planning Board Aide and the City Engineer agree that the change is of a minor structural nature than approval could be granted then and there and the Building Inspector could issue the Building Permit. If the Planning Board Aide and/or the City Engineer view the change as a significant structural change or a change in placement of buildings then the plan would be referred back to the Board for further consideration. Brian O'Keefe stated that he did not feel comfortable with relinquishing the Board's authority to the Planning Department or the City Engineer. He further stated that he did not feel that the Building Inspector or . City Engineer should make the final decision on changes offcurring after the Special Permit has been approved. ' Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 7 • Ted Sadoski pointed out that relevant to structural changes the Board does not have the expertise necessary to make a judgement. He further added that the Board was dependent on the City Engineer's opinion relevant to the issuance of a Special Permit in the first place. He ended by saying that as long as the Planning Board Aide and the City Engineer both felt that the changes proposed were minor structural ones, then a letter from the City Engineer to the Building Inspector and Planning Board would be sufficient. Paul D'*mour questioned what would constitute "minor" structural changes. Ted replied that that would be the City Engineer's decision. In summarizing the direction of the discussion, William Wheaton stated that from a 'structural standpoint' the Board was already dependent on the City Engineer in the initial granting of special permits. For this . reason, Bill was of the opinion that the City Engineer be given the responsibility far approving minor structural changes that did not alter the location or character of the project. If the City Engineer has misgivings about the extent of the changes that the Chairman of the Planning Board could be contacted by the Planning Board Aide for further direction. Bill stated that if each and every change that is made in a plan has to be referred to the Planning Board directly, then unnecessary hardships could be placed on the applicant. Bill also stated that he would be willing to make a motion that the changes made in Mr. Sullivan's plan are not significant and do not constitute a major change to the project. Ted stated that he could not go along with that since, again, the knowledge necessary for this decision was out of the Board's area of expertise. Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 8 • Mr. Sullivan asked that some action be taken since his building would be without heat until this tank is allowed to be installed. He also stated that he had applied for this permit in June and felt that the various City Departments had "given him the run-around" since then. Ted Sadoski stated that he had no objection to voting to approve the raising of the tank subject to ,the findings of the City Engineer. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Abby Burns that Bill Wheaton be authorized to write a letter to the City Engineer stating that the City Engineer in conjunction with the Planning Board Aide should r . , use their judgement in determining what constitutes a major change in a project granted a Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit and what constitutes a minor structual change in a project. If the change is significant than the Planning Board Chairman should be notified. If the change is of a • minor structual nature then the City Engineer is authorized to approve the change and inform the Board of this in writing. All actions stemming from changes in the plans should be accomplished promptly. The vote was unanimous and Acting Chairman Bill Wheaton declared the motion carried. Heritage Trust In reviewing the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit that was issued to Heritage Trust on April 22, 1977, Attorney Plunkett outlined the three conditions that were included when the Special Permit was granted. These condiditons are as follows: 1. Construction details of utilities (Section 4.c.) , anchorage of structures on pilings (Section 4.1) and support of structures (Section 4.m) must be provided so that compliance can be evaluated. 2. Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect with • respect to the items stated in condition 1 above must be provided (Section 5.d) . 3. A list of Federal, State, and other local permits required by the applicant must be provided (Section 5.e) . Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 9 Attroney Plunkett stated that relevant to the first condition, the • City Engineer Tony Fletcher approved the construction details, anchorage of structures on pilings and the support of structures, from the information provided by Robert McNamara of Add Inc., Architects on November 3, 1977. Condition #2 was addressed in a letter from Robert McNamara to David Lash of the Planning Department on September 28, 1977 certifing that "the method of attachment of piles to reinforced concrete slab is in compliance with the requirements of the Mass. State Building Code as required in Section 4m of the Salem zoning ordinance providing for "Wetlands and Flood Hazard Districts." Heritage Trust II has also provided the Board with a list of Federal, State and other local permits required by the development on September 15, 1977 After a brief review of the documents presented, a motion was made • by Richard Lutts and seconded by Abby Burns that the three conditions of the Special Permit issued to Heritage Trust have been adequately complied with. The vote was unanimous and Acting Chairman Bill Wheaton declared the motion carried. David Lash informed the Board that Heritage Trust was also interested in splitting their present six acre lot into several lots in order to be able to obtain financing for the development. David pointed out that this new proposal had been simplified and changed from the proposal discussed at a previous Planning Board Meeting. In speaking for the developers, Attorney Plunkett stated that Heritage Trust II had two requests to make of the Board. First of all, the Devel- opers of Pickering Wharf wish to divide their 6 acre lot into 5 lots by means of a Form A. He pointed out that each of the five proposed lots • has legal frontage on a public way. In addition Heritage Trust is re- questing that the Planning Board exercise thier authority to reduce the Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 10 • between buildings required by the zoning ordinance for B5 districts. Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering went over the plan submitted with the Form A application. He explained that some of the proposed lots contain registered and unregistered land. Registered and unregistered land cannot be joined but can form one lot for subdivision or zoning purposes. In outlining the proposed lots to be created by this Form A he made the following Points: Lot 1 - Will consist of the theater complex and be composed of unregistered land. Lot 2 - Consists of 5,000 sq . ft of ungegistered land. Lot 3 Is composed of registered and unregistered land and will have strictly commercial development. Lot 4 - Is composed of registered and unregistered land and will have • strictly commercial development. Lot 5 - Consists of registered and unregistered land and will contain most of the buildings of the development. This lot will consist of mixed residential and commercial usage. William Wheaton questioned what were the lot requirements for commercial use were. David Lash replied that there was a 30 feet width requirmment for commercial use and a 100 ft frontage requirement for mixed usage. There is also a 5,000 sq. ft. lot requirement for commercial use. David stated that the Form A being considered fulfills these requirements. William Wheaton questioned the implications of having registered and unregistered land making up one lot. Attorney Plunkett stated that this was not at all an uncommon occurmance in subdivisions. He explained that the difference in the two types of land was one of type of ownership and • does not prevent them from forming one lot in a subdivision. Attorney Plunkett further stated that, for example, the registered and unregistered Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 11 . land that forms Lot 3 of the proposed Form A could not be sold separately. Donald Hunt questioned the difference between registered and un- registered land. Attorney Plunkett explained that land becomes registered because of a decree from the court. Unregistered land is conveyed by a chain of title. He further explained that land usually becomes registered land because of some problem connected with it. Ted Sadoski in speaking of the agreement between the City and Heritage Traust stated that #10 and #11 on the agreement seem to contradict each other. Number 10 states, "It is understood and agreed that the covenants contained in this Agreement shall be binding on the Developer and any successors or assigns of the Developer." Number 11 states, "Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Agreement, the holder of any mortgage, including any holder who obtains title to the property as a result of foreclosure • procedure or action in lieu thereof, shall not be obligated by the provisions of this Agreement. Developers may, however, assign thtir rights hereunder to any such mortgagee and to subsequent purchasers" David Lash explained that #10 applied to a voluntary sale of any of the land and #11 applies only to foreclosure. David pointed out that no Bank would grant a mortgage if they will be tied to a previous plan upon foreclosure. He further stated that #11 is standard in agreements with developers and was used by the SRA in their agreements. He also pointed out that #11 would apply if a Forma A were granted or not. William Wheaton stated that he could understant the reasoning. If a mortgage was forclosed on, it probably indicates that the plan was unfeasible to begin with. Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 12 • Brian O'Keefe stated that regardless of that possibility, it was still true that the covenant that ran with the land as a result of item #10 was negated by #11. Tom Leonard stated that a mortgage could never be obtained for any of the development unless a Bank was assured that any foreclosure did not tie them to one course of action. John Brown pointed out that the developers will have an agreement with the City. It is also unlikely that a property will be foreclosed on until the buildings are on the land. This in itself would help to assure that development would progress in line outlined in the agreement. A motion was made by John Brown and seconded by Abby Burns that the Form A be approved as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. The vote was unanimous and the Acting Chairman declared the motion carried. • Peter Ogren went on to explain that the density requirements for a B5 district according to the zoning ordinance called for "the minimum distance between buildings, if more than one on a lot, to be equal to the height of the taller building." He further explained that for the proposed development to meet other requirements of the zoning ordinance, the space between buildings had to be reduced in five places. Paul D'Amour questioned the apparent lack of trees and open space indicated by the current plan. David Lash indicated areas on the plan which will contain open space and greenery, as well as a 10-40 feet walkway which will form the perimeter of the property. The members of the Heritage Trust sub-committee were asked for their opinion relevant to this request. John Brown stated that the Board's n primarily resulted from the plan original concern with the development prima y • to have a Planned unit development for a portion of the development. Since Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 13 ''': • PUD was no longer being proposed, than he felt it-was the consensus of the sub-committee to agree to a reduction in the distance required between the buildings as indicated in the present plan. Ted Sadoski also pointed out that in the areas of mixed usage in the development, the residential section sould be on the upper levels. "With the jobs and cutoffs" indicated by the plan it was already assured that "people would not be looking into other people's walls." Tom Leonard added that there would be 47 dwelling units. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Abby Burns to approve the reduction of distance between buildings as shown on the plan submitted for Heritage Trust II, by Hayes Engineering Inc., dated October 31, 1977, since it was the Board's judgement that even with the reduced distance between some of the buildings shown on the Plan, the distance • is "sufficient to provide adequate light, air and access." Brian O'Keefe, William Wheaton, Abby Burns, Richard Lutts, John Brown and Donald Hunt boted yea; Paul D'Amour present. Accting Chairman William Wheaton declared the motion carried. DPW Walter Lezeznski of the DPW was present to explain a drainage project that would relieve flooding in the Vinnon Square area. Mr. Lezefinski stated that Tony Fletcher had requested that this project be amcomplished by the DPW. Mr. Lezeznski stressed that this project would cost Salem noth&ng and the cost of $200,000 to $250,000 for the project would be picked up by the state. The Plan would call for the area to be drained to a pond owned by Hyman Marcus behind the Stop & Shop and then drained to a pond that had been a former gravel pit closer to the Forest River. From there the runoff would go into the Forest River. Mr. Lezeznski stated that he Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 14 • had already met with the ConCom relevant to this project and that the pipe between the two ponds would be 60 inches in diameter. David lash pointed out that only the proposed work in the area of the two ponds would be subject to the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit process. David stated that he would get a legal opinion relevant to the possibility that the State is exempt from local zoning in this matter. It was suggested by Brian O'Keefe that the Special Permit application, if required, be submitted by the City's engineering department. David bash questioned the representatives from the DPW whether the Special Permit were necessary before the project could be submitted to Boston for approval. Mr. Lezeznski stated that if some kind of endorsement could be obtained from the Board than he could proceed to submit the • plan to the state for funding. Ted Sadoski stated that the Board could offer an "Unanimous tacit endorsement" of the plan subject to the findings of the Special Permit process. It was the consensus of the Board members present that the public hearing be held on December 1st if the Special Permit application were submitted in time. Community Development David Lash briefly outlined the new legislation governing HUD in which Salem's funding rests. David stated that the primary emphasis was now being placed on projects that would benefit low and moderate income groups. • . Minutes of 11/3/77 Page 15 David explained that relevant to "entitlement" money, Salem�rould be receiving $660,000 in Community Development money this year and $330,000 the following year. David further explained that the City was also going to be applying for a UDAG Grant amounting to five million dollars over a 3 or 4 year period that would be used in the South River District (Ward 5) . David added that this application would be filed by January 15th. David also informed the Board that the City was also appling for a "discretionary Grant" which would be a multi-year grant probaLly amounting to approximately 2i million dollars. David ended by stating that the Public Hearings for the Community Development funds would be held on November 14, 17 and 28th. The final Community Development Public Hearing will be held in December. A motion was made by Richard Lutts and seconded by Abby Burns to • adjourn the meeting at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • Ctv of lem, C �Mssac4usrtts Jls�cu°"� 1�ItP �ttlPm (�rtPtt PLANNING BOARD AGENDA 11/17/77 1. Approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting of November 3, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. Motion Second 2. Old Business 1. David Lash & Nancy Kepes - Community Development 2. Peter Copelas - Property at 7 Webster St. 3. Pickman Park 3. New Business 1. FY1979 Budget 4. Adjourn • • y���.tOND7 . C� . i# of • 3 ,� a "`"'�g �lutittitig ,�Uarl MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD HELD NOVEMBER 17, 1977, 7:30 P.M. THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, John Brown, Richard Lutts, Abby Burns, William Wheaton, Donald Hunt, Ted Sadoski, Walter Power The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7:30 P.M. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Ted Sadoski to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 3, 1977 as copied and mailed to members for advance reading. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. David Lash briefly spoke to the Board of the Community Development Hearings that are now being held. David informed the Board. that John Finnigan, owner of the Fairweather Apartments on Highland Ave has applied for HUD 202 monies for housing for low and moderate income. The monies will be used for the construction of additional housing and some demolition. David also stated that a public hearing on the CD legislation was held Monday. David stated that 3/4 of the CD money must now benefit people with low and moderate income levels. David explained that because of this, programs such as the sewer project and Forest River land acquisi- tion will now have to drop to a second place priority. David again explained that the money Salem is entitled to is dropping to $660,000 this year and $330,000 next year. • David also explained that a five million dollar grant proposal from UDAG is being applied for. This would be a "one shot" grant _ for severely Minutes of 11/17/77 Page 2 distressed areas. The area to be helped by this grant would be the point section of Salem and the area around the South River. The money would be used to upgrade housing in that area as well as developing a long range plan for the Shetland Industrial properties. David ended by saying that the CD Hearings are being held to coincide with the Planning Board Meetings. David stated that the Board could send a representative to the hearings or could attend the hearings when the Board meeting is adjourned. Attorney Donald Koleman was present to speak for his client Peter Kopelis. Attorney Koleman explained that his client has requested a variance relevant to usage or two occassions from the Board of Appeal. He added that both times the Planning Board has written to the Board of Appeal recommending the request for a variance be turned down. Attorney Koleman • further explained that Gilman Machine had been the occupant of the building but when they wanted to expand their operations the variance needed from the Board of Appeal was denied so they moved their business else- where. Attorney Koleman pointed out that the building has been empty since that time. After this happened, Fast. Co., a company that makes off street racing cars, expressed interest in utilizing the buildings. Again, the Board of Appeal denied the requested variance. When his client next appeared before the Board of Appeal they requested guidance from the Board as to what usuage would be allowed. 'At that time interest had been ex- pressed by a carpet concern, a dry cleaning establishment as well as a small machine shop. Attorney Koleman stated that instead of "offering guidance" to Mr. Kopelias they denied the variance again. Attorney Koleman explained that the previous use of these buildings had been medium to heavy • machine shops and that because of the actions taken by the Board of Appeal these buildings have been vacant for a year and a half. After the last variance request was denied, Attorney Koleman appealed the decision Minutes of 11/17/77 Page 3 to the Superior Court. The decision rendered by the court was that the property could be utilized by a 'non-conforming use as long as it was not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood." Attorney Koleman next outlined the current usuage possibilities for the building. In one part would be a light machine shop (not as large as Gilman's) and in the other part a fish market. Attorney Koleman stated that he wanted the Planning Board "to be aware of what was going on" so that any misunderstanding could be cleared up. William Wheaton stated that the decision rendered by the Superior Court is in line with the objections voiced by the Planning Board in their communications to the Board of Appeal. The Planning Board had not recommended against all non-conforming uses, just those which entail industrial use. Bill pointed out that in the first letter written to the Board of Appeal the Planning Board had suggested that a retail use for the building would be more in line with the surrounding area. Bill also stated that a Special Permit is suppose to be "narrow" with a specific use in mind. Attorney Koleman stated that the Board of Appeal process is a legthy one and that although there has been interest expressed in the property, it is difficult for these people to wait for the appeal process to be completed. Ted Sadoski pointed out that there are some uses out- lined in the zoning ordinance that are expressly forbidden even with a special permit. Attorney Koleman stated he was aware of this. Attorney Koleman stated that the property in question would be non- conforming no matter what usage was proposed and that he felt it was "a hardship that ran with the land". He further stated that even if the build- ing was removed it wouldn't even meet the zoning requirements for single • family housing. Ted Sadoski stated that if that were the case than a variance could be obtained from the Board of Appeal. William Wheaton suggested that maybe a variance could be obtained for retail or a small wholesale operation, as long as industrial usage were eliminated. Minutes of 11/17/77 Page 4 In summarizing the Board's feelings, Attorney Koleman questioned whether the Planning Board would voice any objections to requested variances relevant to single family housing. Bill Wheaton stated that he couldn't see any objections to requests for variances relevant to setback and side line requirements. Attorney Koleman also questioned if the Board would voice any objections to mixed retail usage. It was the consensus of the Board that they would not. Pickman Park Walter Power opened the discussion by stating that the purpose of this discussion was to consider the report written by William Wheaton which was mentioned at the Pickman Park public hearing. Bill Wheaton started by stating that the report in question was "not officially connected" with the Planning Board. It had been written as a result of a request from the Salem Evening News during the time Salem • was undergoing property evaluation and advocated limited growth. The report pointed out what are a City's expenses and concluded that the development patterns in Salem were not paying for themselves. The second part of the report looked at the alternatives and what they would cost the City. Bill added that a recent publication of the MACP agreed with his find- ings. Bill, commenting on the development under discussion, stated that the duplexes and quadruplexes were better fiscally for the City and that "taxwise they will pay for themselves". He also stated that information received from the developer indicates that if he puts up single family housing it will be in the $30,000 - $40,000 range. Bill pointed out that if that is true, it would be the most expensive kind of development • from the City's standpoint. Bill added that there was no opposition by the Board relevant to single family housing and that if the developer was thinking in terms of housing in the $709000- $80,000 range and then the cost Minutes of 1117/77 Page 5 to the City would be minimal - but the developer was not considering doing • this. Paul Seegel of 83 Moffet Road expressed doubt whether it wasppossible for the developer to build houses for $40,000 in that area and that he would be forced to build more expensive housing. Bill Wheaton again stated that Mr. DiBiase also knows the housing and construction business and he feels he can. John Olbrych of 6 Patton Road stated that the townhouses would contain 2 bedrooms and that that would mean at least one child per household. Bill Wheaton stated that this was not true. Bill pointed out that the statistics he was utilizing were from the MAPC and from his report - he "was not pulling them out of the air." Statistics gathered illustrate that there are fewer children and services needed from townhouses like • those proposed by the plans under consideration then will be needed for single family housing. John Olbrych next questioned the possibility of purchasing the land in question. Bill Wheaton estimated the cost of purchasing the land at one million dollars and questioned whether Mr. Olbrych felt that it would be fair to all the property owners in Salem to add $12 to their tax rate for one year. Mr. Olbrych replied that he felt the whole City would be effected by the proposed plan. Bill Wheaton again pointed out that the townhouses will not raise taxes, Mr. Olbrych pointed out that with this new development there would probably have to be a new school built in the future. Ted Sadoski pointed out that the Planning Board could not deny a subdivision plan or a special permit because of the possibility that a school may have • to be built r Minutes of 11/17/77 Page 6 • Attorney Flemming stated that the Board bhould consider the safety and economic hardship on the people that live in the area. He further stated that the proposed development was adjacent to Salem State and if the developer was unable to sell the townhouses then Attorney Flemming felt he would rent to students. Staley McDermet pointed out that the developer had two plans on file. One is for a single family development with lots of 7,000 sq . ft. The second plan consists of a subdivision plan and special permit application for duplexes and quadruplexes which is presently under consideration. Staley pointed out that if it were the intent of the developers to rent "cheap apartments" the developer could have designed 22 story, row houses instead. Ted Sadoski pointed out that if the developer implements the plan he has on file for single family there will be more children, more • traffic and less open land resulting. Attorney Flemming again stated that the "safety of the neighborhood, as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations is being violated." John Olbrych questioned if Bill Wheaton's statement that "the town- houses will pay their own way tax wise" was a result of the "supposed agreement the owners of the townhouses are to sign to provide many of their own services." Bill stated that he had based his figures on the basis of the City providing all the needed services. Bill further stated that if the owner agreements were taken into consideration, than the City would end up "making some money on the development." Staley pointed out that the proposed development calls for less streets and that utilities such as water lines will be "clustered" and in this way will be easier to maintain. • Minutes of 11/17/77 Page 7 . John Olbrych stated that he believed the "agreement to be a farce" and that the City would end up being responsible for the services to the development. Bill Wheaton pointed out that the agreement will run with the land and that with agreements of this kind the courts usually uphold them for 30 or 40 years. Phyllis Olbrych stated that the "safety" of the neighborhood was at stake and that if Pickman Rd were widened because of increased traffic than the houses in the area would lose $5,000 in property value to start with. John Brown pointed out that if the plan under consideration were turned down and the single family subdivision plan implemented, than the result would be more traffic not less. Mrs. Olbrych stated that the City Plann&r should be responsible for finding the funds to buy the land. Attorney Flemming again questioned if the Board felt that the plan • meets the qualifications for a special permit. Phyllis Olbrych again made reference to the portion of the Subdivision Control Laws dealing with 'safety' . Paul D'Amour pointed out that this same argument had been used when the Planning Board brought the developers to court relevant to Loring Hills, and the court had rejected this argument. Don Hunt added that as far as 'safety' was concerned, he had "more fears with single family development". He also stated that as a taxpayer he would resent the increase of taxes in order to please one small section of the City. Brian O'Keefe summarized the possibilities the Board has before it relevant to this subdivision: 1. The Board could approve the plan. 2. If the area is zoned back to R1 it still would have no effect on the submitted subdivision plan which is only tied to the zoning that was in • effect when the plan was submitted. 