The URL can be used to link to this page

1982-PLANNING BOARD - ) 982 _ � :. , . , - a �� MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 18, 198? , HELD ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF ONE SALEM GREEN , SALEM , MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, William Wheaton, Donald Hunt, Normand Houle MEMBERS ABSENT: Edward Stevenson , Abby Burns, David Goodof Planning Board Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. EDWARD MORGANI, 46-52 Greeniawn Avenue. The Board of Appeal reconsidered the Morgani petition and sent it back to the Planning Board approving the variance on the condition that the Planning • Board approve the proposal. Mr. John Serafini, Jr. made the presentation to the Board. Mr. Serafini said the land was 9 lots , each with 50 foot frontage. They propose to cut this to four lots . There are problems with the land as far as contours are concerned and Mr. Serafini said these are just about the last four buildable lots . The proposed plan is to have owner-occupied single family houses , the owners being members of the same family. The Board of Appeal felt that there was good cause to shape the lots as presented by Mr. Serafini. He explained that this is a request for waiver of the Planning Board's veto power. Concerning the dirt road, it they have to build a paved surface, the cost will be too great to even make the proposal possible. Mr. Serafini asked the Board to consider that this is a dead end and it will complete the section. He asked if this could be waived and put the lots in some kind of a transition position if there would be a problem with fear of setting a precedent. Mr. Hunt asked about sidewalks . Mr. Serafini said there are no existing sidewalks on the street and it is a dead end. 'They would merely be extending the street. Mr. Power raised the issue of the -Fire Department's concern with dead end streets. Mr. Frank Romano lives at the end of Greenlawn. He said there is an enormous expense In bringing in water and sewer lines. They estimate the cost at about $35 ,000 .00 . It was decided that the Board will make a visit to the site in otder to be familiar with the topography. They will consider the issues raised tonight • and asked the applicants to also consider what has been raised tonight. Ms . Madison said -she will informally talk with the City Engineer and the Fire r u^ 1l 1 ZL IN1V11VV DVNttU r 1•. March l8 , 1982 Page 2 • Department's Captain to get their input on this . FORM A -- Blubber Hollow Realty Trust. Mr. Smith is the owner of Salem Oil and Grease. He said Lots 1 & 3 on the _ map are to be combined with abutting land of Blubber Hollow Realty Trust to form one contiguous lot. Lot 2 is to be combined with abutting Lot 4 to form one contiguous lot of 5 ,374 square feet. Lots 3 & 4 are presently owned r, by James and Eva Tournas . Lots I & 2 are presently owned by Blubber Hollow Realty Trust. Land of Blubber Hollow Realty Trust has suff icient frontage on Grove Street for zoned purposes . If the Planning Board does not act on an application within fourteen days , it automatically is granted. Since there is no quorum tonight, that is what will happen here. However, the Planning Board will officially vote on this matter and sign the linen at their next regular meeting on April 1, 1982 . FEE SCHEDULES Ms . Madison reported that approval of the fee schedule adopted by the Planning Board is in sub-committee. Mr. Power will call John Nestor, Chairman of the Finance Committee , to hurry the matter out of committee in order to take • advantage of the construction season. NEW MEMBERS The importance of filling the two vacant positions on the Board was discussed and the following names submitted to the Chairman: Mr. Ken May -- Resides on Buffam Street; lawyer specializing in real estate law. Mr. Jack Tingle -- He is an engineer living on Fairmont Street in North Salem. Mr. Bill Cass. -- He is a Civil Engineer living at the Willows'. Mr. John Keefe -- Owner of Keefe's Restaurant on Congress Street. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms . Madison asked for the support of the Board for House Bill 3354 amending lists of historic preservation sites. Information would be compiled in one list. The consensus of the Board was to endorse the Bill. A letter will be written to that effect. A motion was made to adjourn , and having passed unanimously, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M . _ • Respedtfully submitted, acquelyn A. Ryeicki Clerk Ctu of ttlent, ginsstuhItsetts er _ (@ttP §alpm (6rPPn AN INVITATION Please join us for lobsters , clams , and maybe some volleyball . . . . . at The House of Seven Gables 54 Turner Street Date: Wednesday , June 23 , 1982 Time : 6 : 30 P.M. Cost: $10 . 00 per person Please call Jacki Rybicki at 744-6919 . We need to have • the number attending and the money for the dinner by Monday, June 21 . Wine is provided. If you want to drink anything else, please bring it with you. We look forward to seeing you. SALEM PLANNING BOARD • r MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD, CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND BOARD OF APPEALS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY, HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15 , 1982 . MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, Abby Burns , Donald Hunt, Ken May, Normand Houle , Bill Cass MEMBERS ABSENT: Edward Stevenson, David Goodof, William Wheaton OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Yale , Conservation Commission Philip Moran, Conservation Commission Alice Zeweski , Conservation Commission Chris Building Inspector McIntyre Jack Walsh, New England Power Company Ron Boches , New England Power Company David Beatie , New England Power Company • Larry Bailey, New England Power Company This meeting was called at the request of New England Power Company to explain to the City what the long term coal conversion entails . They wanted to present the details and give an overview of why New England Power will be seeking special permits. Mr. Larry Bailey, plant supervisor, made a presentation. He explained the history of the oil burning stacks and how they converted to coal during 1973 and 1974; they then switched back to . oil and now they are back to coal. They have been receiving coal since mid April from ocean coming barge . This is an interim stage . They are in the process of building a coal-fired coal ship which they expect at Salem Harbor in mid 1983 . Right now the coal comes from Pennsylvania. The ash content must, by law, be less than 98 . They stated the coal they are presently using has an ash content of less then 78 . Tt is the best coal available now. Mr. Jack Walsh stated that the DCL gives a schedule for completion to 1985 at which time they must be in compliance. Unit #2 will be under the new equipment be December. Right now they are ahead of schedule. They have demolished one tank to make room for the new stack. They will first build the precipitators , then they will build the basins. i ^ SALEM PLANNING BOARD • MEETING WITH NEW ENGLAND POWER CO. September 15 , 1982 Page 2 The fly ash will be loaded wet. They will make provision to load it dry if they were going to sell the ash. Otherwise , it is mixed with water sprayed in a long tube. They have plans for a 72 hour silo which means 72 hours of ash will be stored there. That way trucking can be done during the week and stored over the weekend. There is no outside storage and no plans for any other storage. They burn 30 ,000 tons of coal every ten days . That is 270 tons of ask a day. It is taken out of the plant in 25 ton trucks. The trucks are washed and canvas covered. Mr. Walsh was asked if New England Power has been negotiating with anyone in the City of Salem to dump the ash to use as fill. Mr. Walsh said they follow legal procedures for the disposal of the ash. Any place the ash goes would be a site approved for land fill. There was concern from the Conservation Commission that the ash not be dumped at the Moose Lodge on Highland Avenue. Mr. Bailey said the ash would not be dumped there. Mr. Boches said basically they are proposing a three-layer process in the City. They have to go to the Board of Appeals for structures • that go over the 45 foot limitation. The new precipitators will go about 125 feet. The Board of Appeal will also be involved for the silo. They are plannigg a single package for all their needs. The Planning Board will be involved because of the wetlands/ flood hazard district. The south exit road falls below the 15 . 36 m. l.w. . The facility will be built up to four feet above m. l .w. and .then built. New England Power intends to fill the first step of the process with Hie Board of Appeals next week. The Planning Board and Conservation Commission will be filed in about three weeks. There was concern about wind blown dust into the harbor. Mr. Bailey said they have treatment to crust the pile that is inactive. The piles that are active are treated with water sprays and a softening agent is added to the water. There will still be blowing but it will be reduced. Mr . Bailey said this is a problem that requires constant policing of the area. Noise pollution was discussed. New England Power said that the problem will not be any worse than it is now. Now it is not any worse than it has been before the coal conversion. A member of the Conservation Commission asked if the New England Power Company employee who is responsible for - fly ash control could come to the sity hearings : Mr. Walsh said that would be arranged. • The meeting ended at 8 : 40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ji ly Rybi�}-a Planningrd MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16 , 1982 , HELD AT CITY HALL ANNEX , ONE SALEM GREEN , SECOND FLOOR, SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, Edward Stevenson, Abby Burns, William Wheaton, Donald Hunt, Bill Cass, David Goodof, Ken May MEMBERS ABSENT: Normand Houle Planning Board Chairman Walter Power opened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. FORM A -- 99-99 1/2 Broadway. Mr. John Tierney represented John L. Hyland, Jr. , Trustee of D.E.V. Realty Trust. The tract in question has frontage on a.public way. The application pertains to division of a Tract of land on which two or more buildings were standing when the Subdivision Control Law werL into effect. The plan was previously approved by the Planning Board of Salem, but a slight revision (rear line - Pacific Street line - on Parcel A has been extended while rear line - Pacific Street, Parcel B has been contracted). Approval from the Board of Appeals has been received. A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by David Goodof to approve the Form A, approval under the Subdivision Control Law ncG required. The motion passed unanimously. FRANK ROMANO (EMMERTON SUBDIVISION) -- Lots 44-52 Greenlawn Avenue. This is a Form C submittal for the property off Marlboro Road. They are now coming in with three lots instead of four, giving each lot a 100 foot frontage. They are still undersized as far as density. They are asking for a 28 foot road wi.h a granite curb on one side. The Form C application will be sent to various city departments for their comments. • r' SALEM PLANNING BOARD September 16 , 1982 Page 2 TEDESCO POND ESTATES This is a preliminary meeting on the Stuart Abrams land in ba0k of the Stop & Shop at Vinnin Square. Maine Pos. and Beam are designing the project. The property is very overgrown now wi h a pond that is fairly deep. Maine Posc and Beam is a large company with a branch office in Hamilton. As their name indicates , they have a certain style wk.h a lot of wood and effective use of he inner space . They design a lot of single family traditional homes. Mr. Reed Blute said they are hoping to crea.e a special atmosphere around the pond. They are thinking of a different style of design and would like co see a village type community that would be separate from the existing neighborhoods. Their plans include supplying city sewer and water from Elm Street. They are in the process of getting feedback from the neighbors to see if they would be interested in coming into the City water and sewerage system. The houses themselves will be a salt box design . The plan is for a group of connected buildings. Each building represents two living units. Two duplexes . — will be attached. They must do a lot of cleaning up of the pond. They plan to concentrate the buildings on the land that is level and flat and they want to leave in a natural state the majority of the property. There are a considerable amount of trees in the area. They plan on leziving them and using the natural landscaping and the pond as a focal point. Near the waver is a lot of rubble which will have to be cleaned up. The buildings will be 900-1500 square feet of living space. There are no interior bearing walls. Mr. Blute figured the end price will be about $110,000 .00 per building. As far as the pond goes, they have nctt done a lot of testing as yet. They do know there will be a complete visual cleanup. There was a ques ion of whe her or not the pond would count as square footage. The traffic pa tern was discussed. Mr. Power asked for a plan showing neighboring streets so .hat the pattern could be established. One problem is street width. The impact on the neighborhood is also something that will be considered. MISCELLANEOUS: Fafard Company is going out to Ashland nex, Thursday a. 12:00 noon. They will have a bus available for all members of the Planning Board. A motion was made to adjourn , and having pas:;ed unanimously, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respec.tutly submitted, i :quelyn A,/' RAicki, Clerk • AMENDED MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1982 , HELD AT ONE SALEM GREEN, SECOND FLOOR, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, Abby Burns, Ken May, Donald Hunt, Edward Stevenson, Normand Houle MEMBERS ABSENT: David Goodof, Bill Cass , William Wheaton Planning Board Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. BURSAW OIL CORP. , 200 Canal Street -- Public Hearing. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7 : 40 P.M. and read the public notice. Mr. Bill Bursaw made the presentation requesting a permit to install new underground tanks on Canal Street. They • want to replace three old tanks with four. new ones. The Building Inspector concurred with the proposal. The Board of Health concurred with the proposal stating that thev viewed the Plans and visited the site. The City Engineer concurred with the proposal stating that it meets all the conditions of department/City requirements as they pertain to Wetlands Zoning and structural reauirements. The Conservation Commission concurred with the proposal and issued an order of conditions. Mr. Hunt asked if there was a change in the total gallonage the tanks would hold. Mr. Bursaw responded they are going from three tanks holding 8, 000 gallons to four tanks holding 40 , 000 gallons. The new tanks will each hold 10 , 000 gallons. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposal and signed the plans. All the uplift calculations have been approved. There being no further comments for or against the proposal , Mr. Power declared the public hearing closed at 7 : 50 P.M. A motion was made by Edward Stevenson and seconded b_v Ken Mav to approve the special permit, siting the plans and including the disclaimer clause. The motion passed unanimously. FORM C, Greenlawn Avenue Subdivision -- Public Hearing. The Chairman opened the public hearing and read the notice. Mr. • Frank Romano represented the petitioner Joseph Romano. Their plan is to subdivide the lots on Greenlawn and Cloverdale Avenues . • SALEM PLANNING BOARD October 21 , 1982 Page 2 They plan to build one house on Cloverdale Avenue. Greenlawn will eventually be developed with single family dwellings but that is not their intention now. They are asking for a waiver on road width, the Subdivision fee, the Environmental Impact Study, Clerk of. the Works , and a waiver from the performance bond. The Romano family appeared before the Board of Appeal last evening and their plan was approved unanimously. They were asking for a waiver of setback requirements . Regarding the waiver of the performance bond , it was felt there could be a Covenant Agreement made on the remaining three lots . There is presently no buyer on these lots . However, the Emmertons would like to be able to sell their property as they wanter. The approval of the subdivision will start a two-year clock running. It was felt the Bond is alot of money. Mr. May suggested a covenant that would prevent the sale of the other lots until all the utilities were brought on. Originally, the Planning Board had been told that all lots in this subdivision were to be developed at once . However, the submission at this time is different in that one lot is proposed to be fully developed, and the remaining three lots • may or may not be. In addition, the Planning Board questions whether the other side of the street can be develoned by means of a Form A before the street was nut in because the road could now be part of an approved subdivision plan. The Planning Board also discussed the possibility that the one lot fronting on Cloverdale could be created by means of a Form A if the rest of the land owned by the Emmertons was put on the plan. For this reason it was de- cided to go for a legal opinion regarding the responsiblity of the pro- perty on the other side. The Board of Health responded that they viewed the plans , visited the site and concur with the proposal . The Conservation Commission is familiar with the sity of the proposed subdivision on Greenlawn Avenue . The area does not lie in a wetlands and development of this site should not increase anv drainage problems in this area. Therefore, we concur with the proposal. The City Engineer agreed with the proposal. Capt. David Goggin, Salem Fire Marshall , stated that he has found that the lots appear satisfactory for access by fire department apparatus. The hydrant distances on both streets will be satisfactory. The addition of a new hydrant as shown on the plan will just make the minimum distance requirement for a residential area of this type. Therefore , they have no objections . The Police Department has no objections and the School Department felt the proposed subdivision would have no adverse effect on future student enrollment and the Department' s ability to accomodate any that might materialize. • A waiver from the required street width was discussed. Fire Chief Goggin said he thinks the road width there is :adeRuate.. for their needs . The subdivision control 'law requires a 36 foot road width for the road itself. This road is 28 feet. The road leading • SALEM PLANNING BOARD October 21 , 1982 Page 3 to this one is 24 feet. Beyond this subdivision there is land that could be divided for further housing. Howeverm it doesn' t look like there would be many house lots that would be available or could put a strain on the road. Everyone agreed that the road width could be 28 feet with six foot sidewalks with granite curbs in accordance with plan submitted. There was discussion on whether or not the requirement for a turn around at the end of the street would be necessarv. Mr. Hunt didn't feel this should be waived. It was , however, the general feeling of the Board that the road would be extended and that the cul de sac could be added in the future at the end of the sub- division or the road could be completed to another road and that the future completed subdivision would not end up with a dead end road. The Fire Department had no objection to the road as it was. Regarding the Clerk of the Works, the subdivision would be under the jurisdiction of the City Engineer anyway. Because of the small size of this subdivision, the general consensus was that this requirement could be waived. • A waiver of the environmental impact study was discussed. This would concern traffic mostly. Because of the added cost and the obvious conclusions to the study. itoas felt that it would be a hardship to require it. Mr. Hunt was concerned about dumping and where the fill would go. Ms. Madison said that could be controlled through the developer and the contractor. There was a consensus to waive the environmental impact study and the developer will inform the Conservation Commission about the dumping plans. It was requested that the City Engineer write a letter to the Planning Board telling them why there is no storm drains required on this lot. Waiver of the Subdivision fee was discussed. Ms. Madison requested from the City Solicitor an opinion as to whether the Planning Board can waive a fee for a subdivision that has been approved by the City Council.' The City Solicitor said in effect that it could be waived or lowered (see attached) . Mr. Stevenson suggested a $250 . 00 fee for this lot being developed and an attachment to each of the other lots in the same amount to be collected at the time they are developed. . The Board unanimously agreed to that. Ms. Madison will follow this idea through with the City Solicitor. • SALEM PLANNING BOARD • October 21, 1982 Page 4 Mr. Romano said again that the petitioner only wants to build one house on Cloverdale. There is a hardship involved in this case because of the season: He has to get some construction under way before the first frost. They are most anxious to get going also because of fluctuating mortgage rates . Miss Madison will bring the decisions of the Board to the City Solicitor in order to have a covenant prepared. If the City Solicitor prepares the document in time, it was agreed that the Planning Board would meet next Thursday for a special meeting on this proposal . There being no further comments for or against the proposal, the public hearing was declared closed at 9 : 12 P.M. FORM A -- 45 , 46 , 47 Crosbv Street. Mr. Charles Faia, the surveyor, appeared before the Board. This is a land court plan. The owners have gone before the Appeals Board and had three lots made into two 75 foot frontage lots . There are dwellings on either side which have been developed and someone • just built across the street. A motion was made by Ken May and seconded by Donald Hunt to approve the Form A, approval under the subdivision control law not required. The motion passed unanimously. TEDESCO ESTATES -- Preliminary Meeting. Mr. Den Percival and Dan Collins , Maine Post and Beam representatives , made the presentation. One of the problems they have with this property:-is that economically they feel they need 24 units to make the project worthwhile. Some real capital will have to go into clean up of the area. They are doing engineering studies and topographical studies . They are looking for input from the Planning Board. The density regulations in the City would hold them to 21 units . They have to go to the Board of Appeal on this . The pond is included in the square footage. The lots in the surrounding neighborhood go between 5 , 000 to 7 ,500 square feet. They are putting in 8 foot thick plantings along the back in most areas thinning to not less than four feet. It was felt the Board should view the site. Fire truck access was discussed. Maine Post and Beam said thev would meet with the Fire Department to discuss this further. Lack of walkways was discussed as a possible problem. Mr. Collins said they are trying to keep the land as natural as Possible. • They have not planned sidewalks. SALEM PLANNING BOARD • October 21, 1982 Page 5 It was decided that the Board would walk the property on aturday morning at 9 : 00 A.M. Ms . Madison said regarding the open space , that 20% of the land must be open space and 108 of that must be real open. AMUSEMENT DISTRICT ZONE. Ms. Madison handed out information sheets regarding an amusement district. She asked members to please read the information and be ready to discuss it at the next meeting. BOARD OF APPEALSAGENDA. The Appeals Board agenda for October 27 was reviewed. It was decided not to write any letters. REPLACEMENT OF CLERK. The Planning Board Clerk has regretfully submitted her resignation. She is being replaced by Mrs. Dale Yale . A motion was made by Normand Houle and seconded by Donald Hunt to petition the City • Council to release Planning Board funds in the amount of $375 . 00 for salary earned by Mrs. Rybicki from July through October 1982 . A motion was made to adjourn, and having passed unanimously, the meeting adjourned at 10 :30 P.M. Respectfully submitted,/ Q Jgcquely Rybick 4erkI • " Oox O.r4 r eY Z 3 i A o O Y • 1 Ayy y �Y !o M Oen RICHARD W.STAFFORD CITY OF SALEM MARY P. HARRINGTON CITY SOLICITOR MASSACHUSETTS ASSISTANTCITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MA 01970 SALEM,MA 01970 745-4311 745-4311 October 21, 1982 Mr. Walter Power, Chairman Planning Board City of Salem Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Power: The planning board has requested through its agent, Susan Maddison, a legal opinionregarding the authority of the planning board to waive fees established in accordance with the Salem planning board fees schedule. • Under authority granted pursuant to M.G.L. , Chapter 41, Section 81 Q, the planning board has sufficient authority to establish such fees. Under Section 81 R the planning board may waive strict compliance with its rules and regulations where such action is in the public interest and not incon- sistent with the interest and purpose of the subdivision control law. This principle would apply to fees established under Chapter 41. The reason for finding that a waiver (including a reduction) is not required to be set forth. It is advisable to do so though in order to avoid any improper appear- ance of arbitratiness or discrimination. One possible basis for waiving (or reducing) the fee might be that the actual administrative cost to the city of reviewing the request was minimal. Fees adopted under Chapter 41 must comply with the requirement set forth therein including published notice, public hearing, recording a true copy in the offices of the planning board and City Clerk, and recording a certified copy in the registry of deeds. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, -Iac�k"'v�J. ,4'-W/pc RICHARD W. STAFFORD City Solicitor • RWS/lmc AMENDED MINUTES OF MEETING • SALEM PLANNING BOARD November 4, 1982 The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, Second Floor, on Thursday, November 4, 1982 . Present were Abby Burns , Edward Stevenson-, David Goodof, Kenneth May, Donald Hunt, William Cass , William Wheaton, and Walter Power. Normand Houle was absent. Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7 :42 p.m. ST. PAUL STREET Robert and Cynthia Palm, and Mr. Gary Palardy were present to dis- cuss the matter of 6 St. Paul Street. Mr. and Mrs . Palm are unable to obtain mortgage money for purchase of this house due to the fact it is in °an area which is zoned industrial . The neighborhood is residential despite the fact that it is surrounded by industry. The Palms have been frustrated in every attempt to solve this problem. Greg Senko sent Mr. Palm a letter which gave an overview of the problem and they now wish an opinion from the Board as to when the zoning changes will take place . Walter Power explained the mechanism for zoning changes and there was much discussion as to how the Board could expedite this par- ticular situation. Susan Madison felt the timetable for a zoning • package to be sent to the City Council was March. Mr. Power suggested the Board take the matter under advisement and will report back to- the Board and to the Palms . Mr. and Mrs. Palm and Mr. Palardy were excused with the thanks of the Board. Ken May felt the Board had four choices in this matters 1) Do nothing; 2) Propose the re-zoning of that particular area; 3) Consider all area with this problem; or 4) Wait until the entire zoning package is completed. Walter Power felt the way to possibly handle the matter is to.,iconsider all -areas with this problem. Susan ..will look into' h 4 'uses and report to the Board, then possibly a' public hearing could be held 'to change the boundaries for houses in B-4 . AMUSEMENT ORDINANCE This ordinance would take all commercial amusement uses out of the pervue of the Licensing Board and all districts except B-2 . Any variance would have to be granted by the Board of Appeal . A new A-1 district would be created. There followed several minutes of discussion where several concerns and questions regarding this ordinance were raiseds i. e . does this apply to exhibitions , band concerts at the Willows , etc . , and the over-riding question, where actually this A-1 zone is located? It was decided to invite Councillor O 'Keefe and City Solicitor Stafford to the next meeting of the Board to clarify this matter further. Minutes of Meeting--November 4 , 1982 Page 2 • EMMERTON SUBDIVISION Susan Madison gave a background of the situation. She further re- ported that Mr. Stafford was unable to do the following due to previous committments : . 1) Present the Board with a legal opinion as to whether this proposed subdivision could be handled under a Form A if the additional land owned by the Emmertons on .Clbverdale was;shown .on the plan; 2) If a Form•A is impossible, then the Board "'` needs a legal opinion as to -the future status of the abutting land owned by the Finocchios . The concern is that with the subdivision approval of the Emmerton land, Mr. Finnochio would then be able to divide his land through a Form A with a road being put in; and 3) If subdivision approval is needed, then Mr. Stafford is to prepare a covenant for the three remaining parcels that cur- rently have no frontage on a public way. A subcommittee consisting of Walter Power and Ken Mav will look into this matter further and it is hoped this can be discussed with Mr. Stafford either prior to the next meeting or when he meets with the Board at our next. meeting. There being no further business , a motion was made to adjourn. Having passed unanimously, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9 : 05 p.m. • Res ectfully submitted, IT cue_ e . Dale E. Yale Clerk (UTHERN SALEM LAND USE STUDY : 1/82 SUMMARY OF BUILDING ACTIVITY SINCE 1.965 HOUSING TOTAL DWELLING UNITS : 875 154 SINGLE FAMILIES (80 AT WITCHCRAFT) 684 APARTMENTS 37 CONDOMINIUMS COMMERCIAL TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE : 257350 8400 MEDICAL (3%) 15700 MANUFACTURING (6%) 45850 AUTOMOTIVE (18%) 187400 SERVICE & RETAIL (73%) (150000 AT HAWTHORNE) CONSERVATION TOTAL LAND ACREAGE UNDER CARE OF CONSERVATION COMM: 150 ACRES (45 PARCELS) CONSERVATION RESTRICTED.:LAND : 70 ACRES (2 PARCELS) • REMAINING VACANT LAND* BUSINESS ZONED : 57 ACRES *: INCLUDES MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL ZONED : 122 ACRES LAND NOT IN PUBLIC USE R. C. ZONED: 277. ACRES R. 1 . ZONED : 241 ACRES R. 2 . ZONED : 3 . 2 . ACRES R. 3 . ZONED : 101 ACRES TOTAL: 801. 2 ACRES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL : (ADJUSTED FOR KNOWN PLANS IN THE WORKS) 1832 ,POTENTIAL HOUSING UNITS 1111 DWELLING UNITS (PLANS IN THE WORKS) 721 SOUTHERN SALEM LAND USE STUDY: 1980 -1981 MUNICIPAL LAND OWNER MAP "LOT SIZE ZONEo1:: '.777 LOCATION • CITY. OF PEABODY 1 1 102.62 AC RC SPRING POND 4 1 43.6 AC RCRESERVOIR MARBLEHEAD 11 3 79.0 AC RC THOMPSON MEADOW 30 50 26.9 AC R1 329 LORING AVE. 30 77 2. 3 AC RC FOREST RIVER WATER LINE SWAMPSCOTT 11 6 . 