3. If the land is to be purchased at this point, the money would have to come from the City at a high price for all the taxpayers in the City. Minutes of llA7/77 Page 8 • 4. The plan could be rejected - but there are no valid reasons for the Board to do this at the present time. If the plan is rejected, the Developer would be in a very good position to bring a suit against the City. 5. Whatever action the Board decides on it must take action before 90 days have elapsed from the public hearing. Phyllis Olbrych again stated that she felt there was time to find money to purchase the land and accused the Board of making "scapegoats of the people who live in the area". Staley McDermet pointed out that another reason purchasing the land had not been considered is that the land itself would not be an asset as an open space for the City. If the City did purchase the land then it would still have to be developed in some way and there would have to be public access to the property. • Phyllis Olbrych urged the Board to think of the future and the need for open space. Paul D'Amour replied that the Forest River Acquisition plan was being implemented for this very reason. Brad Northrup of the Conservation Commission pointed out that relevant to the Rorest River acquisition plan, the application is in its second year and is utilizing 3 sources of funding. He stressed that it is a long procedure and would be impossible to implement in the time left. Attorney Flemming stated that the Board should carefully study the requirements for the subdivision pland and special permit before they approve it. Attorney Flemming implied that there would be a suit against the Board if the plan is approved. Walter Power stated that the Board has been working with the developers for two years in order to arrive at the compromise plan that is now before the Board. • Minutes of 11/17/77 Page 9 Collins Cove • Greg Senko was present to again request that the Board release the $6,000 it has in its Section 701 funds to serve as part of the matching funds needed to qualify for a grant from the National Endowment of the Arts to be utilized for a study of Collins Cove. Greg explained that in addition to the $6,000 requested from the Board, $4,000 would be provided by in-kind work by Staley McDermet and Cheri Cooper. In addition New England Power is providing $3-5,000 worth of engineering services for the proposed project. The National Endowment of the Arts (NEA( would then provide $12-15,000 in matching funds for the project. Greg also stated that tomorrow is the last day he can send the application in. When questioned about the status Bf the Master plan in general and the waterfront section specifically, Greg replied that the inventories will . b e completed by January 15, 1978. Bill Wheaton reiterated the Planning Board's reservations about the proposed study. 1. This would be a lot of money to spend for a plan for one small section of Collins Wove. 2. Cheri Cooper, alone, will not be able to do the kind of waterfront study for the master plan that the Board wants. 3. If the waterfront section of the master plan is given good treatment than the Collins Cove study could be coordinated with it. Greg explained that he could not change the scope of the proposed grant but that the Board.could think in terms of selecting consultants to help Cheri with the waterfront section of the master plan. Bill Wheaton questioned how much money would be necessary 6or a comprehensive water- front study. Greg replied that the Heritage Plaza West study had cost $10,000. He added that Cheri already had a lot of information so that he felt $5,000 in additional monies would be sufficient. Greg also stated Minutes of 11/17/77 Page 10 • that Cheri still has $5,000 left in the Master Plan budget which could be paid for a consultant to work on the waterfront study. Brian O'Keefe questioned how far along the master plan was and stated that he felt the Board would be locked in to the Collins Cove study before the conclusions of the master plan relevant to the waterfront are known. Greg replied that "grants become available by opportunity not demant" and that the proposed plan for Collins Cove does fit in with the con- clusions of the old master plan. Ted Sadoski questioned where the monies would come from to implement the proposed Collins Cove Study. Greg stated that it could be implemented from CD funds. Walter Power stated that other than dredging the beach in order to create a more attractive usuable beach, he felt Collins Cove could be • "dovetailed with the waterfront section of the master plan". Bill Wheaton stated that the Board wants a study of the waterfront comprable to the Heritage Plaza West study which would include detailed market analysis of various types of developments. A motion was made by William Wheaton that the Board will release the $6,000 in 701 funds to Greg Senko to be used as part of the matching funds necessary for a grant from the NEA to do a detailed study of Collins Cove if a letter is received from Greg Senko stating: 1. $5,000 will be allocated from the Master Plan Budget to be used for consultants to aid Cheri in doing a comprehensive waterfront study along the lines of Heritage Plaza West. 2. If more money is needed than the Board should be notified and the Plan- ning Board and Planning Department will work together to obtain the • additional monies needed. 3. Letters to various consultants should be available far the Board's consideration by their next meeting. The motion was seconded Minutes of 11/17/77 Page 11 by John Brown, unanimously passed and the Chairman declared the motion carried. Walter Power, John Broan and Donald Hunt are to work on the Planning Board Buddet for next year. The Budget will be discussed at the next Planning Board meeting. Correspondence received was noted and placed on file. .A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Tadius 5adoski to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • Uii#g 11{ �11PItl� �Mss�tt fuse##s (Pur Onto tt Gfrrn Minutes of the Salem Planning Board Held December 8, 1977, 7:30 P.M. Third Floor Conference Room One Salem Green Salem Massachusetts Members Present: Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, John Brown, Richard Lutts Abby Burns, William Wheaton, Donald Hunt, Ted Sadoski, Walter Power The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7:30 P.M. Pickman Park Walter Power explained to City Solicitor Bill Tinti that the Board wishes to question him on any possible grounds that the Pickman Park Subdivision Plan and Special Permit could be rejected. Bill Tinti stated that a Subdivision Plan has to comply with the zoning in order to obtain a building permit. Therefore the Subdivision Plan can't be approved until the Special Permit is approved. Elaborating on this theme Bill pointed out that the units shown on the Pickman Park Plan do not comply with the zoning requirements for frontage in a R-3 zone. Again, the Special Permit has to be obtained first and then the Subdivision Plan must be dealt with. It was pointed out that the time allowed the Board after the Public Hearing to reach a decision differs with a Special Permit and a Subdivision Plan. Bill pointed out that the 60 days allowed for the consideration of a Sub- division Plan can be extended by agreement with the developer so that it will coincide with the 90 days allowed for the consideration of a • Special Permit. Minutes of 12/8/77 Page 2 • Paul D'Amour questioned if a Special Permit were needed,if the requirement for a Subdivision Plan could be waived-eompletely. Bill replied that the Board still must deal with both. Bill next read the newspaper ad for the public hearing for the Subdivision Plan and Special Permit and stated that it met with the legal requirements for it. Bill also stated that if the developer tried to push action on the Form C before the Special Permit then the Board would be forced to reject it. Ted Sadoski questioned whether if the Board turned down the Special Permit then was there any way the Board could turn down the Subdivision Plan. Bill pointed out that the zoning regulations to which the sub- division plan was tied to required lots of 12,000 sq , ft. ^Bill pointed to a lot on the Subdivision Plan that contained only 10,000 sq . ft. For • this reason, without a Special Permit the Subdivision Plan would have to be rejected. Ted also questioned if the Subdivision was tied to R1 or R3 zoning requirements. Bill Tinti replied that the plan was filed March 17, 1977, therefore it would have to conform to R3 zoning requirements. John Brown questioned what would happen if the Board took no action on the Special Permit or Subdivision Plan. Bill stated that if no action were taken thean legally it would be presumed to be approved. Mr. Brown questioned what action has to be taken on the subdivision plans that were filed with the Board in addition to the one for cluster development. Bill pointed out that the Board has to act on all plans that have been submitted relevant to this property. He further stated that the developer should be asked to withdraw all previous plans submitted before granting the special permit for the most recent plan. The City Solicitor • (�i# ttf �letii, �tt�s�tcl�uE#t • �,s�""°"�D�� 1�11P �FIIP11t �LPPIt • • L Minutes of 12/8/7? Page 3 • added that if the Board did not grant the Special Permit for cluster development, then the board would have to review the previous single family subdivision plans that are still protected under an earlier zoning ordinance. Bill added that there has already been a public hearing for the single family subdivision plan, therefore the board would be free to act on them. In considering the Cluster Development Special Permit, Bill stated that it could be made a condition of the Special Permit that the developer submit no additional plans for R-3 zoning. Bill further explained that the issuance of a special permit was "discretionary" on the Board's pard while the Subdivision Plan was tied to more "rigid" standards. Walter Power stated that if the Special Permit were rejected, the Board would have to give specific reasons for it since the Board has been working with the developers for two years to arrive at this present plan. He also questioned whether the Board could be accused Of "bad faith" if the Special Permit were rejected. Bill Tinti agreed that, if rejected, specific reasons would have to be sited, however the law gives the Board the right to make this determination. The possibility of "bad faith" could not be a legal issue unless the Board had taken binding action at pre- vious meetings. The clerk is to compile a list of actions taken by the Board at previous meetings relevant to Pickman Park. Bill also explained to the Board that through the Conservation Commission Mr. DiBiase has agreed to a number of conditions relevant to his proposed development. Bill stated that even if the City Council changes the zoning for the area of the proposed subdivision, "these conditions • would still hold". yr vCt#g of �g �l�tttltitt$ �uarl (�nr �ttletn (�recn , _,tcc Minutes of 12/8/77 Page 4 • Richard Lutts questioned the effect if the City Council were to change the zoning. Bill Wheaton pointed out that even if the plan were turned down, the developer could still refile. Bill Tinti added that "voluntary withdrawal of plans by the developer is the only way to terminate them." In discussing the possibility of a suit being brought against the Board if the special permit were granted, Bill Tinti stated that for the Planning Boards approval to be reversed, it would have to be proven that the subdivision plan did not meet the cirteria for a special permit. John Brown questioned whether current zoning is superior to the concept of Cluster development. Bill Tinti replied that the concept of Cluster development concentrates housing in one section and therefore allows more land to be utilized as open space. Walter Power questioned if the value of the proposed subdivision to the developer would change if the zoning for the area were changed back to R-1. For example, if an unit were destroyed because of some disaster then, with the changed zoning, it could not be replaced. Bill Tinti stated that a non-conforming structure could be replaced if less than 70% were destroyed. He added that beyond that the owners of the development would be in the same position as many other property owners in the City. He also stated that a single family structure would be allowed to be built to replace the destroyed structure. Ted Sadoski questioned if the Board approved the proposed subdivision plan and special permit and the City Council rezoned the area back to R-1 and the developer were unable to sell the units, would the developer be able to bring legal action against the Board. Bill Tinti stated that the • developers would not qualify for "compensation" because they retained the "use" applied for. of 3 � a P fainting 'Bvarl ` °N� (Out Oulem (6frpn -Minutes of 12/8/77 Page 5 • John Brown questioned the criteria for a special permit. A discussion next followed on the specific criteria for a Special Permit for cluster development that-has been applied for. It was the consensus of those present that the proposed plan does comply with the first five citeria for Cluster Development addressed im the zoning ordinance. These criteria pertain to height requirements and allowed density of the Development. The next requirement states that 20% of the subdivision must be usable open space. David lash stated that most of the land of the proposed subdivision is easily walked and would constitute usable open space. Bill Tinti explained that the seventh criteria deals with "net negative environmental impact" and that the environmental impact statement submitted by the Developers would have to be acted upon. Michael Moniz stated that he had read the environmental impact statement and that the • developers had addressed all the required areas for consideration. Relevant to "traffic and safety" Ted Sadoski questioned whether the legal precedents set by the courts had made it very difficult to use "safety" as a reason for rejecting a development plan. Bill Tinti stated that Ted was speaking of Subdivision requirements, not Special Permit regulations. Brian French of the Conservation Commission stated that the environmental impact statement should be distributed to the commenting Boards as well as the members of the Planning Board. Mr. Beatrice is to be called to- morrow and will supply the additional environmental impact statements needed. Bill Tinti pointed out that the conclusion drawn in the environmental impact statement that the increased traffic resulting from the proposed development will not be harmful should be signed by the person responsible • for the study. TUttu 11f xleiii, �ttSS2tc��USP#t • 3 m 10luttxtiitg 39uartl -Minutes of 12/8/77 Page 6 • Bill stated that the last criteria states that the Special Permit is Valid for two years. Construction must begin before the two years is up. Bill Tinti furhher stated that the Board will have to vote on