1. 8 AC R3 CEMETERY CITY OF SALEM 2 37 18000 S.F. R1 23 22399 it 26 12475 " 28 12500 " 3 3 4.05 AC B2 75 28870 S.F. R1 80 5000 " " 6 5 1.96 AC R1/I 18 26140 S.F. I 11 13.4 AC I 7 1 34384 S.F. R1 8 8 4.0 AC " CONSERVATION 8 102 2.6 B2 " . 13 8 7.8 R3 it 13 2. 34 " 11 5 38.0 CONSERVATION (CONTINUED) CONSERVATION 21 238 34. 33 AC MAP LOT SIZE ZONE LOCATION 83 3.0 30 72 23100SF • 40 41818 S.F. 73 12900 " 19 8780 74 3500 " 11 6223 75 3750 " 65 7353 76 7500 " 67 7766 78 23050 " 84 3.8 AC Z9 14000 " 85 1. 2 80 1750 " 86 3.0 81 1600 " 87 1. 1 82 30250 " 88 1.0 22 178 28.3AC 89 30740 S.F. 179 2.9 " 240 56000 236 3.6 " 111 5945 31 326 5.5 " 103 9516 333 1.9 " " 102 15641 236 4900SF 90 34342 " 97 35434 " 91 9638 TOTALS 92 5300 " 93 5225 PEABODY 146.22_IACRES " 94 25000 MARBLEHEAD 108.2 ACRES 95 27425 SWAMPSCOTT 1.8 ACRES 239 2.05 AC SALEM 29.42 ACRES 150. 6 ACRES CONSERVATION • A B C D E r G N 1 J K L m N O 1 R I S r. ~` VACANT 13USINESS ZON E D LAND r• ,. L O T N U M BER ASSES80LMAP - 'S j �+1 z UMBER -t- ': 41 M (2)34It " 6 1 8)))121-12 �SK Ic A l'T_ 4n �. � �. �\ �\'_ \ Y ��_, �� rte- , — ____ 0 `I • a`.i :.�. 12 1992 SOUTHERN SALEM LAND USE STUDY: 1981-1982 ! VACANT LAND: BUSINESS ZONED MAP LOT SIZE ADDRESS OWNER OWNER ADDRESS 2 3 8539 4 WYMAN RD. WALTER b NORA PR00 IAN 4 7361 6 " A.Z. REALTY TRUST 13 9294 3 toARTHUR N. ZETES 7 59834 461 HIGHLAND AVE. NICHOLAS 6 LENA FIORE 9 10017 465 A.Z. REALTY TRUST 10 20000 ' 467 VINCENT BOLDUC 11 20000 469 A.Z. REALTY TRUST 3 2 24908 460 " GREG ROGERS INC. 5 3.62 A( . 400 NICHOLAS FIORE 6 23 AC. 394 " 7 3.4 AC 392 EMANUEL AMANTI 65 11809 A( . 382 SALVATORE F. IANO 64 17882 A( . 380 CHARLES PULEO 62 19194 A( . 366 " " 7 40 1. 7 AC. 358 ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGr OF BOSTON 41 32374 '346-354 " CRETE REALTY TRUST 8 117 6990 260 CHARLES J MENEADES 119 13850 248 " ANTHONY P. VENTRIC 120 2.5 AC 234-244 JOSEPH A GINOCCHIO 125 2.4 ACJ 216 ARTHUR A. POOR 144 11459 1 SWAMPSCOTT RD. STUTZ PLAISTED 143 29624 3 it SALVATORE &ANN SPI ALE 128 45000 285 HIGHLAND AVE. HIGHLAND REALTY TR ST 127 4.5 AC 275 " " 13 11 3. 13 A FIRST ST. " 7 42 2.88 A C.327 HIGHLAND AVE. CRETE REALTY TRUST 72 40970 333 " " 73 37000 335 8 146j30061 323 " i TiOi i TAL 57.61 A . I A B C D E FI G H I .J N L M N 1 O 1 P Q R 5 VACANT INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND °ru 9)99 -- _ �EAJODY L LOT NUMBER z I �•\ I ,:.;.,_ :_,__..I; ASSESSORS MAPl..� MBER �` z s C6 � � I � `'��-�` � �• ��• �c of��U'� i .. , IN JUL s . -f - 7)66-\��.. 8)g9 e 6.11 I 7)63 _.. i 61 I - r z 1982 Iz SOUTHERN SALEM LAND USE STUDY: 1981=1982 VACANT LAND. INDUSTRIAL .ZONED f MAP LOTI SIZE ADDRESS. OWNER OWNER ADDRESS 6 8 5.6AC-+- CLARK AVE. PETER SULLAS & %1, 9 2.8AC. BARBARA DRISCOLL 6 10 2.9AC. CLARK AVE. SONS OF OROGNA 6 5 1.9AC." CLARK AVE. CITY OF SALEM 11 13.4 AC 6 13 9. 72 AC 151ROBINSON RD. SHIRLEY A. HUTCHIN ON 7 61 3.0 AC. 100 SWAMPSCOTT RD. N.S. TENNIS &SQUAS 63 42.2 AC .58 HELEN S. KING 66 10.2 AC 52 JOSEPH G. RAGONE 67 13185T 36 COLONIAL REALTY TF . 8 69 28. 31 A( . FIRST ST. HIGHLAND REALTY TF . 23 146 1. 75AC. 22 BROADWAY T. 14ACKEY & SONS TOT 122.08 IC. ' ' . • - PA� C D E i G 11 1 J N L M N O SOUTHERN SALEM LANDoUSE STUDY HOUSING PROJECTIONS:12/81 pPMopI:PICKERING SCHOOL; 25 CONDO. -- --�i 2:GIDEON TUCKER; 14 CONDO. O _- � e„ ;z, y .,jr-h - - -=� r� • ^^ 3:HERITAGE PLAZA; 43 CONDO. 1 i :.'S,i IHO - - � - - ---- \ ..o, _•_. _ C.--_``} ) �\�`^' ��C,.�•��i"'-" •:� � '---•° I } ,rS�'��.I I- � 4:ST. PETER • : 54 APTS.* 1 ' ' 4 l.• \S!S' °.% ti _ I"'� s S:PHILIPSESC OL; 17 APTS.** 3 z; / _ (, } ' �1�, ]� { E7 , ':� �� I 6:POWER BLOCK; 16 APTS.* 7•Y.M.C.A. , 14 APTS.* — -- -%. . - � \✓ �' �� O U R !1�r " L �4 t - - - �� 'ti�� 8.B OWDITCH SCHOOL• 28 CONDO.9 STERN-TISEIII; 10 CONDO P 10-CHESTNUT P CE; 25 CONDO. 11.VISTA AVE. ; 15 D.U. f( VERDON ST. ; 17 D.U. i! `� t• ' '^,. . _ CSF rr 13-PICKKAN PARK; 304 CONDO. 14.SOUTH RIVER; 164 CONDO. 1 I }... 15.CORING HILLS; 250 CON DO. -- 16.FIRST ST. ; 580 CONDO. r o n r 28 ACRES: INDUSTRIAL j I �J� 1 �• - 17:COLLINS COVE; 32 CONDO. > jr+ " \ i m 18:PROCTOR ST. ; 10 CONDO. .i%^� .— _ __._..f - �- .:.: :-G'; .,• _I— _ �F1 *:SUBSIDIZED :� s � p� **:HANDICAP 10 10 15 p'� T_ L./fli \ �if �© �l _)�U, ^•'`J_ ' (N u i a Ij i1 j � ` UiL:,F\i � L% Er , ��30 _. —�— SOUTHERN SALEM LAND USE STUDY: 1981 1977- 1982; HOUSING STARTS & PROJECTIONS 7 N0. OF DWELLING UNITS • WARDS I II I III I IV V I VI I VII 1977 SINGLE FAMILIES: 6 D.U. 3 1 1 1 CONDOMINIUMS: PICKERING WHARF; 54i)D.U.(18/1B;29/2B;7/3B 54 1978 SINGLE FAMILIES: 12 D.U. 1 8 1 1 1 CONDOMINIUMS: NATHANIEL' S LANDING; 5 D.U. 5 STERN-TISE I; 8 D.U. (2/4B;6/3B.) 8 1979 SINGLE FAMILIES; 17 D.U. 3 1 9 2 1 1 DUPLEXES: 2 D.U. 2 APARTMENTS: 4 D.U. 4 CONDOMINIUMS: STERN-TISE II; 12 D.U. (6/2B;6/3B.) 12 CENTRAL PLAZA; 34 D.U. (12/1B;22/2B.) 34 1980 SINGLE FAMILIES: 8 D.U. 6 1 2 4 1 2 1 1981 SINGLE FAMILIES: 10 D.U. DUPLEXES: 2 D.U. 2 CONDOMINIUMS: PICKERING SCHOOL; 25 D.U. (2/1B;23/2B.) 25 GIDEON TUCKER; 14 D.U. (2/1B; 12/2B.) 14 HERITAGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS; 43 D.U,* 43i APARTMENTS: ST. PETER ST. 54 D.U. (ELDERLY) 54 1982 SINGLE FAMILY: 1 D.U. 1 APARTMENTS: PHILLIPS SCHOOL 17 D.U. (HANDICAP) 17 • POWER BLOCK 16 D.U. (ELDERLY) 16 Y.M.C.A. 14 D.U. (ELDERLY) 14 CONDOMINIUMS: BOWDITCH SCHOOL; 28 D.U. (4/1B;24/2B.) 28 HEALTH HOSPITAL; 32 D.U. (32/2B.) 32 STERN-TISE III; 10 D.U. (5/2B;5/3B.) 10 � CHESTNUT PLACE; 25 D.U. (17/1B;8/2B.) 25 � TOTAL 145 95 104 I7,, 4 30 5 1983 AND BEYOND: PLANS IN THE WORKS WARDS I II IIIIV VI VII VII I t SINGLE FAMILIES: VISTA AVE; 15 D.U. 15 VERDON ST; 17 D.U. 17 CONDOMINIUMS: PICKMAN PARK; 304 D.U. (176/1B; 128/2B.) 304 SOUTH RIVER; 164 D.U. 164 LORING HILLS; 250 D.U. 250 FIRST STREET; 580 D.U. 16 580 TOTAL 4 580 32 554 *;HERITAGE PLAZA WEST CONDO. ; 15/1B;28/2B. • SOUTHERN SALEM LAND USE STUDY: 1981-1982 i HOUSING PROJECTIONS/SCHOOL AGE POPULATIONS • NEW BEDROOM MIX YEAR LOCATION DWELLING UNITS 1 BR. 2 BR. 3 BR. NO. SCHOOLCHILDREN* 81-82 TOTAL 81 14 51 6 21 STERN II 12 6 6 CENTRAL PL. 34 12 22 PICKERING 25 2 23 82-83 TOTAL 85 21 64 0 18 H.P.WEST 43 15 28 GIDEON TUCKER 14 2 12 BOWDITCH 28 4 24 83-84 TOTAL 89 17 50 22 43 VISTA AVE. 15 5 10 VERDON ST. 17 5 12 CHESTNUT PL. 25 17 8 COLLINS COVE 32 32 85-95 TOTAL 1298 260 778 260 552 PICKMAN PARK 304 LORING HILLS 250 FIRST ST. 580 SOUTH RIVER 164 95+ TOTAL 766 305 NOTE: *; THE NUMBER OF SCHOOL CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1 BEDROOM UNIT= . 11 CHILDREN 2 BEDROOM UNIT= .24 CHILDREN 3 BEDROOM UNIT=1. 30 CHILDREN ;PROJECTIONS FOR THE 1985-1995 PERIOD ARE BASED UPON SUBDIVISION PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED OR ARE IN SOME PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT OR NEGOTIATIONS • SALEM ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS- JAN. 1982 • ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 12 458 491 376. 398 411 391 460 435 11 534 407 429 440 412 484 458 402 10 475 482 461 468 509 482 423 417 9 598 632 587 626 508 445 439 510 2,065 2,012 1,853 1,932 1,840 1,802 1,780 1,764 8 '544 514 467 408 371 366 425 352 7 524 480 423 405 366 425 352 349 6 498 440 433 368 425 352 349 327 1,566 1,434 1,323 1,181 1,162 1,143 1,126 1,028 5 448 446 365 .403 352 349 327 297 4 477 388 417 375 349 327 297 303 3 429 440 381 375 327 297 303 257 2 449 401 370 334 297 303 257 319 1 449 389 372 346 303 257 319 354 K 358 361 321 29.4 257 319 354 239 S.E. 88 96 80 89 61 89 89 89 2,698 2,521 2,306 2,216 1,946 1,941 1,946 1,858 TOTAL 6,329 5,967 5,482 5,329 4,948 4,886 4,852 4,650 401-1982 K-5 CAPACITY CURRENT Bates 450 351 Bentley 300 233 Carlton 200 137 Witchcraft 650 610 HM-N 450 435 FLM-S 250 177 2,300 1,943 middle MS-E 400 365 M5 800 790 1,200 1,155 High School 2,000 1,840 TOTAL CAPACITY 5,500 N 0 1 ind*er�arten projected enrollments are based on 75`% of the live births recorded five years previously. • , MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 1982, HELD ON THE THIRD FLOOR, ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, Donald Hunt, Edward Stevenson, Abby Burns, James Fox, David Goodof, William Wheaton MEMBERS ABSENT: Normand Houle Planning Board Chairman Walter Power opened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. FAFARD COMPANY, HIGHLAND AVENUE -- Preliminary Meeting. Mr. Bob Maschi, Engineer, Land Surveyor, and vice-President of Fafard Company made the presentation. Fafard Company has purchased the land on either side of First Street. The proposal includes industrial and residential development. Mr. Maschi said the plan is still in the pre preliminary stage. He distributed maps showing their land (copy attached) . • Fafard Company has done work primarily in the Framingham area. About four years ago, they started a development in Ashland which is almost a twin to what they are planning in Salem. In Ashland they developed approximately 170 acres. They plended in four types of zoning in one parcel. They were one of the first developers to propose cluster development. In order to separate the condominium section from the commercial, they used a road to separate the two areas and buffer zones. Then they constructed a twenty foot earth berm which will have trees on it to further separate the areas. Their policy regarding condominiums and their management is to keep the monthly maintenance agreement to a minimum. They have eliminated all the frills that require upkeep, leaving only the tennis courts. They propose a four-plex condominium shaped like a cross. They would be two stories high like a townhouse, with a garage under, plus a basement area. Each unit contains approximately 1,200 square feet. There are two bedrooms and a full bath upstairs, living room, dining area and a kitchen downstairs. Fafard's policy is to save trees in the area and work around them. All buildings have poured concrete basements. The upper levels have double partitions on the common walls with an air space between. They insulate both partitions and stagger the studs in order to eliminate the echo effect on the floors. They prefer gas heat and use it where possible. Their plan calls for a common driveway for every two buildings. To provide extra parking for guests, they fanned out an area behind the garage to fit two extra cars per unit. ' Mr. Maschi stressed that the plan being presented to the Board is very rough and it contains the maximum density he would consider putting in on the property. �, He said he doesn't expect the final plan to have anywhere near this density SALEM -PLANNING BOARD. February 4, 1982 Page 2 • figure. The proposal covers 75 acres of land and shows 622 units. The density factor is 8.3 units per acre. The proposed Road A is approximately 4,200 feet long. First Street is presently graded to a turn around. They would complete the 2,000 feet to Swampscott Road. Then they are planning private driveways off this main street. Mr. Power felt this would be an area of concern. Street lighting was another concern of the Board. Mr. Maschi said there would be street lights on the main road and photo electric lights on each garage. On the North side of First Street there would be a street off Highland Avenue. Mr. Maschi feels there is a need for a road off Highland Avenue because people would be coming into their community and he doesn't feel an entrance by a potatoe chip factory would be condusive to the effect they want to create. Mr. Power said this would have to be looked at very closely. He explained the traffic problems on Highland Avenue. Mr. Maschi said he would like everything to the south of First Street to be zoned multi-family. Ms. Madison said that may not matter as there is a ruling coming down from the City Solicitor. Mr. Maschi said he would like everything north of Highland Avenue zoned industrial. There is one parcel that is zoned half light industry and half R-3. He would like that all industrial. The maximum in the industrial area is 45,000 square feet commercial space, and 305,000 square feet of industrial. • BOARD OF APPEAL AGENDA. The Board reviewed the Board of Appeal agenda for February 17. A letter was written regarding the petition of Edward McGlynn, Trustee of Aon Realty Trust, for a variance for two additional units at a building located at 46-52 Northey Street. The Planning Board suggested the variance be denied because the proposed plan would greatly exceed the density allowed in an R-2 district and they urged the Appeal Board to question the availability of parking on the site. A letter was written on the petition of Douglas Drew for a variance from the required parking at 14-16 Park Street urging the Appeal Board to consider that the area is extremely dense and has absolutely no parking. They suggested that the variance be denied. A letter was- written regarding the petition of Richard Pohl for a special permit for maintaining his office of psychiatry within three rooms and renting the remainder of the property as a single family at 10 Broad Street. The Planning Board suggested the variance be denied because (1) this is an historic house in a dense area. (2) There is insufficient parking on both Broad and Cambridge Streets. In addition, Cambridge Street is an 18 foot wide road with two way traffic. (3) Non-resident offices are prohibited in a residential area and there are large amounts of commercial and office space available in the business area. We feel it is unnecessary to allow commerical encroachment in a residential area. SALEM PLANNING BOARD February 4, 1982 Page 3 • HIGHLAND AVENUE PROPOSAL =- discussion. William Wheaton stated he felt there should be a lot of open area maintained. He sees no reason for an R-3 district to be there which could possibly pull away from the downtown. Michael Moniz said there is a great need in Salem for industrial companies that want to expand. Also, other towns are expanding their industrial zones and cannot meet the housing requirements involved. - The need to do something on Highland Avenue is critical. Construction will continue along there. Hutchinson Medical is moving up there. They sell artificial limbs. Mr. Moniz meet with land owners on Highland Avenue and they do not have the interest in planning that whole area. It needs to be rezoned out there. We have a cheaper labor pool. Mr. Wheaton said he feels the area should be zoned open space and industrial. Everyone agreed that we need a hospital zone in the area. We also need a light industrial zone. Mr. Moniz asked Board members to look over lists provided and also to look over the two maps provided, one showing vacant industrial land and the other showing vacant business zoned land. It was suggested that we change Highland Avenue to an industrial zone. Mr. Moniz said zoning the area industrial will not prohibit commercial. Mr. Wheaton suggested rewriting the definition of industrial zone to prohibit commercial. Mr. Moniz said he will • come up with some size of zones, some depth requirements, etc. , for the next meeting. Mr. Moniz brought up the point that down zoning could open the City up for lawsuits. FEE SCHEDULES. Sue Madison reported that we are in the process of setting fees for Form A's, subdivisions, cluster, wetlands/flood hazard, and planned unit development. Board of Appeal is calling for $50.00 per dwelling unit. The money is not payable until approval. For industrial and commercial space, the fee would be 5C per square foot. Walter Power felt there should be a minimum subdivision fee and then an additional cost above a certain number of units. A fee of $50.00 should be set for a Form A and a special permit. A motion was made by Donald Hunt and seconded by David Goodof to charge $50.00 for a Form A. The motion passed unanimously. A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by Donald Hunt to charge a separate fee schedule for Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permits: $50.00 for any permits that require engineer drawings and $25.00 for any permit that requires a determination without a public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by David Goodof to charge $1,000.00 minimum fee for a subdivision containing 1-20 units, 21 units or more will be charged an additional $50.00 per unit. The motion passed unanimously. SALEM PLANNING BOARD , February 4, 1982 Page 4 • A motion was made by David Goodof and seconded by Edward Stevenson to charge 5t per square foot for industrial and commercial space. The motion passed unanimously. A motion was made by Edward Stevenson and seconded by David Goodof that these fees will be waived if the City of an agency of the City is a petitioner. The motion passed unanimously. A motion was made to adjourn, and having passed unanimously, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jjqu y�ybicki Clerk • • fm.. Qi /,f ale% • I.,t./.. ..w F _ ) / / • ` / K/GKLAA/O /A/DUSTR/AL PARK .. SALEM_ .V/ASS. / / ,l � � /'I � �', - �.M•( / / �y , MIGNL.eNO�I,/fIY 1'tVIT Q (� •1Y� / SII /�... � � ..�.�e�T,n9 2 � I / r i I i ,,•, I u / orAl .e.P J x .. . AGS ✓� �•• 1 �'\ • y ' • 1 l\ l..i fir le M..�w. Ir / �/• w I * eIt I; FT ' 1 ,� 4 �� 1/• 1 A MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1982, HELD ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF ONE SALEM GREEN, CITY HALL ANNEX, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, Abby Burns, Edward Stevenson, David Goodof, William Wheaton MEMBERS ABSENT: Normand Houle, James Fox, Donald Hunt Planning Board Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. MICHAEL MONIZ -- HIGHLAND AVENUE DISCUSSION Mr. Moniz reported that Mr. Maschi is not going to submit a preliminary plan at this time. They are essentially going to wipe the slate clean and • start from scratch. This Highland Avenue land is presently divided into three different zones. We have a business zone, an industrial zone and a R-3 zone. If they were to submit an industrial plan and a housing plan, they would have to process two different submissions in order to do this. Mr. Moniz said we should rezone this area so that the City could have more control over the project. The advantage to the developer would be that they could come in once with their whole proposal. A suggestion was made that this whole unit be zoned industrial and theneverything could come in. Walter Power noted that we had talked about setting new industrial criteria. We should first come up with this new catagory. Mr. Moniz distributed a handout on the Salem Zoning Ordinance showing industrial uses (see #1 attached hereto) and also worked with other towns to come up with Southern Salem Land Use Study in February 1982 (see #2 attached hereto) . `This does not allow for any retail use. A recommendation from Mr. Moniz was that we put the Camp Lions land into R-3. This would establish a buffer zone into Lynn. Another recommendation was to take the Appleby land and bring the industrial zone over to there, leaving a thin business district along Highland Avenue residential which would grandfather the business there and stop any further retail business. Mr. Moniz distributed a set of four plans showing different zoning recommenda- tions. The recommendations in Plan #2 is to keep a business zone on the other side of Highland Avenue. Plan #3 makes the whole DiBiarsi land industrial leaving from Marlborough Road to Ravina as residential. • SALEM PLANNING BCARD • February 18, 1982 �aue 2 Plan #4 brings the R-C Zone along Highland Avenue to Lynn and extends it up to Greenlawn. Plan #4 restricts development the most. Mr. Wheaton felt that zoning something industrial takes. a lot out of the control of the Planning Board. A developer can almost do what he wants. He felt an industrial zone should exclude residential and have an industrial zone for industrial uses only. Walter Power felt he also was in favor of banning housing from an industrial zone. However, Mr. Power felt some housing should be allowed in this particular mares. He stated there is demand for housing in the City. He also felt the Board should do something about recognizing the shopping center area as a business zone. Mr. Wheaton stated he likes Plan #2 because it legitimizes Hawthorne Plaza. He recommended that we take one side of Highland Avenue and zone it R-1 Cluster. Take Plan #2 for the other side, leaving the large industrial but take out residential. The outcome is that we go all industrial with the exception of the B-2 District by the Hawthorne Plaza and we take out all residential in the industrial zone. The Planning Board wants to expand industrial uses and feels this is the best way to do this. It was decided to walk the land in question on Saturday, February 27, 1982, at 9:30 A.M. Everyone will meet at Abby Burns' house. • U.S.A. ANCHOR, 3 BRIDGE STREET -- Public Hearing. On August 27, 1981, the Planning Board moved to approve this Special Permit under emergency procedure per order of a letter issued by Salem Fire Marshall under Notice/Violation of Fire Laws dated 8/13/81. The Planning Board approved the replacement of the three tanks at that time provided that all other laws and ordinances were complied with, and with the under- standing that the City Engineer would approve the uplift calculations and the petitioner would file for a public hearing. At this formal hearing, the comments from the various city departments were discussed. The City Engineer concurs with the proposal stating that it meets with all the requirements of the Wetlands Hazard Act and department regula- tions. The Building Inspector concurred with the proposal without comment. Comment sheets have not been received from the Board of Health or the Conservation Commission. It was decided that no action will be taken on this matter until the comment sheet is received from the Board of Health. The Public Hearing was closed. A motion was made to adjourn, and having passed unanimously, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • Jacquelyn A. Rybicki Clerk ' SA al ZONING ORDINANCE: JAN. 1982 RdRIWRAM3283 B41B511 I RESIDENTIAL OC.B.D. Mixed Use Development Cluster Residential Development Condominiums Detached Single Family Dormitories I Elderly Housing under S.H.A. . Garages (as accessory use) Garden Apartments O Multi-Family ` Multi-Family (less than five units) Nursing Homes ® O Nursing Homes (more than 70 beds) Parish Houses, Convents# Monastaries P.U.D. O O O O O O Rooming and Boarding of Z Persons Rooming and Boarding of 3 - 6 Persons Two Family: Attached or Detached PUBLIC, RECREATION & INSTITUTIONAL USES Cemetaries Charitable Institutions Churches and Places of Worship Commercial Recreation Facilities - Historic Buildings'Open to the Public O Hospitals Institutions of Higher Education Municipal Buildings . a. Municipal Fire Stations 'c Museums f, Music and Dance Studios Non-Profit Clubs and Lodges (private) Non-Profit Recreation Buildings (Public) Nursery, Elementary and Secondary Schools Outdoor Swimming Pools Outdoor Theaters Public and Private Golf Courses Public Libraries w r•r w _ ;� Public Parks and Playgrounds taxi, 1� f w Public Service Corp. Buildings Trade and Business Schools Veterinary Hospitals Yacht Clubs: Waterfront KEY ALLOWED AS OF RIGHT EM SPECIAL PEM, IT REQUIRED SPECIFICALLY NOT ALLOWED O l I i wwwwwwwww .. . • . - : . . . - - wwwwlwwwwwlw - . - wwnwlnoww�li _ wwwwlw:x � wa>;�yl _ _ . . .. - . . iii r lw►w=�� w:� gF • • wwwwl rA.��. ��, �,��s�arxe�� _ . . . .. . , _ wwwwlw� !•= 'LF' IPM MIKIN WEI wwwwiw�� w -�[Iwj wwwwl r z a .a_. . . .. - wwlOwlO[lwwwl r Ise wwwwlwwwwwiw • wwwwlwww®wlw' .. . wwwwlllwwwwl .< 1- wwlllr wwww • „ , ._ . ,_ _ _ _ • , wwwwlwww:". � w�; • wwwwiw��wc�' • wwwwlwwiwwtw .. • - .. - • - . ... III%/I >AMj IwwlwlI �� . . . - . - . . . . . wwwwlw ° .:�-�`_• '�`�: - . - . - • - wwwwlw hew# �I� •'' • • - wwwwlw wwwwlwww h.;,i.: • wwwwlE"�b:' :.,�F".e. uf ��y- f5• M •� •f • SOUTHERN SALEM LAND USE STUDY - FEBRUARY 1982 DRAFT: Hospital Zone Industrial Zone HOSPITAL DISTRICT All uses permitted in RC, R1,R2,R3 Hospital Nursing Homes Business and professional offices Banks Medical clinics Research and development facilities Laboratories without noxious odors ac urm 'on Retail establishments serving local needs including but not limited to, flower • shops, drug, grocery, and baked goods stores not exceeding 5)000 sq. ft. per establishment RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL All uses permitted in RC, Rl,R2,R3 Business and professional office Printing and publishing Warehousing and wholesale distribution Manufacturing, assembly, processing, packaging, research and testing operations including the following uses, provided that such operations shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building or structure. a. (1) products, developed from previously refined or similarly processed material such as bone, ceramic, cloth, glass, leather, metals, plastics paper, rubber (except tires), wood (except planing mills.) • (2) electrical and mechanical instruments and appliances, optical goods (3) Cosmetics, toiletries, and pharmaceutical products (a� 5 - • (4) Administrative offices, data processing centers and laboratory for scientific and industrial research including testing and product development. b. printing and publishing establishment C. Auto body or paint shop; vehicle repair garage excluding the repair of heavy motorized equipment and the open storage of inoperative equipment ` d. Contractor's or craftsman's shop including carpentry, welding ornamental iron works, electrical and machine shop, provided that such use is not located within 200 feet of any "R" district. e. Warehouse, bottling plant, frozen food locker, ice manufacturing plant, wholesale establishment, and similar distribution center f. General industrial uses, including manufacture, assembly, processing, packaging or other industrial operation (such as, but not limited to, the following; steam laundry, dry cleaning and rug cleaning establishment, food products, manufacture, machine shops, bottling works, box manufacture, textile manufacture, manufacture of boots and shoes), • _ which would not be offensive because of injurious or obnoxious noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, odor, dust, or other objectionable feature, or become hazardous to the community on account of fire or explosion or any other cause. • MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 6 , 1982 , HELD AT ONE SALEM GREEN, THIRD FLOOR, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, David Goodof, Abby Burns , Donald Hunt, Normand Houle, Edward Stevenson, and .William Wheaton Planning Board Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. FORM A -- Stuart Abrams , Peter Road This lot is being created from a large parcel of land. It has appropriate frontage on a paved way. In all aspects , it complies with the requirements, of'`the Subdivision Regulations. • A motion was made by Normand Houle and seconded by Abby Burns to approve the Form A, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. The motion passed unanimously. NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY -- Public Hearinq_ for Construction of Chimney Foundation. Mr. Power opened the public hearing at 7 : 50 , read the legal notice, and explained the public hearing procedure to the audience. Mr. Ronald Boches, Supervisor, Licenses and Permits , for New England Power Company, read a prepared statement to the Board (attached hereto and made a part hereof) . Mr. Power then reviewed the comments received from City Departments . The Conservation Commission concurred with the proposal but stated they needed more information. They requested an evaluation of hydro dynamic and hydrostatic pressures, buoyancy, and various factors'' of safety associated with the proposed stack foundation. New England Power Company submitted these calculations to the Commission on May 1, 1982 . They were reviewed and approved by Christopher Hagger of the Conservation Commission and Anthony Fletcher. The question was raised as to possible contamination of the soil to be excavated for this project. Since this material is currently being considered for -future fill on the site, the Commission would like to see the soil analysis that has been done by New England Power Company. SALEM PLANNING BOARD • May 6 , 1982 Page 2 The proposed storage area for this excavated material, although not in the designated flood hazard zone , is at elevation 13 feet mlw which is below the 100 year flood elevation of 15 . 36 mlw. Mr. Walsh from New England Power Company, said it was the intent of New England Power that only clean fill would be placed on the site for future use. In terms of contaminated soil, they plan to inspect the soil and any contaminated soil will be trucked away and disposed of. As of yet, no soil analysis has been done. Mr. Walsh said it was their intent to do the test just before excavation.. starts . They will have a certified testing company do the test. The Conservation Commission also proposed that the water encountered during the excavation for the base of the stack be pumped away from the ocean. Mr. Walsh said they will pump the water into a discharge tank and it will be pumped back into the harbor after it has settled. The Building Inspector concurred with the proposal with no comment. The Board of Health concurred with the proposal stating that on April 23 he met with Mr. Boches on the site and viewed the area of the proposed chimney foundationnand_associ:ated future construction. • They stated that they have no comment relative to the construction of the proposed chimney foundation; however, in relation to future construction they would like the design of the ash loading system be closed to the environment from the ash storage silo right into the body of the truck that will haul the ash away. Also, now that the use of coal as a fuel is being increased, more coal will be stockpiled on the site. They would like to know what method of dust suppression will be employed to prevent air pollution by windblown coal dust. The City Engineer concurred with the proposal stating that it meets with all requirements of the Department and the Flood Hazard Act. Mr. Power asked about precipitators . Mr. Walsh said thev do plan on using them. They will be good for both coal and oil . Mr . Power asked if this new system would handle the flow more efficiently than before. Mr. Walsh said no. It is primarily the same system and will be as efficient. About the noise level , they are still doing studies . The noise levels will not be any higher than they are now. The old precipitators will be removed. The old stacks will be retired in place. They will remain in place. They are not being brought down because of their proximity with a switch yard that serves New England and also they are over boilers . The cost would be very expensive although they have not done any cost estimates. Mr. Power asked if the City could sit down with New England Power and discuss SALEM PLANNING BOARD May 6 , 1982 Page 3 removing the stacks. Mr. Beatie stated that he went through the City departments and showed them all the plans and no one mentioned this. He said they would be willing to sit down to talk but he didn't know if anything would come of it. Mr. Power presented for the record six letters from neighbors in favor of the proposal, and one petition from the Memorial Park Association, Inc. listing eleven signatures that was also in favor (copies attached hereto and made a part hereof) . Mr. Arthur Thomson, 2 English Street, wanted to know why there was concern about knocking down the stacks. He rather liked them. He also felt New England Power Company did many wonderful things for the people in this City. Mr. John Whitehead, 8 Derby Street, said he lives right under the stacks . He doesn't see any reason why they should come down. Mr. Frank Carro, 14 Juniper Road, said he worked for the Power Company. He objected to the lowering of the stacks because it would put the whole system out of commission while the work was being done and he didn't think aesthetics could justify the cost. • Mr. John Hayes , 16 Nursery Street, stated that as a yachtsman, he needs the stacks in order to come home . Mr. Robert Armstrong said he is in favor of anything New England Power Company does because he feels they work for the benefit of their customers and the City. Mr. Bob Camarda said he is in favor of the new chimney. Judy Collins , 25 Planters Street, said she would like to see the new stacks because she is in favor of coal conversion. There being no further comments for or against the proposal, Mr. Power declared the public hearing closed at 8:55 P.M. A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Normand Houle to approve the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit with the following conditions: 1) That all work shall be done in accordance with plan entitled "New Englnad Power Company Salem Harbor Station, Salem , Mass. Oil to Coal Conversion, Chimney Fdn. Arr'g't. , D-9853-0" prepared by Louis D. Pierce and dated March 23, 1982 . 