each criteria for the special permit separately. The Board next discussed the sideline requirements of this plan. Bill Tinti stated that neither the Salem Zoning Ordinance or Section 9 of the State's 808 Zoning makes any direct mention that the sideline or setback requirements be automatically waived. Bill stated, however, that Section 9 of 808 does grant authority over "dimendional controls" to the Planning Board. For this reason, the City Solicitor feels that it is in the Planning Board's power to waive the sideline and setback requirements for the proposed development. Brian O'Keefe questioned what would be necessary for the developer to comply with the sideline and setback requirements. David Lash stated that 75% of the sideline and setback inadequacies in the present plan could be corrected with minor placement changes. However, approximately 25% of the existing inadequacies would require "substantial changes to fit these requirements." Ted Sadoski suggested that the owner should submit a list of the lots that do not comply with the sideline and setback requirements along with the reasons for not compling. Bill Tinti stated that in the final review of the plan the Board could exercise their authority under "dimensional control" to decide what requirements to waive. Walter Power stated that the Board will try to vote on this special permit application and subdivision plan at the December 15, 1977 meeting of the Board. He also stated that there would be a special meeting of the Board to further discuss Pickman Park next Monday at One Salem Green. • y���pcawrt�. cd of J �Iattttin$ �uat-1 �ItP �M�Ptti �LPPIS • - Minutes of 12/8/77 Page 7 . Loring Hills Bill Tinti informed the Board that the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the appeal of Loring Hills on Monday. Bill stated that a decision will be issued in six weeks. Bill also pointed out that the "Agreement in Principal" had not been signed by the developers because the court had ruled that Messrs. Quigley and Brettman were not allowed to sign without the court's permission. Bill also informed the Board that the appraisals arrived at for Parcel H varied too greatly for an agreement on price to be arrived at easily. Bill stated that the alternative to more appraisals and a com- promise price would be for the City to take the land by eminent domain. Bill advised the Board that it could be agreed that when the final price is then decided, then the city would pay i the value of the land. • Ted Sadoski questioned what would happen if the time had "run out" on the present grants that are proposed to be utilized for the Forest River land acquisisn. David Lash stated that the state was pleased with the Forest River acquisition plan, but that funding would "depend on their grant cycle". Bill Tinti stated that the City Council has to vote the land taking. Brian O'Keefe stated that a new agreement in Principal with changes relevant to the portion of the agreement dealing with Parcel H should be submitted to the Developers to sign before a decision is handed down by the Supreme Judicial Court. Bill Tinti added that if the Board votes on a revised Agreement and puts a time limit on the developers to sign it, then the Board will not be tied to the Agreement if the developers refuse to sign in the stated time. Walter Power stated that the Board would vote;om this at the next Planning Board Meeting. ���•GMD![�, s y �`Q�, (�i#� z�f ���etu, �I�t�s�cl��t�e##� 9��5�••Y �""°°�o� �ItP �MlPtll �IPPtt • J Minutes of 12/8/77 Page 8 • UDAG Nancy Kepes and David Lash were present to speak to the Board relevant to the UDAG grant application. Nancy informed the Board that the City Council has referred action on this to committee and will be voting on it on December 22nd and the application will be submitted on December 23rd. Nancy further explained that HUD's cirteria for this grant was one of economic revitalization of a depressed area. The application itself would be a three part application - two of which it is hoped will be funded by HUD. The three areas of the grant applications are: 1. Revitalization of the area around the South River. It is felt that this area should provide a link between the Pickering Wharf development and the rest of the City. It was explained that the parking problems in • the area will be greatly increased with the development of Pickering Wharf. The plan for this would be to take some land abutting the river to be used for parking. Nancy pointed out that this would also open up more of Salem's waterfront. She also stated that New England Power would be askedto screen their transformers from view. Bill Wheaton questioned if there would be dredging of the South River. Nancy replied that there would be some, but that with the sewer project much of the pollution would be cleared up. 2. Neighborhood improvement of the Point section of Salem. This section would deal with grants and loans to property owners in that area to rehabilitate their buildings to code standards. Another part of this section would call for $100,000 to be allocated for enforcement of the code. Nancy added that part of the money for this portion of the grant would be used for the City acquiring various buildings in the area, improve them and then to resell the homes for condaminiums. Nancy stressed that all efforts would be made to insure that the people y���ry.GOND2a. s� TAU of 39?•M c4 Pl atuting l9varb `sem""°"��� �CIP �FIIPlII �CPPri Minutes of 12/8/77 Page 9 • now living in the area would not be displaced. 3. A Community Center for the Hispanic people living in the area. The center would serve as a clearing house for people with language barriers, and would provide information on available employment, da* care etc. Donald Hunt questioned how many businesses would have to be relocated for the revitalization of the South River Area. David replied that 5 or 6 businesses would have to be relocated, but that the owners have been informally approached and they have offered no objections. He added that the money needed for their relocation would be included in the grant. John Brown questioned the possible changes to Shetland Mills. Nancy stated that this was not part of the UDAG proposal. David stated that various plans for increased usage are being discussed. Technical assistance, small business loans to help with expansion and increased employment • through apprentice programs are among the ideas being discussed. Brian O'Keefe questioned whether $250,000 would be enough to acquire and staff the Community Center for 3 years. David stated that an existing building would be renovated,. with apartments on the second floor and that part of the staff would be provided by CETA. He also stated that the City would be responsible for the center after 3 years. When questioned on the cost of the proposed code enforcement task force beyond the 3 years allocated, David replied that he felt the State was going to be strengthening their buildings and sanitary codes anyway. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by John Brown to adjourn the meeting at lOs45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • ( i# ofleiu, �Mss�zclf�ze## �,?'>a �g ���tttltitta �uartl • s 1"° `oa Wnp -'M1Ptn (SIPPtl • ! �r VETtvl of IT�Ptil� �t$SMC tt8E 3 ' � '`- ; p �I�tttttittg marl Che Onlent GIPPtt MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD HELD DECEMBER 15, 1977, 7:30 P.M. THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM MASSACHUSETTS Members Present: Paul D'Amour, Brian O'Keefe, Abby Burns, Richard Lutts, William, Wheaton, Donald Hunt, Ted Sadoski, Walter Power Members Absent: John Brown The Chairman declared a quorum present and the meeting in session at 7:30 P.M. A motion was made by Paul D'Amour and seconded by Brian O'Keefe to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 17, 1977 as corrected. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. After a brief discussion of the DPW Wetlands Special Permit application which calls for the installation of Storm Drains as part of the rehabilitation of the Vinnin Square area, a motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Abby Burns to grant the Special Permit as outlined on the Plans submitted by the City Engineer's office on November 17, 1977 entitled "Vinnin Square Salem Drainage". The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. Pickman Park The Chairman opened discussion on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was submitted by Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc, Carter and Towers Engineering Corporation, and Three Associates Inc. . Michael Moniz informed the Board that the reviewing Boards (Board of Health, Con- servation Commission, Building Inspector and City Engineer) had all responded to the Enviromental Impact Statement. The City Engineer, Building Inspector and Board of Health had "no qualifications" relevant r- Minutes of 12/7577 Page 2 to the Environmental Impact statement. The questions and concerns raised by Brian French of the Conservation Commission were addressed by James MacDowell of Carter & Towers Engineering Corp. in a letter to Mr. French dated December 15, 1977. The Conservation Commission's concerns relevant to erosion and sedimentation controls during and after construction were addressed by Mr. MacDowell and will be added to the EIS as Addendum 1. Both the letter to Mr. French and Addendum #1 to the EIS are attached at the end fif these minutes. Ted Sadoski questioned whether the responses from the various Boards and City Agencies were verbal or written comments. Michael responded that they were verbal. Chairman Walter Power stated that these responses should be obtained in writting from the commenting Boards and City De- partments. Brian French of the Conservation Commission gave a brief review of various parts of the EIS. He stated that there would be 304 units in the Subdivision Plan. This would result in 3.9 units per acre. The EIS estimates that 864 persons will be living in the subdivision. If this is true, Brian questioned if the estimate of 300 vehicles is valid. It is also estimated that there will be 250 children in the subdivision, 100 of which will be school age. The EIS cUims that these children can be absorbed in the present Salem School system. Relevant el t to traffic, Brian stated that if there were 6 vehicle trips P per day per unit that that would amount to 1800 vehicle trips. Brian estimated that during the peak commuting hour in the morning there would be 180 vehicle trips. Brian estimated that 34% of this traffic would be entering Pickman Rd. and 60o would be entering Jefferson Ave. This would add one car per minute to the traffic on these streets during the commuting, Minutes of 12/1577 Page 3 hour. Brian added that he felt this estimate would be slightly higher during the afternoon commuting time. Brian concluded by stating he estimated that traffic on a daily average basis would be increased 3% northbound and 4% southbound. Brian also noted that the pollution created by this development would amount to 7 parts per million which is far less than the standard of 35 parts per million set by the State. In addition Mr. French stated that the treatment of erosion controls in the original EIS was not sufficient, but that the Addendum submitted by Carter and Towers does give additional comments that he felt were sufficient. Specifically noted by Brian were the additional comments relevant to the dredging that will be done to the pond on Parcel 2. This was adequately addressed in Section 30 of the addendum to the EIS. • In summation Brian stated that the Conservation Commission endorses the issuance of a Cluster Development Special Permit for this development since the number of units planned is low, there will be minimum disturbance of the land and there will be a higher proportion of open space than would be possible with other subdivision plans under consideration. Ted Sadoski pointed out that the commuting time would be more than one hour in the morningand afternoon so traffic for this period would not be as high as Brian's previous estimate. Donald Hunt noted that additional comments on the traffic flow and impact on the area could be found in the letter written to Brian French by James MacDowell dated December 15, 1977. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Donald Hunt that the Planning Board accepts the Environmental Impact statement for Pickman Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 4 • Park written by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Carter and Towers Engineering Corp, and Three Associates, dated September 1977 as presented with the additional information contained in a letter to Brian French by Mames MacDowell of Carter and Towers on December 15, 1977, and with Addendum #1 to the EIS as prepared by Carter and Towers Engineering Corporation. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. City Solicitor Bill Tinti noted that for the Special Permit to be In the correct form, it was necessary for the Board to make specific findings relevant to why the Board is giving the Special Permit and include them as part of the Special Permit itself. Atty. Tinti suggested that the Board vote on each of the requirements 'for Cluster Development as stated in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Relevant to Section N Subsection 5 of the Salem Zoning Ordiaance, • the following findings were made: 1. Relevant to the requirement that "No structure shall exceed two and one half (2.5) stories, it was noted that this requirement formed part of the covenants agreed to by the Developer and the City, It was also noted that conformance with this condition will be verified by submission and approval of the building plan before the granting of a Building Permit. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Paul DIA rL our that the Board finds that no structure on the Definitive Subdivision Plan dated March 17, 1977 and revised June 13, 1977 and December 14, 1977 will exceed 2.5 stories. Ted Sadoski asked if the developer agreed with this statement. Attorney Peter Beatrice, representing the Developer, stated that he agreed. Ted Sadoski asked if there were any comments from the audience relevant . to this finding. There were no comments. The Chairman called for a vote- on this motion. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 5 carried. 2. Relevant to the requirement that "As far as possible, the plan follows the natural contours of the terrain and respects the natural features of the site," a motion was made by Bill Wheaton that the Board finds, based on the EIS prepared by Alan M. Voorhees,& Associates, Inc, Carter & Towers Engineering Corporation and Three Associates Inc., and a review of the Definitive Plan, as well as the comments of the Salem Conservation Commission, that the plan follows the natural contours of the terrain and respects the natural features of the site. Ted Sadoski asked if the developer agreed with this statement. Attorney Beatrice stated that he agreed. Ted Sadoski asked if there were any comments from the audience releaant to this finding. There was no comment. The Chairman called for a vote on this motion. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion . carried. 3. Relevant to the requirement that "The proposed plan is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance and the Master Plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purposes of this section", it was noted by Bill Wheaton that the Master Plan for the City of Salem states that the best use for the area in question is one of housing. Bill also noted that current zoning allows for this type of development. A motion was made by Brran O'Keefe and seconded by Donald Hunt that the Planning Board finds that the application complies with the requirement that the proposed plan is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purposes of Section VII N of the Zoning Ordinance in that the City's Master Plan was cited as stating that the best use for the . area in question is one of housing. Ted Sadoski asked if the developer Minutes of 1ZA5/77 Page 6 • agreed with this statement. Attorney Peter Beatrice stated that he agreed. Ted Sadoski asked if there were any comments from the audience relevant to this finding. There were no comments. The Chairman called for a vote on this motion. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. 4. Relevant to the requirement that "The area of the tract of land to be subdivided is not less than five acres" , it was noted that the Definitive Subdivision Plan submitted for Pickman Park establishes that the sections for the Subdivision are in excess of five acres. The total tract of land to be subdivided contains 78.5 acres. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Paul D'Amour in considering the Definitive Subdivision Plan submitted by Salem Acres, dated March 17, 1977, revised June 13, 1977 and December 14, 1977 it was established that the area of the tract of land to be subdivided is not less than five acres. Ted Sadoski asked if the developer agreed with this statement. James MacDowell of Carter and Towers Engineering Corp., representing the developer, stated that he agreed. Ted Sadoski asked if there were any comments from the audience relevant to this finding. ' There were no comments. The Chairman called for a vote on this motion. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. 5. Staley MCDermet of the Planning Department was asked to provide in- formation relevant to the requirement that "When the open land is added to the building lots, the total area shall be at least equal in area to the land area required by the Ordinance or by-law for the total number of units or buildings contemplated in the development for the zoning district." • Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 7 Staley responded that the sq . ft. per dwelling unit is established by including the proposed land to be donated to the City of Salem with the land to be designated for the development as shown on the Definitive Subdivision Plan. Staley stated that there will be 11,732 sq . ft. per dwelling unit which exceeds the 3,500 square feet of land per dwelling unit required by the Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R-3 District. A motion was made by Donald Hunt and seconded by Abby Burns that the Planning Board finds that the application complies with the requirement that when the open land is added to the building lots, the total area is at least equal in area to the land area required by the Ordiance for the total number of units or buildings comtemplated in the development for the zoning district in that when the open land is added to the building lots there t11 be 11,732 square feet of land per dwelling unit ihish exceeds the • 3,500 square feet of land per dwelling unit required by the Salem Zoning Ordinance for an R - 3 district. Ted Sadoski asked if the developer agreed with this statement. James MacDowell, representing the developer, stated that he agreed. Ted Sadoski asked if there were any comments from the audience relevant to this finding. There were no comments. The Chairman called for a vote on this motion. The vote was unanimous- and the Chairman declared the motion carried. 6. Relevant to the requirement that "At least twenty percent of the total tract areas (of which at least fifty percent shall not be wetlands or slopelands, no shall it include streets, ways and parking areas) shall be set aside as common land and shall consist of usable open space.", Brian O'Keefe requested the extent of land outlined on the Definitive Subdivision • Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 8 • Plan for Pickman Park as usable open space. Staley McDermet replied that 34.919 acres are to be deeded to the City as Open Space. Of this land, Brian French of the Conservation Commission stated that no more than 30-40% consists of wetland. This would insure approximately 18 acres of usuable open space. Brian O'Keefe hate&that there will be a 75 foot buffer zone between the proposed subdivision and existing development that would add more land as open space. A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Abby Burns that the Board finds that the application complies with the requirement that at least twenty percent of the total tract are (of which at least fifty (50) percent is not wetlands or slopelands, nor streets ways and parking areas) has been set aside as common land and consists of usable open space in that 34.919 acres (44.5% of the total acreage) will be deeded to the City which exceeds the requirement that at least 20% • of the total tract acres be set aside as common land. Of this common land, the Salem Conservation Commission verified that no more than 40/ of the 34.919 acres are wetlands or slopelands. In addition to the above land to ve deeded to the City, a 75 foot buffer zone between the proposed subdivision and existing development and restricted areas with the sub- division are reserved as open space for the use of the future residents of the subdivision. Ted Sadoski asked if the developer agreed with this statement. James MacDowell; representing the Developer, stated that he agreed. Ted Sadoski asked if there were any comments from the audience relevant to this finding. There were no comments. The Chairman called for a vote on this motion. The vote was unatimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. • Minutes of 12/1577 Page 9 • 7. Relevant to the requirement that "The Cluster Development would not result in a net negative environmental impact.", the Board considered the responses from the commenting city boards and agencies. Brian French again stated that the development will contain low density of housing minimum disturbance of the land and preservation of natural areas for open space. It was also noted that the EIS had concluded that there would be no net negative environmental impact. Ted Sadoski asked if the developer agreed with this finding. James MacDowell, speaking for the developer, agreed that the proposed subdivision would not have a net negative environmental impact. Ted Sadoski asked if there were any comments form the audience. Attorney Fleming, speaking for various residents living in the area of the proposed development, stated that he felt the comments made at the Public Hearing on October 6, 1977 should be included • in the minutes indicating that there have been comments indicating that there will be a 'net negative impact' . Ted Sadoski asked that he specifically outline the causes he fe&ls will result in a net negative environmental impact. Attorney Flemming asked the Board to consider the results of the increased traffic on the quality of the neighborhood. Brian O'Keefe stated that any development of land does have some impact on the surrounding area and that the Planning Board has carefully considered this and the responses from the various City Boards and agencies before making any findings. Bill Wheaton added that he was aware that some of the neighbors of the proposed development objected to the development, but that the Board had to consider the effect of the proposed development on the entire City and not just one specific area. Ted Sadoski asked if Mr. Fleming would be satidfied if the comments made at the Public Hearing were included in the motion • relevant to this zoning requirement. Attorney Flemming agreed. Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 10 • A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Paul D'Amour that the Planning Board finds that the application complies with the requirement that the Cluster Development will not result in a net negative environmental impact in that after review of the Environmental Impact Statmment prepared for the Salem Planning Board by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. dated September 1977, and after receipt of comments by the Salem Conservation Commission stating that the developpent will contain low density of housing, minimum disturbance of the land and preservation of natural areas for open space, and after reviewing Comments from the Board of Health, City Engineer and Building Inspector, and after review of comments received at the public hearing held October 6, 1977 they find that the proposed development will not result in a net negative impact. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. • The City Solicitor suggested that the Board next consider subsection 6 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which deals with provisions to be made relevant to ownership of the "usuable open space". Ted Sadoski stated that subsection 5f, which the Board has already acted upon deals with this. A motion was made by Ted Sadoski and seconded by Brian O'Keefe that the following two provisions be made with regard to the open space portion of the site. First, that the 34.92 acres to be deeded to the City will be used for open space and conservation use. Second, that the open space within the development will be owned by an association and/or the individual owners of the lots and will be preserved as open space by land use restrictions to be included on all conveyances or transfers of land. Brian O'Keefe questioned at what point in the consideration of the . Special Permit would the withdrawal of previous submitted plans by the de- Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 11 • veloper be considered. Bill Tinti suggested that the Board first make its findings, then their statement of reasons, then specify the donditions the permit will be granted under and then vote on the issuance of the Special Permit itself. Relevant to the Purpose clause of the Cluster Residential Zoning section, Bill Tinti. suggested that it be established with specific reasons why the Pickman Park Subdivision plan fulfills "the purposes of promoting the more efficient use of land in harmony with its natural features and with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance and to protect and promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City, . ." He suggested that the benefits to be gained by this develop- ment should form part of the Board's action. Brian O'Keefe stated that the Conservation Lnad, Buffer Zone, low • density of housing units, open space and the nature of the units them- selves could be included. After a brief discussion relevant to the natural features of the area a motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Donald Hunt that the Planning Board, after reviewing the definitive subdivision plan, EIS and comments from the various city Boards and agencies finds that the development fulfils the purposefof the Clustef Residential-Development portion of the Zoning Ordinance in that this parcel of land has many environmental features worthy of protection and that a Cluster Development best protects such features. Such features include much high land with scenic overlooks, gradually sloped land which still retains its natural vegetation cover, and important wetlands as delineated in the Salem Wetlands Maps, and in the Salem Conservation, Open Space and Recreation Plan. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the • Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 12 motion carried. Relevant to the second part of .the purpose clause a motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Paul D'Amour that the Planning Board having reviewed the definitive subdivision plan submitted March 17, 1977, revised June 13, 1977 and December 14, 1977, the EIS submitted September 1977 as well as the comments from the Conservation Commission, Building Inspector, City Engineer and Board of Health finds that the Pickman Park Cluster Residential Plan submitted protects and promotes the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City. The Board next reviewed the draft dated 12/1/77 of the covenants between the developer and the City which will form the conditions of the Cluster Residential Development Special Permit. The City Solicitor suggested that condition #1 stating "The developer shall comply strictly with building code and zoning requirements and in particular with the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section V. "Use Regulations", B. "Special Permit Uses", 4. "R-3 Districts - Multi-Family Residential", e. "Garden type (multi-family dwelling)", paragraphs (1) through (11)", be stricken since it refers to garden type apartments and the developer has filed for a Cluster Reskdential Special Permit. Ted Sadoski stated that he thought the first sentence of that covenant should remain. It was the consensus of those present that the first sentence form #1 of the conditions to the special permit. The City Solicitor suggested that the words "and approved by" be stricken from condition #2 of the covenants and that the Definitive Subdivision plan be specifically referenced. It was the consensus of the Board members present that covenant #2 be condition #2 of the Special Permit and read as follows, "The developer shall strictly comply with and Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 13 • adhere. to the cluster development plan submitted to the Salem Planning Board and as shown on the approved definitive plan." It was also a consensus of the board that the definitive plan be referenced at the beginning of the list of conditions as follows: "The words "Definitive Plan" as used in the following conditions refer to the set of 26 sheets entitled "Definitive Subdivision Plan Pickman Park Salem, Mass." by Three Associates, 13 Central St., Salem, Massachusetts, and Carter and Towers Engineering Corporation, 6 Fairview Avenue, Swampscott, Massachusetts, dated March 17, 1977, revised June 13, 1977 and December 14, 1977." It was suggested by the City Solicitor that the works "and signed" be added to covenant #3. It was the consensus of those present that covenant #3 should become condition #3 of the Special Permit and should read, "All building plans shall be prepared and signed by an architect licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Mass." It was suggested that covenant #4 on the draft be substituted with the statement that "all site plans for buildings will conform to state and local statutes and ordinances." It was the consensus of those board members present that this be done. It was the consensus that covenants #5 and #6 of this draft remain as is. Covenant #5 reads "Ex6erior building designs shall be compatible with the surrounding natural state of the land." Covenant #6 reads: "No building or structure of any kind shall be erected which shall exceed 2.5 stories in height measured from the mean finished grade at the building line." It was suggested that the third sentence of Covenant #7 form condition • #8 and that the words "numbered 3,4,5,6, and 7" be added at the end of con- dition #8. This condition would read, 'Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Board prior to application for a building permit for verifica- tion of conformance with conditions numbered 3,4,5,6, and 7. Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 14 • It was the consensus of the Board Members present that this be done. It was also the consensus of the board members present that the first two sentences of covenant #7 form Condition #7 of the Special Permit. This condition will read as follows: "Dwelling units to be erected upon the above descrVbed property shall contain no more than two bedrooms. A "den", "study", or similar room shall be considered as a bedroom. It was the consenses of those present that covenant #8 form condition #9 and that since there will be a total of 304 units in the devellpment, that the restriction of requesting building permits and occupancy cer- tificates for not more than 150 units in any year be amended to read 152 units . It was the consensus of the Board members present that covenant #9 1' be numbered condition #10 and that the wording remain the same. This , . condition will read as follows: "The developer agrees to follow the contours of the site and shall utilize to a maximum the existing vegetation and topography". It was suggested that the words "and minimum curb radius" be added to covenant #10 and that this covenant be renumbered to become condition #11 of the Special Permit. This correct wording now reads as follows: "Roads, parking areas and utilities shall be constructed in accordance with City specifications except for roads which deviate from City speci- fications with respect to width and minimum curb radius, and except for the lack of curbs, both as skown on the approved Definitive Plan." It was the consensus of those Board members present that Covenants #11 and #12 be renumbered to form conditions 12 and 13 respectively . and that the wording of the covenants remain the same. Condition #11 would CARTER & TOWERS ENGINEERING CORP. Joseph D.Carter 6 FAIRVIEW AVENUE Protess,onal Engineer SWAMPSCOTT, MASS. 01907 Registered Land surveyor Tel. 592-8386 December 15, 1977 mr. Brian French Salem Conservation Commission 26 Dickman Road Salem, sass. 01970 Dear ur. French: Fie are in receipt of the questions which you raised pertaining to the Plans and Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Dickman Park Subdivision in Salem, Massachusetts . We shall address each of the points herein. s the following modifications With respect to the subdivision plan , has been made: 1• Permanent monuments (stone bounds) have been indicated to be installed along the interface of the Phase 3 lots and the 28. 3 acre parcel to be donated to the City, as well as at certain points on parcel 2 and the 2.969 acre parcel. These monuments will be installed prior to Play 30, 1978. 2 . The restricted areas in Phase 3 have been labelled as "Con- servation Restricted Areas" . 3 . The 75 ' Buffer Zone adjacent to the existing residential area has been specifically designated on the plans. 4 . A set of sheets 17 & 23-26 have been marked to generally indicate the areas which- will be unaffected by construction. A copy of these plans is attached hereto for your review. te t trees 5 . A note has been atpe (overlooking eslosheet 23 to nJeffersonaAvenue) along the northeast p are to be preserved to the greatest extent possible (i•e• those which are not affected by earthwork adjacent to that area) . 6 . Adomeatteed tod beuCdtydwi111belprovidedealongewithcalcomplete plan of the 28 . 3 acre parcel will be provided to the Conser vation Commission no later than January 15, 1978 . . 7 • A metes and bounds description of the arstinthePhase 3having vation conservation Restrictions will be provided on within 30 days of notification of this office of Commissi the form acceptable to the State and City. CIVIL ENGINEERING PERCOLATION TESTS SEWAGE DISPOSAL DESIGNS SURVEYING 2 - With respect to the Environmental Impact Statement: 1. McXinley Road has been tentatively changed (subject to Planning Board Approval) to Fillmore Road and should be so noted throughout the E. I.S. 2 . Any statistics referring to intensity of land use, etc. are to be considered general only. 3. Page 8, paragraph 3A should include the following state hent "A past source of water supply lies downstream of the site, off Leggs Hill Road, but is not affected by the proposal. " 4 Page 8, Section 3B - see addendum attached hereto. 5. Page 11, Section C8 - This statement pertains to the portion of the site lying in the South River watershed. It should be noted that the southeasterly portion of Phase 3 is in the Forest River watershed. The impact upon drainage characteristics within that watershed is however relatively minor. • 6 . Page 16, Sec. 5C - the second paragraph evidently led to some confusion. Ile have discussed this with a representa- tive of Alan M. Voorhees, who suggested the following ex- planation: Noise level (with respect to traffic) is considered to be a function of the number of vehicles, the speed of those vehicles and vehicle mix (i.e. trucks vs , cars) . By splitting the traffic flow, as has been done in Pickman Park, noise level increases are minimized since there is a lower number of vehicles on any given existing residen- tial street than if all traffic were channelled to one exit from the subdivision. Further, speeds are kept down because of the nature of the existing streets and the length of the run from any point within the. subdivision to a ma36r artery such as Loring Avenue or Jefferson Avenue. The vehicle mix was not considered important since the sub- division is residential in its character and only service type vehicles will enter or exit. In summary, the fewest' number of people are affected by noise level increase, which is minimized by the roadway configuration. Noise level increase from the project is restricted to Preston and Pick- man Roads. • 3 - 7 . Page 30; Section 6a; the units of the numbers shown in the • table are as follows: Dailv - vehicle trips per day per dwelling unit; Hourly (A.M. & P.M. ) vehicle trips per hour per dwelling unit. The last paragraph on page 30 is simply an explanation of the differentiation of the total number of vehicle trips per day and the total number of vehicles =. on site. u 8 . Page 37 - Section 3. The estimates for Pickman Park popu- lation are based on the following: 1. Each building will have one 2 bedroom unit (owner occupied in theory) with the remaining unit (s) being one bedroom. It has been assumed that two _persons will occupy each bedroom. Therefore: 1 bedroom units = 176 x 2 persons = 352 persons 2 = 128 x 4 persons = 512 persons Total Estimated Population 864 persons The assumption is considered valid since the occurence of children in one bedroom units is minimal, due to the nature of the unit. Further the assumption of two children, since many such units will be likely occupied by one child, or in some cases, none. The figure of approximately 250 children living in Pickman Parc is derived by multiplying 128 x 2 (rounded to 250 from 256) . 9 . Page 41: Section 2a; Three parcels are to be donated to the City of Salem for Conservation and Recreation uses : 1 . Pond - Parcel 2 3. 65 acres 2. Parcel north of Pickman Road 2 .969 acres 3. Parcel south of Pickman Road 28 . 3acres TOTAL 34. 919=acres 10 . Although no mention of the fact was made, all data in the EIS refers to the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Pickman Park, dated march 17, 1977; revised June 13, 1977 & December 14 , 1977. we hope that this letter and the appended data will help clarify your questions concerning the project. If we may be of further assist- ance in this matter, please contact us. r" Respectfully submitted, JHMacD:FL'a Jame MacDowell cc: Salem Planning Board • Peter R. Beatrice, Jr. , Esquire ADDENDUM No. 1 • Section 3 Water and Wetlands b. Erosion and Sedimentation Control During Construction `- Tres procedures to be used on a given project during the c{;nstruction phase to minimize erosion and sedimentation a e dependent, upon several factors: 1. Type of 'soil and ground slope 2. Rainfall characteristics 3. Construction methods Specific procedures may vary within a given site and are not often not determinable until work within an area has commenced. With respect to Pickman Park, certain procedures will be em- ployed as required by local conditions. Such procedures may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1 . Placement of a matting of hay on cleared slopes until permanent vegetative cover is in place. 2. Placement of hay around catch basins to act as a filter to prevent sediment from entering drains. 3. Placement of subbase materials such as crushed stone or _ gravel as soon as possible. 4 . Limitation of clearing operations within the site: a. The developer has agreed to not seek building permits for more than 150 units in any one year which would limit the annual construction area to approximately 15 to 20 acres. From a practical standpoint it is unlikely that more than 10 acres of land would be undergoing active construction at any given time. Further, final planting and grading within any given phase must be completed at the end of work in that phase by agreement. 5. Careful placement of soil stock piles so as to minimize the likelihood of erosion, and covering of soil stock piles as required by weather, soil stability and loca-. ,. tion. 6 . Establishment of a permanent vegetative cover in dis- turbed areas as soon as possible. 7 . Provision for proper channelization of runoff during . , . construction. B. Such other. procedures as required by local conditions will be employed using U.S.D.A. Soil conservation Service Guidelines and Technical assistance as required. • - 2 - • Section 3c Permanent Erosion and Sedimentation Control Methods The following paragraph concerning the work to be done in dredging the pond' on Parcel 2 and placement of fill adjacent thereto should be added: The construction procedures and permanent erosion control pzac- tices involved in the work to be done in dredging the pond on Parcel 2 and filling adjacent land will be reviewed by the Salem Conserva- tion Commission at the time of filing a Notice of Intent in accordance with the provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act. Procedures to be , used in dredging the pond are subject to modification pending comple- tion of engineering review, but are anticipated to include such items as : 1 . Performance of work during low-flow periods such as late summer and early fall_ 2. Temporary damming to prevent downstream transport of sediment from the area to be dredged with provision for drainage around area of work. 3. Use of proper fill materials on Fillmore Road and Parcel 1- i.e, materials having low silt or clay content. 4 . Rapid establishment of permanent vegetative cover on filled areas adjacent to pond. 5. Employment of such other erosion control practices as out- lined in section 3b above. • Minutes of 12/1577 Page 15 • read: "Roads, parking areas and utilities shall be constructed in accor- dance with City specifications except for roads which deviate from City :y specifications with respect to width and minimum curb radius, and except " for the lack of curbs, both as shown on the approved Definitive Plan." Condition #12 would read: "The entrance roads to the development shall be narrowed and shall be plainly m arked "Private Way"." Staley McDermet suggested that the phrase "except where stated on the approved Definitive Plan" be added to covenant #13 on the draft. It was the consensus of the Board Members present that covenant #13 form condition #14 to the Special Permit and that the wording would be as follows: "A minimum of 75' wide buffer strip except where noted on the approved Definitive Plan, shall be provided between this development and existing neighborhoods upon which no building will take place. Buffer . strip is to remain private and part of development." Relevant to covenant #14, Staley McDermet stated that the Definitive Subdivision Plan submitted has marked the areas designated for tennis courts "FOR RECREATION". Staley suggested that the areas on Sheets 2,3, and 5 agreed on for the possible construction of tennis courts be delineated on the plans. James MacDowell agreed to so mark the plans. It was the consensus of the Board Members present that covenant #14 form condition #15 of the Special Permit and that the condition should read as follows: "Land as shown on the approved Definitive Plan (sheets 2,3 and 5) shall be designated as available for the construction of tennis courts, which may be built at a later time by the owners of the devel- opment." Relevant to covenant #15 on the draft it was the consensus of the Board members present that that covenant formtCondition #16 of the Special Permit and that the wording be as follows: "The developer shall Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 16 • provide an adequate (12") sewer extension from the City lines, along the railroad tracks to the property. An eighteen inch (18") line shall be provided if required by the City, and the City shall pay the difference between the 12" line and the 18" line." Relevant to Covenant #16 on the draft there was a brief discussion on the exact amount of land to be donated to the City. James MacDowell stated that 3.65 acres will be deeded to the City from lot 2 and 31.269 acres from lot 4. ., This would mean thatitheitotal amount of,land given to the City would be 34.919 acres...eJames MacD6well.pointed oitt9thatzonso the Definitive`Subdivision'Plan�thesekareas