2) That any water excavated shall be put through the normal settling system before it is pumped back into the harbor. The motion passed unanimously. • SALEM PLANNING BOARD May 6 , 1982 Page 4 • RAY YOUNG , FREEMAN ROAD. Mr. and Mrs. Mancini accompanied Mr. Young. They are looking for waiver of two Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Power said that the Planning Board has a responsibility to the City and they must carefully study the future impact of any waiver. The plans were looked at with a wetlands map to see what firther development could be possible along Freeman Road. There is 100 toot frontage. Mr. Power stated that he has proposed a meeting with the City Planner in order to come up with some definitive language to help these people out. Mr. Wheaton' suggested the City build the streets and bill the owner for half of the street, water and sewer charges , and then when the rest of the land is developed, future owners will have to pay the other half. Another suggestion from Mr. Wheaton was that the present owner pay the whole amount and then be able to collect half charges when neighbors build. This could be done as a lien. DEARBORN LANE SUBDIVISION. Mr. Houle stated that no work has bee done by Mr. Decoulos on the sidewalks on Dearborn Lane. The Board decided that action should be taken at this point to • use the bond money to complete the work. The procedure is to put out bids for the work needed to be done. Then Mr. Decoulos will be notified and informed as to what is going on. A motion was made by Edward Stevenson and seconded by Abby Burns to call in the bond. The motion passed unanimously. Susan Madison will go to the City Engineer and have this matter go out to bid. DANGLING SUBDIVISIONS. The Morganis on Greenlawn Avenue have dropped out. They can no longer afford to build. Lionel Pelletier, Brook Street. Ms. Madison met with Mr. Senko and the City Solicitor. This now cannot be handled as a Form A according to the City Solicitor. It must be treated as a subdivision. Chances are that Mr. Pelletier will now be coming in to the Board with a Form B. Barnes Avenue. There are people here who want a road. The history is that there were two houses built eight years ago on a dirt road. When the building inspector saw the two houses completed, he thought there was a road there so he issued a building permit for a house across the street without requiring that he build a road. Now there is a fourth house being planned. SALEM PLANNING BOARD May 6, 1982 Page 5 • BOARD OF APPEAL AGENDA i The Board of Appeal agenda for May 12 , 1982 was reviewed. A letter was written on the petition of James Shuster/Kichul Cho for a special permit to convert the two family dwelling at 18 Charles Street into a three family dwelling. The letter urged the Appeal Board to consider the following points in making its decision: 1) The proposed plan would greatly exceed the density allowed in a R-2 district. 2) We would urge the A(ppeal Board to consider the availability of parking on the site . 3) Traffic from the college congests the street badly and this would encourage an already overcrowded condition. A motion was made to adjourn, and having passed unanimously, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • Jcqelyn A. Rybicki Clerk • Testimony of Ronald J. Boches NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY Before the Salem Planning Board May 6, 1982 My name is Ronald J. Boches. I am Supervisor, Licenses and Permits, here tonight representing New England Power Company. On March 24, 1982, New England Power Company submitted an application to the Salem Planning Board requesting the Board to issue a Special Permit that would allow the Company to construct a chimney foundation, at Salem Harbor Station, within Zone A3 of the city of Salem's Flood Hazard District. The • entire Generating Station site is located in an industrially zoned district. This construction, as proposed, is part of the long-term conversion of three of the Station's units from oil burning to coal burning. As you may know, we are presently burning coal in one of the three coal capable units at the Station under a Delayed Compliance Order issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Delayed Compliance Order established a compliance schedule for the long-term conversion. This schedule requires all three units to be converted to coal burning within 43 months after the burning of coal in any unit, but not later than December 31, 1985. In order to meet our long-range schedule, work must begin on construction of the chimney foundation during the early summer months. • 2 - The site plan, SK31982, submitted as a part of our application, shows the approximate relationship of the proposed work to the horizontal limit of the Flood Hazard District. This limit was derived from the Flood Hazard Boundary Map for this area as established by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section VII.P.2.b. , Supplementary Regulations. The existing elevation of the land associated with the proposed foundation work is at or near 14.0 feet mean low water. That is below the 100-year flood elevation of 15.36 feet mean low water established for this district. The proposed foundation will be approximately 68 feet in diameter with the • top of the foundation set at elevation 15.5 feet mean low water. This design will place the chimney itself above the 100-year flood plain. The proposed foundation will be composed of reinforced concrete and designed for hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including buoyancy effects. In order to construct the foundation, it is presently planned that sheet piling be driven to bedrock. The area within the sheet piling will be excavated, concrete fill will be added to the excavated site, reinforcing bars will be placed, .and the concrete foundation will be poured. Excavated material will be placed on-site in an area outside of the Flood Hazard District. • Furnishing electric power to the foundation area is the only utility work to be conducted in connection with the proposed construction. — 3 — • In order to avoid damage due to flooding, electrical power will be supplied in one of the following manners: 1. Electrical conductors will be placed in conduit below ground level. The conductors will be of a type suitable for underground use and the conduit will provide mechanical protection; or 2. Electrical conductors will be run on structural supports located a minimum of ten (10) feet above final grade. The proposed chimney foundation will occupy only 0.12 acre feet within the • Flood Hazard District. It will not detract from the overall flood storage capability of the site, nor will it result in an increase. in stormwater runoff velocity. The relative size of the site, the type of development and the existing ground contours serve as effective measures to contain and control flood flows within the site. As a result of these existing land contours, any flood flows on the site will be directed into Salem Harbor and will have no additional impact on surrounding landowners. Construction of the proposed foundation will not impact groundwater resources; nor will it destroy valuable habitat for wildlife. Due to the highly industrial nature of the existing site, it is not presently a suitable habitat for most wildlife. Moreover, the proposed construction will not affect fisheries or shellfisheries. • - 4 - • As an integral part of the site, roadways and access ways exist which safely handle movement of vehicles and pedestrians both within the site and to and from the site. The proposed foundation construction will not affect this safe movement. Therefore, a grant of permission to allow construction of a chimney foundation within Zone A3 .will not be .a departure from the present use of the site, will be in harmony with the general purpose of the district and the intent of the ordinance, and will not alter the essential character of the location. •. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Planning Board. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. • t *s47iv s 1 STA7/AN Eaulft EA/T at Avow•a0f / rewRl •ttN +MYr M GO . .Ana J lYrf A/wb ear-AII MWWAW7 Im one/it e /-/. i •-�: �, CAee'Ot Pe )b AAhwe Mt R pwR 0.0 XIII I/ •rwrw/he/Mt At A,wsfaew AMN i • Seger I t J rwwR I-/ I,J1000s/ swmoY M/N, CA �d Nlldnwpwlf? yam• FeeW"0•! [1!000"AL Cya�srs,s/ / n AresRAl Arsvll. !. • ` l Ano IJ Y•/O BOAS, Arrw w . M /YwtlAr• AMHs l•�I-/L ' E •- / JIAnq.� \� / Cr//Ywlsrar.e.: N f brrA fYd •-J Amex,fWlaOunYsr fLrl oil. Y h AWI•-/n/ •/l. 1- R�Y/MArX (a=44? F TANK t 0 sd it deo Lns//bli 1/ Mw Alrwe. E �• I.00D NAZ.UIO m� o-1 \ �. Mrtir • bNeD6,D000OflWsCbmmsre(OIRef tH. s rvelare / of JrCsnrs er7"Cs if AfO Ave, Ns[r. N Jhrr • Mew.. T ' I TANK \ \�•\ LL .Il Nnre rT'"G N Ya Awa Nwe fl CAsn .Newe TANK \ D• •rs�� a•OA�.` \ N .f/lsww r7 j" Jt i IJO Ji+. AWr. Nstwns�Jf wrorYf [ 6fa rr ' TANK �' �. •\. - ANrOd Cb Om OD/J.EVMer fY.( d[. 0_3 TANK •-I J- we T•� Onrvn[ YaOrr bO • . TDANA -3 J I raewira MIA l •r vlM JI Kbslc lW![rTieofinentC ;prrrn+f. C-G '�- v! JI tediw bsAl • 1\\ \ • /q'yL{�• �• JL Las/•w I/il/Irw. TANK 0 \ '•nc 'w a �►.+ TANK ' TANK I ® `tiayf \•��i 40 .\ A O/lp . p - sa 'oecow 0 '4* .... � OA L wr AOIfL 0 •fs/N qp, U I.OI�l�� Y�—•` ►`, _ w .. A LJ " b � cl Mr'K TS sus _ -WH A R r DISCHARGE CHANNEL ' . � � � ' 1 - - 1 _ ' _;r".Isw•. ' rr•• /avers��Mrf!'L/iti . i � fOQN ACrAt r• lily . Rehrawss lY/d T Rehnnr AYA/ X� e►. Llwwsn/e/s••wrD (J/ee///w) i A /ee/w I 4r A'i/er � � •s Ah.ast[Il Jwfs 1�I L___.--- 7--- : a� IIIf•NssJ AIM L/wa-1/ Jfw Isp.AF AbrfA / I r Tltyt y>_D CIIw YCY / lw/Vw / 4Je 1', q Nfe Neale I 1• : !NL FOONDAT1Od _ U040el I AIJRK S" Jfrwfwr I YA'K 0eI Jfreshre. . / y / / h ♦AiOr/s/Jlreshrw , ReAe News. sand Dro6fruef✓t JLFI K p tCM40 .. 11{�_ ,� AM1I•r fts/V' � a�SJ[tTGA�2M14 1 ` yq:,' • - 11fw/ns1►mot". ;,SECT" •� CTpJ81YMR[ Amp Tumv ,t litRs. CMFMff -,� :est �'. , - '°', di .. - ` s► T MsflJ YI7Vs toa s>• .. •. .;'r.. : u _ .t . ^ : I Orraw• T Mary fA• �Jsw mwGNOLMO 0' w— GOOM'Mr1( J AFfiM STAT - :•• AI/ P,own" face Aw #w aYOEWMAL' YAC . l Pow�_j •Iwp far R ww r� UCTION _ I � iK•�LOi! T1 {4j+•�..�••a_'~ d' - _.• _ - - • .__ _ . , a . _ .�.. _. �- ate- � -d' k j1q2 �e?51 41jr • �� AGOG R enPy - 61982 SpEEM PIpN �1ND DEPT• . Salem Planning Board I Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Attention: Walter B. Power,. III Due to a prior commitment I am unable to attend your May 6, 1982 planning board meeting. Please list me in favor of your granting New England Power Company permission to build a new chimney. It is my feeling that the company burning coal will save us money on our electric bills and will help to make the air cleaner. Sinc ely Joseph Pep" Cornacchio 77 Memorial Drive Salem, MA 01970 May 6, 1982 .Salem Planning Board One Salem Green Salem Mass. Attention: Mr. Walter Power Deqr Mr, Power, I am a life long resident of Salem, and as such, I am interested in what I consider to be best for this city. I therefor request to be recorded in favor of New England Power Company building a new higher chimney, I feel that their request should be granted. • Arthur L. Thompson 10 English St Salem, Mass • } � � � E � ��t � ; � , k, r' �3ds �i : � �sh jy � � � ��v�" v� jY � � F h � d ! 3 � �,a ; Y� ^r�3 �y � s� T t � � ti.`3 �* d� N+3 � � • a e OffirE of 111E ( itV Jmmri( f2ifg Ptt11 J9e0,MNe�,FY WARD COUNCILLORS FRANCES J. GRACE 1980 COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT 19s0 GEORGE A. NOWAK • JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO JOHN F. NESTOR. III JOSEPH M. CENTORINO CITY CLERK STEPHEN P. LOVELY JOHN J. GIARDI FRANCES J. GRACE ROBERT J. LE BLANC, JR. ROBERT E. HEALEY GEORGE F. MC CAGE BRIAN T. O'KEEFE JOHN R. NUTTING RECEIVED MAY - 6 1992 Salem Planning Board SALEM PLANNING DEPT. I 'Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Chairman,Nalter B. Power; . III I would like to be recorded in favor of the planning board granting New England Power Company the special permit for the erection of the new chimney, to burn coal. It is my understanding that the new chimney will be a greater benefit to my constituents, in making coal burning more efficient and in compliance with E.P.A. regulations and protecting the environment. Yours truly Councillor Ward I Memorial Park Association Inc. 7 Webb Street Salem, Mass. 01970 • We, the undersigned members of the Memorial Park Association, 7 Webb St. Salem, Mass. would like to be recorded in favor of the construction of a new chimney by the New England Power Company for the right to burn coal. It is our feeling that with the new chimney and other polution controls our life in the neighborhood will be greatly enhanced. The Power Company has certainly tried to do what is right for the neigbors and the neighborhood. name� address O-V------------- � -SIL 4 _��_ _--y--------- MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 1, 1982 , HELD ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF ONE SALEM GREEN , SALEM , MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, David Goodof, William Wheaton, Abby Burns , Normand Houle MEMBERS ABSENT: Edward Stevenson, Donald Hunt Planning Board Chairman Walter Power opened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. RAY YOUNG -- FREEMAN ROAD PROPOSAL Mr. Young is planning a one-house subdivision. The land is undeveloped. There is a pond on the property. They are asking for a variance iron street width and sidewalks . There is water and sewer on Freeman Road. Ms. Madison will talk with the City Engineer to determine what the sewer lines • out there can handle. This lot has frontage on a paper street. The area around this lot is undeveloped. Mr . Young inquired about draining the pond and Ms . Madison explained to him the steps that should be followed in order to make that presentation. FORM A -- CANAL REALTY TRUST , ROLAND GAUTHIER, TRUSTEE , 138 & 142 CANAL STREET Mr, Gauthier is taking two lots and making them into one lot which meets existing frontage and zoning requirements . A motion was made by William Wheaton and seconded by Normand Houle to approve the Form A, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. The motion passed unanimously. FORM A -- BLUBBER HOLLOW REALTY TRUST , BEAVER AND GROVE STREETS This Form A was presented at the last meeting but action was delayed because there was not a quorum present. Lots L and 3 are to be combined with abutting Land of Blubber Hollow Realty Trust to form one contiguous lot. Lot 2 is being combined with abutting lot 4 to make one contiguous lot. Lots 3 and 4 are presently owned by James and Eva Tournas. Lots 1. and 2 are presently owned by Blubber Hollow Realty Trust. The land of Blubber Hollow Realty Trust has sufficient frontage on Grove Street for zoning purposes. SALEM PLANNING BOARD • April 1, 1982 Page 2 A motion was made by Normand Houle and seconded by William Wheaton to approve the Form A, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. The motion passed unanimously. EDWARD MORGANI, 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE Mr. John Serafini reviewed for the Board what has happened to date. Since the last meeting with the Planning Board, he said his people would be willing to go along with four lots instead of the five originally presented. They are still concerned about the huge expense involved in putting in the road. The family had a cost estimate made for the road and sewer from Mackey and Sons for $122 , 240.00. This is an estimate for a 26 foot wide road. Present zoning requires a 36 foot wide road. Ms . Madison informally contacted Captain Goggin of the Fire Department for his view. He said he is against a twenty foot wide road. He stated he needs a minimum of 12 feet for clearance for the fire trucks. He would be willing to • compromise at 30 feet. A hydrant would be needed along the street. Ms. Madison also contacted the City Engineer. He stated he is not concerned about the sidewalks or curbing or the street width. He feels the City is no longer responsible for curbing or sidewalks . Discussion followed on sewer and water line plans and Ms . Madison stated she will talk wity the City Engineer about their proposal to dead end the water line. After considerable discussion on lot size , dead ending utilities , road width, sidewalks , curbing , and environmental impact, the following decisions were reached: Lot Size: They have complied with lot size that clearly meets the frontage and comes significantly close tozoning requirements by elirpinating one lot. The Board felt this was an agreeable compromise. Road Width: It was felt that they would go with a thirty foot wide road with a four foot sidewalk on.one side with no grass strip. Sidewalks: It was decided to ask the City Solicitor for his opinion on having the owners add sidewalks at a later date when the rest of the area is developed. Clerk of the Works: It was felt the City Engineer could oversee the construction of the road and eliminate the Clerk of the Works . Lighting: Overhead electrical lines will be-permitted. SALEM PLANNING BOARD April 1, 1982 Page 3 Mr. Serafini asked for a variance from the grade required for road construction. They would like to eliminate the asphault and use lynpack. The concensus of the Board was that roads will be put in according to specifications. However, Ms . .Madison will ask the City Engineer for his opinion on this. MICHAEL MONIZ -- HIGHLAND AVENUE Mr.. Monlz presented two maps he had prepared showing proposed zoning changes for the Highland Avenue area. Discussion followed his presentation on developing an industrial zone for the City and the best land use for this particular area. A motion was made to adjourn, and having passed unanimously, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M . Respectfully submitted, Jacquelyn A. Rybicki D Clerk 4 • MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 15 , 1982 , HELD AT CITY HALL ANNEX, ONE SALEM GREEN , THIRD FLOOR, SALEM , MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, Abby Burns , Normand Houle MEMBERS ABSENT; Edward Stevenson, David Goodof, Donald Hunt, William Wheaton Planning Board Chairman Walter Power opened the meeting of the Salem Planning Board at 7 :30 P.M. FREEMAN ROAD -- One house subdivision. Mr. Ray Young told the Board of his client's plans to build a solar home. His client plans to leave the pond as is because he loves ducks and doesn't mind • building around the pond. He is asking for a waiver of sidewalk requirements. He is willing to put in the street at the width it is now which is 25-27 feet. At the beginning of Freeman Road, there are curbs and siewalks but at the end where he is there are not. .Mr. Power said the right of way should be put in according to the Subdivision Control Law . He explained that the Planning Board must consider what Land will be developed in the future and if this is not handled correctly, the area could end up in a bottleneck. The Planning Board Aide will visit the site to check what this particular area would be serving in the future. Mr. Young said he will go and get exact figures on road width for his client and then come back to the Board. MICHAEL MONIZ -- Highland Avenue Presentation . In January 1926, the City had the first Zoning Ordinance. At that time, Highland Avenue was zoned mostly residential. In 1955 , it was still mostly general residence except for spots along Highland Avenue zoned for business. In 1962 they made major changes . At that time, the present 500 foot strip was designated business. This background slows that Highland Avenue has never been developed rationally. Zoning changes came mostly through pressures. Mr. Moniz said the emphasis now has to be either a strong industrial statement or a requite of the business zone. There is a question of reality to consider. There is a scheme now to carry the residential strip down to the street, which may look good on paper but may not actually work because of the businesses involved. One proposal was to make a strong statement making a large industrial zone along Highland Avenue. Industrial uses would have less traffic and a greater job base. There is a grant that may be available to build industrial roads. We have a shot at this and if we got it, that could be used to further things along. SALEM PLANNING BOARD April 15 , 1982 Page 2 The area along by Bob's Clam Shack, the junk dealer, theequipment.rental, etc. was discussed. It was thought perhaps that should be zoned residential and gradually that it could be phased out. The Board favored making a statement for an industrial zone. They decided to come up with some Language that would eliminate housing from the industrial zone. Mr. Moniz set out a map and marked the areas as they were discussed. A refined B-2 zone was discussed. Mr. Moniz said he would work on percentage of the lot for buffer and plantings. A list of objectives was worked through for the Board of Appeal so that they could have some reasoning behind our decisions . The objectives were: 1) to encourage larger businesses that do not compete with down town. 2) To reduce curb cuts and improve site control. 3) To maximize industrial land (increase tax base, create job base) . 4) To minimize housing impact. 5) To keep a major traffic artery to Lynn. 6) to improve the aesthetics of Highland Avenue with improved signs , lighting , trees , plants , buffers. BOARD OF APPEAL AGENDA • The Board of Appeal agenda for April 28 , 1962 was discussed. Regarding the petition of Edward McGlynn for variances to permit the increase of units on the property at 46-52 Northey Street from 4 units to 6 units , the Planning Board wrote a memo referring to their letter of February 17 , 1982 in which they suggested the variance be denied because the proposed plan would greatly exceed the density allowed in a R-2 district and they questioned the availability of parking on this site. Regarding the petition of F. Robert Ruscio for a special permit to construct an addition to the southerly side of the existing non-conforming building at 62 Jefferson Avenue, the Planning Board suggested the variance be denied because: 1) This would be a continuation of a non-conforming use in an R-1 district of an activity currently only allowed in a B-4 or Industrial district. 2) Although this business is located next to the Michaud Bus Company, it is surrounded on the other two sides by single family homes. , An expansion of this non-conforming use in a congested area would further impact the residential use of that area. 3) By using more of the lot for building, it further eliminates any room for customers to use for parking or Leaving their cars. 4) Buffering between conflicting uses is addressed in our Master Plan. With the expansion of this business , any possibility of providing even a minimal buffer between the R-1 'district and this use will be lost. • SALEM PLANNING BOARD April 15 , 1982 Page 2 i Regarding the petition of George and Georgia Lentros for a special permit to extend a non-conforming use to permit the use of the two existing stores as commercial stores at 63-63 1/2 and 65-65 1/2 Boston Street and 4 Proctor Street, the Planning Board reviewed the situation and urged the Appeal Board to consider that Boston Street is a major traffic artery leaving the City and any expansion or encouragement of pull-in, pull-out traffic along that route will further aggravate a situation on a road that is already taxed to capacity. A motion was made to adjourn , and having passed unanimously, the meeting ' adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted , l l Aacqn A. Rybicki Clerk • \`t MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 5 , 1982 , HELD AT ONE SALEM GREEN, THIRD FLOOR, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, Ken May, David Goodof, Donald Hunt, Normand Houle MEMBERS ABSENT: William Wheaton, Abby Burns , Edward Stevenson Planning Board Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7 : 45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -- F. W. Webb Company, 295 Bridge Street. Mr. Power opened the public hearing at 7 : 45 P.M. .and' read the public notice. Mr. Edward Welsh, General Manager of F . W. Webb Company, made the presentation. They want to construct an elevator • in the building. Basically, the exisin building has a dirt floor. The freight elevator would service the �irst floor and the upper floors . It would not serve the basement. All the machinery is on the first floor. The elevator will serve five floors. It is a hydrolic lift with the piston buried in the ground. The Building Inspector concurs with the proposal . The Board of Health concurred with the proposal stating they have viewed the plans, and visited the site. The City Engineer concurs with the Proposal stating that it meets all the requirements of the flood hazard zoning ordinance. The Conservation Commission concurs with the proposal and they have issued an Order of Conditions. There being no further comments for or against the proposal, the hearing was declared closed. A motion was made b_v Donald Hunt and seconded by Normand Houle to approve the special permit to F. W. Webb Company. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING -- Paul LaBrie , 11 Hemenway Mr. Power opened the public hearing at 8 :00 P .M. He read the notice and explained the procedure to the audience. Mr. LaBrie made his presentation to the Board. He stated that the wall he is proposing is similar to the existing wall: It is a large rock type of wall. 1 . SALEM PLANNING BOARD • August 5 , 1982 Page 2 The Building Inspector concurred with the proposal. The Board of Health stated they viewed the plans, visited the site and concur with the proposal. The City Engineer concurs with the proposal saying that it meets all the conditions of the Flood Zone Act and satisfies all engineering requirements . The Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions stating that the work shall be done in accordance with presented plans; that all work shall be done from the landward side; and that the proposed wall shall be connected to the adjacent walls by interlocking stones. The stones used shall be in accordance with the Mass. Department of Public Works specifications. Mr. Jack LaPorte , president of Osgood Park Association, stated that they are very much in favor of the proposal. Mr. Philip Moran, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, also spoke in support of the project. There being no further comments for or against the proposal, the public hearing was declared closed at 8 : 15 P .M. • A motion was made by David Goodof and seconded by Donald Hunt to approve the special permit. The motion passed unanimously. FORM A -- solarterre-e-em child growing center, inc. , 143-145 Loring Avenue. This is a proposal to put two lots together. Mr. and Mrs. Welch are buying the house next door. Thev must put up a boiler structure to get the gas boilers out of the building. By combining these lots , they will not be affected by side restrictions . Also, they want to build a walkway between the two houses and they could not do that unless it was one lot. A motion was made by Ken May and seconded by David Goodof to approve the Form A, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. The motion passed unanimously. FORM A -- Dorilla Morencv, 38 Rear Shore Avenue Mr. Bob Ledeux appeared before the Board as attorney for Mrs . Morency. He stated that she has owned the property for years . In 1945 there was a straw conveyance to a legal secretary and then back to Mr. and Mrs. Morency. The property lines merged on all the existing lots. In 1973 , they conveyed a lot of land (Lot A) to a son. The houses on the lots had been there for a considerable length of time. They would like to basically affirm what happened • SALEM PLANNING BOARD August 5 , 1982 Page d in 1973 . They have permission from the Board of Appeals . The Planning Board expressed concern about the closed easement. They felt that there should be a granting of easement across Lot A to Lot B. After much discussion, a motion was made by David Goodof and seconded by Donald Hunt to approve the Form A, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. The motion passed 3-2 with Ken Ma_v and Walter Power opposed . FORM A -- Highland Realty Trust, 269-271 Highland Avenue . This is a division of land. Thev meet the requirements of frontage and size. Mr. John Serafini is coming in with a division for a Burger King, a bank and a lumber company. He has agreed that there will be no curb cuts on to Highland Avenue. A motion was made by Normand Houle and seconded by David Goodof to approve the Form A, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. The motion passed unanimously. • GREG SENKO Mr. Senko stated that he would like to take the next month to try to put an outline together working with Richard Stafford to pinpoint the language and work it up. Mr. Senko asked for any comments on the meeting of the 16th. He is trying to get a package to the City Council. He also stated that he would like to set un a meeting for the Board to go out to Ashland and see Mr. Fafard ' s project out there . Meeting Schedule : in order to organize a bus tour of the Ashland project, it was decided that the :September meeting of the Board would be on September 16th and 30th. A motion was made to adjourn, and having passed unanimously, the meeting adjourned at 10 :00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ////pew J cgd'ely A. -R bic ® lerk MINUTES OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 , HELD AT CITY HALL ANNEX, ONE SALEM GREEN , SECOND FLOOR, SALEM , MASSACHUSETTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Power, Normand Houle, Ken May, Abby Burns , David Goodof, Bill Cass, Donald Hunt MEMBERS ABSENT: William Wheaton and Edward Stevenson Planning Board Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order a 7:30 P.M. FORM A -- Lionel Pelletier, 5 Brooks Street This is a division of a lot into three parcels. This was on a public way before subdivision control. They have been before Lhe Board of Appeal for a variance, which was granted. A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by David Goodof to approve the Form A, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. The motion passed unanimously. FAFARD COMPANY -- Slide Show of Ashland Property. A slide show of Fafard Company's Ashland project was prepared and presented to the Board: Condominium owners pay $40.00-$50.00 a month to cover all maintenance expenses and future expense for the roof, etc. This fee also covers snow removal. Trash removal is taken care of by the town. The only expense to the town is trash removal, police and fire protection. The condominium fee is low because they did not put in any pools which are very expensive. Fafard again invited the Planning Board to visit the Ashland project. They plan to treat Salem the same as Ashland as far as landscaping goes. A motion was made to adjourn , and having passed unanimously, she meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM, Respemfully submitted, �� L kz, qqu lytRbicki Clerk ti. MIN[PrES OF THE SAM PLANNING4`• BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 2],; 1982, HELD ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF;QNE SALF1l GREEN; SAI M, MASSACHUSETTS MF BERS PRESENT: Walter Power, James Fox, Abby Burns, Edward Stevenson MMERS ABSENT: Normand Houle, David Goodof, Donald Hunt, William Wheaton Planning Board Chairman Walter Power opened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. i MIa AEL NONIZ -- SOUTHERN SALEM LAND USE STUDY 4 Mr. Moniz wanted to bring the Board:AT to date on the study being prepared for Highland Avenue. It is important ,that the Board became familiar with. the bounds. The area in question in.