were no longer marked lot 2 and 4, but were marked as "Conservation Parcel". Bill Tinti pointed out that in the Memorandum of Understanding submitted to the City Council on October 24, 1974 the figure 32.9 acres was designated as the amount • of land to be given to the City. It was the consensus of the Board members present that covenant #16 form Condition #17 of the Special Permit and that the wording be as follows: "The developer shall improve the area shown as conservation parcel containing 3.65 acres by properly dredging the same and forming thereon a pond which shall meet with the approval of the Salem Conservation Commission and shall also, following completion of the same and upon the request of the City, convey said parcel and the area shown as Conservation Parcel containing 31.269 acres, to the City of Salem for no consideration, to be managed under the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 8c. It was the consensus of the Board members present that Covenant #17 form condition #18 of the Special Permit and that the location of the parking lot be referenced to the Definitive Subdivision Plan. Condition • #18 would read as follows: "The developer shall provide a gravel parking Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 17 • lot in the conservation area as shown on Sheet 16 of the Approved Definitive Plan." It was the consensus of the board members present that Covenant #18 form Condition #19 and that the words "at that location" be added so that the condition would read, "Site preparation (topsoil clearance or filling) at any location shall not commence more than three months prior to oonstruction at that location." Relevant to Covenant #19, Ted Sadoski questioned whether it would be possible for the developer to prevent some soil erosion during construc- tion. He stated that he agreed with the intent of the covenant but $hat in any construction, some soil erosion can not be prevented. Attorney Beatrice suggested that it be stated that the developer will "take all necessaryr precautions to prevent soil erosion. It was the consensus of those board members present that Covenant #19 form Condition #20 and that the wording should be as followss "The developer shall not dump waste materials on the site or adjacent property and agrees to take all neces- sary precautions as outlined in the Addendum No 1 to the Environmental Impact Statement to prevent soil erosion during construction and to complete the project in such a fashion that soil erosion shall be prevented." It was the consensus of the board members present that covenant #20 form condition #21 on the Special Permit and that the wording remain the same. This condition will read. "The stand of trees at entrance to Phase III loop and extending southwesterly shall be left standing except those in parth of entrance road. After preliminary road layout on site prior to commencement of construction, the Conservation Commission shall be consulted • so that monor alterations can be made to allow for retaining existing vegetation." Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 18 • Relevant to Covenant #21 there was a brief discussion that the word "immediately" in the sentence "All land disturbed by construction of this road shall be properly finish graded and seeded with grass immediately following completion of t&is binder course.",would be inappropr@ate at some times of the year. It was the consensus of those members present that Covenant #21 form Condition #22 of the Special Permit and that the work immediately be ommitted from the condition. Relevant to Covenant #22, it was the consensus of the Boad members present that it form condition #23 of the Special Permit and that the worRing remain the Salem. This condition reads as follows: "The developer shall properly grade to natural drainage patterns and landscape all land that has been disturbed and is not to be built upon. This includes the ends of the roads in previous adjacent subdivisions, developed or owned by Salem Acres, Inc." Relevant to convenant #23 Staley stated that 50 feet was an arbitrary figure and that the ittent of the convanent was the insuring that a cer- tain number of trees would be planted. He further pointed out that some streets have no houses on one side and that the architect may prefer to cluster some trees rather than place them at regular intervals. It was the consensus of the members present that covenant #23 of the draft form Condition #24 of the Special Permit and read as followsY "Where land has been disturbed, the developer, as work progresses, shall plant grass, shrubbery and trees suitable to the area. Roadways are to have trees planted at every 50 feet on center, on each side, with at least one tree per house lot." Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 19 Relevant to covenant #24 it was the consensus of the Board members present that covenant #24 for Condition #25 of the Special Permit and that the wording remain the same. This condition would read as follows: "All phases of development: Deeds to all dwelling units shall have proper legal language included to guarantee each property owner his rights and responsibilities to the common open area. This must deal with rights of access of owners, occupants and guests over all restricted areas or common areas, and must also deal with rights of owners." Relevant to Covenant #25 Bill Tinti suggested that the following wording be inserted at the beginning of the "Land Use Restrictions": "Prior to the issuance of any building permit or conveyance or transfer of any land land use restrictions shall be presented to the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall examine such land use restrictions and approve the • same if they are in accordance with the following:" Staley McDermet noted that the words "fence" and "paving" had been added to the Conser- vation Restrictions of Phase III. Brian French stated that the high hill in the Phase III section should also be designated on the Definitive Subdivision Plan as being under the same conservation restrictions that goven the rest of the open common land of Phase III. Jim MacDowell disagreed and Attorney Beatrice stated that under these restrictions the people owning property in Phase III would not be able to use the common land. Brian French pointed out that the original idea of Phase III was that it was to be constructed and used in such a way that the visual impact to the conservation land would be minimized. Bill Wheaton added that the restrictions do not eliminate use of the land by the residents of Phase III but does restrict such use. Bill Tinti added that the City does Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 20 z • have an element of control in the protection of the impact of some uses of a high hill in anis part of the development. It was the consensus of the members present that the conservation restrictions for Phase III include the loop area surrounded by Pickman Road. It was also the con- sensus of the Board members present that covenant #25 form Condition #26 of the Special Permit and read as follows: "Prior to the issuance of any building permit or conveyance or transfer of any land land use restrictions shall be presented to the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall examine such land use restrictions and approve the same if they are in accordance Lith the following: A. Portions of Phase III land labeled "Conservation Restricted Area" and including the area within the loop of Pickman Road on the approved De- finitive Plan shall have Consbrvation Restrictions as follows: • CONSERVATION RESTRICTIONS We of County of Massachusetts, grant without covenant to the City of Salem, hereinafter referred to as the City, a conservation restriction on a parcel of land located in said City, bounded and described as follows: (Enter here description of Phase III restricted areas) Coded map or description The terms of the conservation restriction are as follows: that neither we nor our successors or assigns will perform the following acts nor permit others to perform them, hereby granting to the city the right to enforce , these restrictions against all persons: 1. No building, sign, outdoor advertising display, fence, mobile home, • utility pole, paving, or other temporary or permanent structure will be constructed, placed or permitted to remain on said parcel, except as Minutes of 12A5/77 Page 21 • P paragraph provided in ra h four. 2. No soil, loam, peat, gravel, sand, rock or other mineral substance, refuse, trash, vehicle bodies orarts, rubbish, debris, junk waste P junk, or unsightly or offensive material will be placed, stored or dumped thereon. 3. No loam, peat, gravel, sand, rock, or other mineral resource or natural deposit shall be excavated or removed from said pardel in such a manner as to affect the surface thereon except as may be provided in paragraph four. 4. Not withstanding anything contained in paragraphs one through three, we reserve to ourselves, our successors and assigns the right to conduct or permit the following activities on said parcel: a. the cultivation and harvesting of crops and flowers, the planting of trees and shrubs, and the mowing of grass . • b. the necessaryexcavation and fillip associated g with the construction and installation of the proposed buildings, roads, and utilities described on ; provided tha land shall be landscaped upon completion of the work. c. the installation and maintenance of underground utilities. The foregoing restriction is authorized by G.L. Ch. 184, Sec. 31-33, and is intended to retain said parcel predominantly in tts natural, scenic and open condition in order to protect the natural and watershed resources of said city. The restriction shall be administered by the Conservation Commission of said city, established under G.L. Ch. 40, Sec. 8C. The Conservation restriction hereby conveyed does not grant either the city or the public any right to enter said parcel except as follows: • 1. We grant to the city a permanent easement of access to enter said parcel, by its Conservation Commission, for the purpose of inspecting the premises and enforcing the foregoing restrictions and remedying any V' Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 22 • violation thereof. The right hereby granted shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the city for the enforcement of the fore- going restrictions. The Conservation Commission shall '§ive reasonable notice prior to an inspection. The Conservation Commission shall have the right to make quarterly inspections, and any other inspection shall only be initiated by a specific complaint. In witness thereof we have thereto set our hands and seals this day of , 197_. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County of Then personally appeared the above-aamed and acknowledge the foregoing to be their free act and deed, before me. + ---My commission expires • APRROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned City Council of the City of Salem, hereby certi- fy that we approve the receipt of the foregoing deed under G.L. Ch. 40, Sec. 8C as it has been and may be amended as requested by vote of the Conservation Commission of the City of Salem for the protection of the natural and watershed resources of the city. APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY The Secretary of .the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, hereby certifies that he approves receipt of the within conservation restriction under G.L. Ch. 184, Sec. 32. B. Portions of Phases I and II land labeled "Restricted Area" and 1175' Buffer Strip" as shown on the approved Definitive Plan shall have the • following restriction: "No structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals, or chattel, or Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 23 G.. • fencing or paving shall be constructed, placed or permitted to remain on said land." After said approval, all conveyances or transfers shall include the approved land use restrictionsc" Relevant to covenant #26, it was the consenses of the Board members present that the first phrase of this aovenant read "The developer or association or condominium owners" instead of "The developer or association of condominium owners". It was also the consensus of the Board members that the parking lot be specifically identified as the conservation area parking lot on Pickman Road. It was 'the final consensus of the Board members that Covenant #26 form Condition #27 of the Special Permit and read as follows: "The developer or association or condominium owners and not the City of Salem shall be responsible for the following: road �vL6:sh • and sidewalk maintenance, snow removal, collection, landscape maintenance. The developer or condominium owners, and not the City of Salem, shall also provide these services on Pickman Road from a point beginning at the Conservation area parking lot on Piclman Road and continuing into the development." The City Solicitor suggested that the word "substantial" be eliminated from Covenant #27 of the draft.. Attorney Beatrice stated that the phrase "any change" would be too broad and could seriously hamper construction. Jim MacDowell pointed out that if the contours of the land dictated it, a house may have to be moved slightly from the original plan. Bill Tinti pointed out that the developer had to come before the Board for the approval of site plans anyway, so the location of the various units would have to be exact at that time. It was the consensus of the Board • Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 24 • that Covenant #27 form condition #28 fif the Special Permit and that it should read: "Any change in the above conditions must have approval of the Planning Board, and the Conservation Commission shall be notified prior to each change." The City Solicitor suggested adding the following condition as condition #29 of the Special Permit: "The Special Permit shall be valid only upon the condition that all prior submission of preliminary or definitive subdivision plans except for the Definitive Subdivision Plan entitled "Definitive Subdivision Plan Pickman Park Salem, Massachusetts" by Three Associates, 13 Central St., Salem, Mass. , and Carter and Towers Engineering Corporation, 6 Fairview Ave, Swampscott, Mass. , dated March 17, 1977 revised June 13, 1977 and December 14, 1977, be withdrawn by the developer with the understanding that such withdrawal constitutes • a surrend&ring of any rights which may have accrued to the developer from the filing of said plans." It was the consensus of the members present that this be included as Condition #29 of the Special Permit. Brian French noted that two units had been added to phase III. He pointed out that it had been the origiaal intent of the development that Phase III was to be a lowdensity area. Attorney Beatrice pointed out that 304 had been the number of units from the begining. Atty. Beatrice also stated that if this Special Permit were approved it was important that it be for 304 units, but that the placement of the two. units in question was not important.' It was the consensus of the Board Members present that condition #30 be added to the Special Permit stating that: "There will be no more that fifty (50) dwelling units in the Phase III area." • Minutes of 12/15/77 Page 25 Walter Power pointed out that it had been the opinion of the City "s Solicitor at the Planning Board Meeting of 12/8/77 that although the proposed development does not fulfill all the sideline requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordianance, the Planning Board could exercise their authority under "dimensional control" to waive this requirement. It was the consensus of those members present that these requirements be waived. Ted Sadoski suggested that condition #31 be added that would state "The Special Perit shall not become effective until such time as the Definitive Subdivision Plan has been approved". It was the consensus of the Board Members present that that statement form Sondition #11 of the Special Permit. Attorney Beatrice pointed out that changes will have to be made to the definitive plan as a result of actions taken at this meeting. He asked that an extension be granted by the Planning Board relevant to. the Board's approval of the Special Permit and Subdivision Plan. A motion was made by William Wheaton and Seconded by kbby Burns that the Planning Board grant an extension to January 12, 1978 with regard to the Board's approval of the Pickman Park Cluster Residential Special Permit and Subdivision Plan. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Paul D'Amour that the Salem Planning Board approves a Cluster Residential Special Permit be issued to Salem Acres, Inc. with respect to the property located between Jefferson Avenue and the Forest River, bounded by the • B & M Railroad on the one side and the ends of Sumner Road, Marion Street, Station Road, Moffatt Road, Surrey Road, Pickman Road and Mc- K@nley Road on the other side with the following 31 settlement restrictions: General 1. The developer shall comply strictly with building code and zoning requirements and in particular with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2. The developer shall strictly comply with and adhere to the cluster development plan submitted to the Salem Planning Board and as shown on the approved Definitive Plan. (Note: The words "Definitive Plan" as used in the following conditions refer to the set of 26 sheets entitled "Definitive Subdivision Plan Pickman Park Salem, Massachusetts" by Three Associates, 13 Central Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and Carter and Towers Engineering Corporation, 6 Fairview Avenue, Swampscott, Massachusetts, dated March 17, 1977, revised June 13, 1977 and December 14, 1977.) Structures 3. All building plans shall be prepared and signed by an architect licensed to practive in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 4. All site plans for buildings will conform to state and local statutes and ordinances. r / f 5. TExterior building designs shall be compatible with the surrounding natural state of the land. 6. No building or structure of any kind shall be erected which shall exceed 2.5 stories in height measured from the mean finished grade at the building line. i t 7. Dwelling units to be erected upon the above described property shall i contain no more than two (2) bedrooms. A "den", "study", or similar room shall be considered as a bedroom. i a B. Plans shall be submitted to the PlanningBoard Prior to application for a building permit for verification of conformance with conditions numbered 3,4,5,6, and 7. 1 9. The developer shall not request building permits and occupancy certificates for more than 152 units in any one year from the time of commencement of construction on said site. n Site i .10. The developer agrees to follow the contours of the site and shall utilize to a maximum the existing vegetation and topography. `i 11. Roads, parking areas and utilities shall be constructed in accordance. with City specifications except for roads which deviate from City specifications with respect to width and minimum curb radius, and except for the lack of curbs, both as shows[ on the approved Definitive Plan. 12. The entrance roads to the development shall be narrowed and shall be plainly marked "PRIVATE WAY". 1.3. Perman.eut stone boundary markers shall be placed to clearly define the boundary between the subdivision and the conservation Land to the north and the south of ,the development. These markers shall be placed wherever the boundary line changes direction, and as shown on the approved Definitive Plan. 14. A minimum of 75' wide buffer strip except where noted on the approved ��f o2 7 Definitive Plan, shall be provided between this development and existing neighborhoods upon which no building will take place. Buffer strip is to remain private and part of development. 15. Land as shown on the approved Definitive Plan (sheets 2,3, and 5) • shall be designated as available for the construction of tennis courts, which may be built at a later time by the owners of the development. 7.6. The developer shall provide an adequate (12") sewer extension from the City lines, along the railroad tracks to the property. An eighteen inch (18") line shall be provided if required by the City, and the City shall pay the difference between the 12" line and the u 18" line. 17. The developer shall improve the area shown as Conservation Parcel containing 3.65 acres by properly dredging the same and forming thereon a pond which shall meet with the approval of the Salem Conservation Commission and shall also, following completion of the same and upon the request of the City, convey said parcel and the area 'shown as Conservation Parcel containing 31.269 acres, to the City of Salem for no consideration, to be managed under the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40, Section 8c. 18. The developer shall provide a gravel parking lot in the conservation area as shown on sheet 16 of the approved Definitive Plan. Construction 19. Site preparation (topsoil clearance or filling) at any location . shall not commence more than three months prior to construction at that location. 20. The developer shall not dump waste materials on the site or adjacent property and agrees to take all necessary precautions as outlined in the Addendum No. 1 to the Environmental Impact Statement to prevent soil erosion during construction and to complete the pro- ject in such a fashion that soil erosion shall be prevented. 21. The stand of trees at entrance to Phase III loop and extending southwesterly shall be left standing except those in path of entrance road . After preliminary road layout on site prior to comnencerae f- of construction, the Conservation Co:maission shall be consulted so that minor alterations can be made to allow for retaining existing vegetation. 22. When construction of the road traversing the conservation area begins, work on the road shall continue without interruption until at least the birder course of bituminous concrete is installed. All land disturbed by construction of this road shall be properly finish graded and seeded with grass following completion of this binder course. 23. The developer { = eloper shall properly grade to natural drainage patterns y and landscape all land that has been disturbed and is not to be i • built upon. This includes the ends- of the roads in previous adjacent subdivisions, developed or owned by Salem Acres, Inc. 2$. Where Land has been disturbed, the developer, as work progresses • shall plant grass, shrubbery and trees suitable to the area. Roadwaps are to have trees planted at every 50 feet on center, on each side, with at least one tree per house lot. Lon, Term 25, All phases of development: Deeds to all dwelling units shall have proper legal language included to guarantee each property owner his rights and responsibilities to the common open area. This must deal with rights of access of owners, occupants and guests over all re- stricted areas or common areas, and must also deal with rights of owners. 26. Prior to the issuance of any building permit or conveyance or transfer of any land land use restrictions shall be presented to the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall examine such land use restrictions . and approve the same if they are in accordance with the following: A. Portions of Phase III land labeled "Conservation Restricted Area" and including the area within the loop of Pickman Road on the approved Definitive Plan shall have Conservation Restrictions as follows: CONSERVATION RESTRICITON We of County of. Massachusetts, grant without covenant to the City of Salem, hereinafter referred to as the City, a conservation restriction on a parcel of land located in said City, bnuaded and described as follows: (Enter here description of Phase III restricted areas) Coded map or description I'he terms of the conservation restriction are as follows: that neither we nor our saccessors :ar assigns will perform the following acts nor permit others to perform them, hereby granting to the city the right to enforce these restrictions against all persons: 1. No building, sign, outdoor advertising display, fence, mobile home, utility pole, paving, or other temporary or permanent structure will be constructed, placed or permitted to remain on said parcel, except as provided in paragraph four. • 2. No soil, loam, peat, gravel, sand, rock or other mineral sub- stance, refuse, trash, vehicle bodies or parts, rubbish, debris, junk, waste or unsightly or offensive material will be placed, stored or dumped thereon. P � 30 3. No loam, peat, gravel, sand, rock, or other mineral resource or .' natural deposit shall be excavated or removed from said parcel in such.a manner as to affect the surface thereon except as may be provided in paragraph four. 4. Not withstanding anything contained in paragraphs one through three, we reserve to ourselves, our successors and assigns the right to conduct or permit the following activities on said parcel: . a. the cultivation and harvesting of crops and flowers, the planting of trees and shrubs, and the mowing of grass. b. the necessary excavation and filling associated with the construction and installation of the proposed buildings, roads, and utilities described on the approved_ defin itive plan provided the land shall be landscaped upon completion of the work. c. the installation and maintenance of underground utilities. The foregoing restriction is authorized by G.L.. Ch. 154, Sec. 31-33, • and is intended to retain said parcel predominantly in its natural, scenic and open condition in order to protect the natural and watershed resources of said city. The restriction shall be administered by the Conservation Commission of, said city, established under G.L. Ch. 40, Sec. Sc. The Conservation restriction hereby conveyed does not grant Either the. c tv O_ the Plabllc any rigi;c to enter said parcel e-ices; as f()llo'.3s: 1.. FIe grant to the city a permanent easement of access to enter said parcel, by its Conservation Commission, for the purpose 4� of inspecting the premises and enforcing the foregoing restrictions and remedying any violation thereof. The right hereby granted shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the city for the enforcement of the foregoing restrictions. The Conservation, t Commission shall give reasonable notice prior to an inspection. 1� The Conservation Commission shall have the right to make quarterly inspections and any other inspection shall only be initiated by a spei if c complaint. In witness thereof we have thereto set our hands and seals this day of 197_ COEMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County of ss Then personally appeared the above-named and acknowledge the foregoing to be their free act and deed, before me. I commission expires ------------ APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL �- We, the undersigned City Council of the City of Salem, hereby certify that we approve the receipt of the foregoing deed under G.L. Ch. 40, Sec. 8C as it has been and may be amended as requested by vote of the Conservation Commission of the City of Salem for the protection of the natural and watershed resources of the City. APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY 6«: The Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Common— wealth of Massachusetts, hereby certifies that he approves receipt of the within conservation restriction under G.L. Ch. 184, Sec. 32. n B. Portions of Phases I and II land ia: eled "Restricted Area" and "73' Buffer Zone n as shown on the approved Definitive Plan shall have the following restriction: "No structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and S intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals, or chattel, or fencing or paving shall be constructed, placed or permitted to remain cn said land." After said approval, all conveyances or transfers shall include the approved land use restrictions. 27 . The developer or association or condominium owners and not the City of Salem shall be responsible for the following: road and sidewalk maintenance, snow removal, rubbish collection, landscape maintenance. The developer or condominium owners, and not the City of Salem, shall also provide these services on Pickman Road from a_ point beginning at the Conservation Area parking lot on Pickman Road and continuing into the development. 23. Any change in the above conditions must have approval of the Planning Board, and the Conservation Commission shall be notified prior to each change. IS i 29. The Special Permit shall be valid only upon the condition that all prior submissions of preliminary or definitive subdivision plans •' except for the approved Definitive Plan be withdrawn by the developer with the understanding that such withdrawal constitutes a surrendering of any rights which may have accrued to the developer from the filing of said plans. 1 ?0• 7.'k'ere w-'.1 fLe no noire than fifty (50) buildings bu duplex P g. (100 dwelling unite) in the Phase III area. i 1.. The Special Permit shall not becone effective until such time as the Definitive Subdivision Plan has been approved. The Planning Board feels that all conditions and reasons for the issua of a Cluster Residential Special Permit h+v been Met. The vote was unanimous and the Chairman declared the motion carried. A motion was made by Brian O'Keefe and seconded by Abby Burns t" adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 10650 P.M. Respectfully submitted, r wa