-the study could be drawn by taking a line through the hospital and high school area and going down through Forest • River and it encompasses neighborhoods 4, 5, 6 and 7. 7 Since 1965, there have been 865 houses built; 684 apartment units and 37 condominiums built in this area. Since 1976, there has only been ten to fifteen houses built. This is attributed to controlled growth. The City has accrued about 150 acres of conservation land in this area since 1976. Right now there is only 57 acres zoned for business. This is the only remaining industrial land. There is 122 acres that could be used for that . - purpose since there are sewe s. Right now only 28 acres of that is being used. There ar other areas off Highland Avenue th t could be used for industrial land but there are no services. In this arit:, the 'study shows a potential for 1800 units.to he built. Of that, 1,100 is in s me form of planning'. This leaves us wlth•700 units that could be affected -by zoning changes right now. Mr. Moniz'has been meeting with land owners out there and also members of neighboring towns to see what is happening there. Most of the landowners do not have any plans to develope their land. They were not interested in handling anything that large themselves. The City of Peabody is looldng to leave most of their property for open space. This abuts their'cemetery •land, Walter Power said there is a definite need for industry and this is the - last open land in the City. It was felt there was a problem attracting people because of the lack of a highway access. Mr. Power felt we should set up a new zone title that would encourage compatible uses. .Abby Burns • suggested that Mr. Moniz go through other industrial zones in-other cities and bring back a list of allowable uses for the Board to go over and compare. • SAI M PLANNING BOARD January 21.,,, 1982 Page 2 Mr. Moniz will plan to come back to' the next meeting. By that time, he will have interviewed the last of the landowners and answered some questions raised tonight. FEE SCHEDULES Because of an auditing error, the finds for the position of Planning Board Aide have run out. Walter Power and Greg Senko are going to the Mayor to request an_:additional $6,000.00 to fund this position to the end of the year. If he agrees, the appropriation will then go to the City Council. It is imperative that we set a fee schedule to avoid this situation again next year. Mr. Power requested an estimate of the number of Form A's and Special Permits handled per year, He asked for fee schedule background from neighboring towns so that we can estimate the funds the Board is able- to generate. A motion was made to adjourn, and having passed unanimously, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. • Respectfully submitted, Q R 1 L&- Jac4 ue" 'bicki Yn � Y Clerk • JOINT PUBLIC HEARING SALEM PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE December 16, 1982 A joint public hearing of the Salem Planning Board and the Salem City Council was held on December 16, 1982 , to discuss the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance , Chapter 25, with respect to the establishment of amusement districts and associated regulations of said use . CITY COUNCILLORS PRESENT : President Brian T . O'Keefe , Councillor George Nowak , Councillor James Fleming, Councillor John Nutting, Councillor Joseph M. Centorino , Councillor John F. Nestor, Coun- cillor John J. Giardi, Councillor Jean-Marie Rochna. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT : Chairman Walter B . Power, III , Kenneth S. May, David Goodof , Abby Burns , Edward Stevenson, Donald Hunt. ALSO PRESENT : City Solicitor Richard W . Stafford, Planning Board Aide Susan Madison, Attorney Roger K. Soderberg, Mr. Harvey Lazarus. Council President Brian T . O'Keefe called the hearing to order at • 709 p.m. , read the notice of the hearing, and introduced the coun- cillors present. He stressed the desire of the City Council and the Planning Board to receive citizen input on the matter at hand. Councillor O 'Keefe then introduced Walter Power, who in turn, introduced the members of the Planning Board present. Councillor O 'Keefe then introduced City Solicitor Stafford for a presentation regarding the proposed zoning ordinance . Mr. Stafford stated that the Legal Department had met with the City Council Committee on Ordinances and Legal Affairs to discuss the draft of an approach to regulating video games within the City. At the re- quest of the Council, the Licensing Board has placed a moratorium on the licensing of games in the city. This was done with the un- derstanding that the Council would proceed with whatever avenue they wish to pursue in a reasonable period of time . Mr. Stafford has prepared an ordinance to create an amusement district. This would be a new district within the City of Salem. It has not been determined whether this district would be an overlay over certain existing zoning districts or the creation of a new district. The ordinance essentially defines an amusement as those licensed under M.G.L. Chapter 140, Section 177A and theatrical exhibitions under Section 181. Video games are licensed under Section 177A . In the amusement district, certain specific uses are permitted as "of right. " Restaurants , theatres , bowling alleys , billiard rooms , etc. are included. Accessory uses related to those specified Would also be included. .If the resulting ordinance creates a Minutes of Meeting--December 16, 1982 Page 2 • a new zoning district specifically for "amusements , " then amusement - uses will also be allowed through a special permit in a B-2 dis- trict. In all other zoning districts , they would be specifically prohibited. Any uses in existence presently would be "grandfathered. " Councillor O 'Keefe then asked the City Councillors present for questions or comments. For clarification, Councillor Fleming highlighted some points of Mr. Stafford's proposal. If this ordinance were adopted, then future licensing of video games outside of a proposed amusement district could only be allowed by the Board of Appeal. Mr. Stafford replied in the affirmative. In a B-2 district, further licensing of video games would be done by special permit issued by the Board of Appeal. Any other district would require a variance . Councillor Fleming noted that hardship would have to be proven in this case . Mr. Stafford agreed. Councillor Fleming asked why an additional requirement was made outside a B-2 district and Mr. Stafford re- plied that the intention was to limit to the best extent possible without outright prohibition. Councillor Fleming commented that if this ordinance was adopted, it would provide for a duel tracking type of system of potential licensing of video games. Mr. Stafford agreed. Councillor Nutting asked how this ordinance would affect residential • areas which border on B-2 districts; i. e . Loring Hills area which now borders on a B-2? He wishes to know how the abuttors would be protected. Mr. Stafford explained that the Board of Appeal could find that proposed video games would not be in harmony with the existing ordinance , so if the neighborhood was opposed and articu- lated their reasons, the Board of Appeal would have the right not to issue the permit. Mr. Stafford stressed that this would be "defensible action" in a court of law. Councillor Nutting noted that the ordinance provided for "adequate parking" as a requirement for the licensing of an amusement. What would constitute adequate parking? Mr. Stafford replied that the language relating to parking was not specifically related to video games , but was geared toward employee parking, etc. He feels it may be worthwhile to amend the ordinance to respond specifically to the video game question. Councillor Centorino asked if there was any precedence for this type of ordinance in any other community. Mr. Stafford replied that there is only one other at the moment--in Boston--and it has not yet been acted upon. However, he feels that the ordinance proposed this evening is defensible Councillor Rochna asked if it was possible for the City of Salem to legally outlaw these games. Mr. Stafford replied that the Town of Marshfield has outlawed them. A U. S . District Court injunction has been denied and an appeal has been denied. However, -this does • Minutes of Meeting--December 16, 1982 Page 3 • not mean that the ordinance is valid. There will be a new trial in January, and until this is resolved, no one knows. Mr. Stafford felt, however, it would be difficult to enforce . Councillor Giardi commented that, in his opinion, the overall ordi- nance is a good one. He feels video games should not be banned, but regulated. He feels that under a controlled environment, a video arcade could provide a positive experience . Councillor O'Keefe then turned the meeting over to Planning Board Chairman Walter Power for the comments of the Planning Board. Walter Power stated that the Planning Board had met and discussed this proposal at length. Ken May of the Planning Board posed the following questions: The Board' s first question related to whether there was to be an overlay district or a separate district. Ken stated that judging from this evening's discussion, it was apparent that this had not been resolved. The second point the Planning Board questioned was the definition of an amusement. The Board felt there were several amusements defined under Section 181 which they were not sure should be reg- ulated to the same extent as those defined in 177A ( i. e . the circus) . The Planning Board asked that a variety of activities should be • tested against the proposed ordinance before final passage in order to insure that some uses not be inadvertently prohibited or regulated. The third area of question regarded the definition of a commercial amusement. Was this limited to the definitions under Section 177A and 181, or did it apply to all commercial amusementR If commercial amusement was meant to define only those amusements in 177A and 181, the Planning Board suggested the words "commercial amusement" be used as opposed to "amusement" alone . The fourth area of concern regarded the language establishing the exemption of housing under the jurisdiction of the Salem Housing Authority from the ordinance. It is the interest of the Planning Board to protect residents in public as well as private housing. The fifth question by the Planning Board was whether there was any intention to have video games become accessory uses to other primary uses. The Planning Board understands the concerns relating to a video arcade , but to what extent are we to be concerned about the licensing of a single game in a bar which has been licensed by the Licensing Board? The Planning Board also has some concern as to the effects of increasing the work load of the Board of Appeal. The Board questioned whether this ordinance could be administered by the Licensing Board. Walter Power also expressed some concern as to what effect this ordinance would have on the re-zoning process. He explained that the Planning Board had been considering recommending tighter boundaries for B-2 districts. In addition, the City, in recent years, has encouraged a mix of commercial and residential Minutes of Meeting--December 16, 1982 Page 4 • uses. Would this ordinance prohibit uses in residential areas? Mr. Stafford then responded to the concerns of the Planning Board. With regard to the definition of an amusement, Mr. Stafford felt the definition should be altered to read "commercial amusement. " This would serve to clarify the intent of the ordinance . As far as concerns regarding special amusements such as the circus were concerned, this could be treated by amending the ordinance to ex- clude those activities licensed by the City Council. Regarding the language about public housing, Mr. Stafford stated that this language was common throughout the ordinance and, rather than distinguishing between public and private housing, it was inserted as a courtesy to any activity undertaken by the Salem Housing Authority. Therefore , if public housing was to be built in a proposed amusement district, the City would defer. Councillor O 'Keefe asked how this affected the UDAG area? Mr. Stafford re- plied that this language speaks specifically to the Salem Housing Authority. Regarding accessory uses in other districts , Mr. Stafford felt the concensus of the Committee in drawing up the draft was that no accessory uses would be permitted because it would expand areas where video games would be allowed. This was done intentionally • in the draft to control any accessory use . Regarding the burden on the Board of Appeal, Mr. Stafford stated that this issue had not been taken into consideration, however, no formal request was sent from Board of Appeal to remove them from handling this area. He felt it was safe to assume that they will be willing to handle it. As far as the overall effect of the proposed ordinance on the re- zoning and housing mix is concerned, Mr. Stafford recommended that the Planning Board report specifically the extent of the cut- back to existing B-2 districts would affect this particular ordi- nance . Council President O 'Keefe then opened the meeting to the public for their comments or questions. Mr. Roger Solderberg, an attorney representing an owner in a B-4 district expressed some concern as to the extremely restrictive nature of the ordinance. While he understands individual requests would be reviewed, permits will be allowed only in a B-2. He would suggest that the Council extend special permit use to other business districts. It would be acceptable to those in B-4 and, generally speaking, would be consistent with zoning law. He stated he was speaking specifically of the Derby Street area which is gen- wally a business district. He feels this area would be an accepta- ble location for amusement activity as described by this evening' s hearing. Minutes of Meeting--December 16, 1982 Page 5 Councillor O'Keefe returned to the Councillors for further questions or comments. Councillor Fleming stated that the City is indeed in the forefront of controlling these video games by zoning ordinance. However, just because no one has gone before us is no reason not to go this way. The control of the spread of the video arcades is founded in reason. Many cases have been overturned by the fact that the law was arbitrary and capricious . We have the right by this process this evening to amend the zoning map and the zoning ordinance and in doing so we are showing real concern for the neighborhoods of the City. The attempt here is to give our control real rationale in terms of potential court challenge . There is more merit and chance for survival with the zoning ordinance than with an out- right ban. As a proponent of the ordinance , he is pleased with the draft; however, he feels there is still room for discussion as to the concerns raised by Mr. Soderberg. He could support an expansion of special permits to other business districts. Councillor Centorino was concerned by several things. One is that he feels the City may be over-reacting to the control of video games. In addition, he questioned an ordinance that would have two separate City boards dealing with video games. Perhaps control could be accomplished through different regulations of • the Licensing Board. Mr. Stafford felt that the draft was made with the fact in mind that the Licensing Board was not regulating and controlling the games to the degree that the Committee seemed to feel was necessary. We cannot prohibit the games altogether, but we can exercise some control in the interest of protecting the community, as long as it does not nullify the state mandate . Councillor Centorino asked if the Licensing Board could perform this regulatory function under a different set of regulations rather than the Board of Appeal. Mr. Stafford replied that the City Council does not have the au- thority to impose regulations on the Licensing Board. In any case , if the Licensing Board were the regulating authority, it could not be a zoning ordinance . For the Licensing Board to es- tablish further guidelines , a municipal ordinance would have to be created. Mr. Stafford felt there was a problem here of the Licensing Board being in favor of this. Councillor Centorino raised the possibility of the Board of Appeal feeling the same way. He suggested the City Council have some discussion with both Boards regarding this matter. Mr. Stafford noted this certainly would be possible , as the Council has ninety days from the time they receive a report from the Plan- ning Board before acting on the ordinance. Minutes of Meeting--December 16, 1982 Page 6 • Councillor Nutting wondered if we would be opening up a Pandora's Box by not putting our trust in the Licensing Board. He feels also that it would be difficult for the Licensing Board to turn other applications down in light of the fact they have issued a permit for the downtown arcade. Mr. Stafford replied that the Licensing Board feels they are now in a compromising position having granted one permit and feeling they must grant more . Mr. Stafford feels this is not necessarily true . They must review each application and judge each on its individual merits. Councillor O 'Keefe added that the way in which the particular license downtown was granted further stresses the need for proper rules and regulations. Councillor Fleming commented that when the Licensing Board reviews an application at present, they make their decision based more on the suitability of the applicant rather than the suitability of the place . This is why duel tracking is necessary. Walter Power asked if any thought was given to the number of arcades in the City if in fact an overlay district is considered. If so , it would be encumbent upon the Planning Board to create specific districts to cut down on the number of arcades. Councillor O'Keefe felt that Licensing Board had considered • regulating the number, but it would be difficult to enforce . The state does regulate to some degree by population. Mr . Stafford added that there tends to be two schools of thought on this matter. Some feel that there is an overreation to the whole issue of -video games and they should be allowed wherever the market will bear. Others feel they are the worst intrusion in the world. There is no particular sentiment as to limiting by numbers; i. e, one game for every hundred people , etc. He further added that an overlay district can be created, which would be some- what less restrictive , or a formal district could be .created which could be as small or as large as is desired. These things can be worked out. There being no further comments from any person present, Councillor O 'Keefe thanked all those who participated. Planning Board Chair- man Walter Power moved that the Planning Board adjourn to One Salem Green for further discussion. It was so voted. Upon the motion of Councillor Giardi, the public hearing was closed at 8:33 p.m. It was so voted and the Council President declared the meeting adjourned. R7es ectfully submitted, CULL Dale E Yale V Clerk SALEM PLANNING BOARD • MINUTES OF MEETING December 16, 1982 The Salem Planning Board met in the City Council Chambers fol- lowing a joint public hearing held with the City Council on December 16, 1982, regarding the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the establishment of amusement districts. Present were Walter Power, David Goodof, Ken May, Donald Hunt, Abby Burns , Edward Stevenson, and Planning Board Aide Susan Madison. Normand Houle , William Cass, and William Wheaton were absent. Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 8s46 p.m. and announced that the purpose of the meeting was to formulate com- ments regarding the: meeting held on the proposed Amusement Ordinance . In response to a question from Walter Power as to what exactly the issues are the Planning Board must address , Ken May felt the first thing to be addressed was what we recommended as a district. Edward Stevenson commented that there seemed to be a lack of confidence in the Licensing Board, but is the way to control this issue through a zoning ordinance? Walter Power agreed that what regulatory vehicle is used is certainly an issue . The Licensing Board certainly has the regulations, but could they • administer them? If the Licensing Board was the sole regulatory force , a zoning ordinance would not be necessary. Ken May felt the question in this case was could it be enforced. David Goodof asked if there definitely was a need to regulate these games at all. Ed Stevenson noted that Rich Stafford commented that feelings on this issue were definitely polarized. There followed some discussion as to having the games in "Mom and Pop" stores, etc. Abby Burns commented that having a zoning ordinance seemed to solve this problem the most effectively. Walter Power asked if we are concerned with the number of parlors per se or what? If so , then we should pick a specific district. If not, then we should go for the overlay and special permits. He further added that one game in a Mom and Pop store or permitting an actual arcade is at issue here as well. David Goodof felt it was the arcade itself, not the individual game that was the nuisance. Walter Power asked if we wanted unrestricted use of arcades in the City of Salem? If an overlay is created, we have to decide where . Ken May commented that it also depended upon whether the overlay was City-wide . Susan Madison commented that she liked the idea of a municipal ordinance with the Licensing Board--with additional regulations--being the regulatory vehicle . Ed Stevenson asked why two boards were involved. Ken May replied that the Council can't impose additional regulations upon the Licensing Board. Susan Madison felt that additional regulations could be imposed under a municipal ordinance. Minutes of Meeting--December 16, 1982 Page 2 • Ken May felt these questions were entirely appropriate . Perhaps we should make recommendations as to changes in the ordinance with the provision that the Council deem them appropriate. Walter Power felt that without any restrictions, arcades could go anywhere , gamesaould go throughout the City. He is concerned about the proliferation of arcades. Ken May felt that he sees no set need for control, however if the Council perceives a need, then he has no problem with that. He felt the Planning Board should not recommend a zoning ordinance , however. Walter Power asked for a concensus as to whether the Board should deal with the ordinance or recommend no ordinance at all. The re- sult of the poll showed five members of the Board wishing to deal with the ordinance , with David Goodof opposed. Again, the questions are : Should there be a separate zone or an overlay zone? If a separate zone is recommended, where should it be? The definition of an overlay zone was discussed. Essentially a certain zone , a portion of a zone , or an overlap of two zones could be designated for an additional use . Susan Madison observed that cluster and planned units are considered overlay zones as • well. It means a change as to potential use . Walter Power felt no firm recommendation could be made until maps could be studied and a study is made of the uses of certain busi- ness districts. Walter Power further noted that if an overlay is defined, then an area could be outlined. Ken May added that a district could be set back from the boundaries. Walter Power felt that input from the Planning Department was needed in this area. There followed further discussion as to the problem of limiting the district to one particular area, i. e . the Willows , which is already experiencing problems, or using the business districts downtown which have housing mixed in already. Further, if specific areas of the City are set aside for amusements, then the danger of spot zoning is present. Ken May observed that the smaller the area is planned, the greater the risk of spot zoning. Therefore , he would lean toward prohibiting permits in the central business district. Walter Power felt that no firm decisions could be made this evening. He will set up a meeting with Greg Senko , Rich Stafford, and Susan. Ken May felt that the Board should recognize that some sort of or- dinance is going to be passed, so as much input as possible should be acquired. • Minutes of Meeting--December 16, 1982 Page 3 Ken further was not particulary comfortable with the idea of exempting those amusements licensed by the Council. Ken moved the Board should recommend that regulations be limited to Section 177A only. The motion was seconded by David Goodof. It was so voted. The question of the language relating to the exemption of Salem Housing Authority housing was discussed. Walter Power felt that the Board should recommend that no discrimination be made between public and private housing. It was agreed that the definition whould be changed to "commercial amusement. " David Goodof raised the question of municipal ordinance vs. a zoning ordinance . Susan Madison will get an opinion from Greg Senko , but it was noted that a zoning ordinance cannot be handled by Licensing Board alone . Ken May observed that the primary con- cern is the restriction of the arcades to areas and the zoning ordinance does this the best. If the Board does recommend a municipal ordinance , it was felt they should also recommend a set of rules for use as a guideline. Donald Hunt asked if the Planning Board should meet with the Licensing Board to discuss this. The concensus of this was in the negative . If a municipal ordinance is decided upon, it is a City Council problem; however, the Planning Board can make sug- gestions. There being no further discussion, a motion was made and seconded to adjourn. Having passed unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 9140 p.m. Res ctfully submitted, �� t Dale E. Yale Clerk R l • MINUTES OF MEETING SALEM PLANNING BOARD December 2 , 1982 The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, Second Floor on Thursday, December 2 , 1982. Present were Walter Power, Edward Stevenson, Ken May, Donald Hunt, Normand Houle , Abby Burns , and David Goodof. William Cass and William Wheaton were absent. Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon the motion of Donald Hunt and second of David Goodof, the minutes of August 5, 1982, were approved. It was so voted. Upon the motion of David Goodof and second of Edward Stevenson, the minutes of September 16, 1982 , were approved as amended. It was so voted. Upon the motion of Abby Burns and second of David Goodof, the minutes of September 30 , 1982', were approved. It was so voted. Upon the motion of Abby Burns and second of Ken May, the minutes • of October 21, 1982 , were approved as amended. It was so voted. Upon the motion of Abby Burns and second of Ken May, the minutes of November 4, 1982, were approved as amended. It was so voted. Upon the motion of Edward Stevenson and second of Abby Burns , the minutes of November 18, 1982 , were approved as amended. It was so voted. Walter Power noted that the minutes of the special presentation made by New England Power on September 15, 1982 , to the Planning Board and Conservation Commission will be placed on file . EMMERTON SUBDIVISION Susan Madison gave a summation of the past two weeks and the effort of the Planning Board and the City Solicitor to put together a covenant for this subdivision. John Walsh, representing the Emmertons , requested that a change be made under #6 in the covenant which pertains to installation of a water line to Lots B , C , and D. He felt a line should be put into the covenant requiring that no lot shall be built upon until all utilities are in place . He would also like to take out the words "or conveyed" in #6. Normand Houle asked who would be responsible to provide the utilities if this were done? Ken May disagreed with this proposed change as well. If three dif- ferent parties buy the lots , who would be responsible? He felt the covenant should be left as is. Mr. Walsh stated that there was some concern as to whether a lot could be sold if it was not to be developed. Walter Power replied that a Form A could handle Minutes of Meeting--December 2, 1982 Page 2 • this situation and that that portion of the covenant could be waived at that time by the Planning Board. Ken May added that what they are trying to avoid is a person buying either one or all three lots then pleading a hardship. David Goodof added that someone needs to build properly on these lots or not build at all. Donald Hunt commented that there was a great advantage economically to keeping these parcels together in order to insure compliance with the covenant. A summary of the changes made in the draft of the covenant were discussed All conditions involving the lot fronting on Clover- dale were eliminated. As a result, numbers 1 and 3 of the pro- posed conditions were stricken. Under #6 in the draft, new language dealing with notifying abuttors regarding water lines was instituted. The matter of emergency access across Glenn Avenue was discussed at. some length. It was felt that a suitable emer- gency right-of-way needed to be established. Walter Power noted that they were trying to avoid creating a permanent dead end and provide an emergency access. They will add to the covenant that "a forty-foot right-of-way shall be provided for emergency vehicles between Greenlawn and Cloverdale on the paper street known as Glenn Avenue. This right-of-way should be graded in a surface suitable for emergency vehicles. " The sale of Lots B, C , and D shall be contingent upon this additional condition. • Walter Power then read the entire covenant to the Board to as- certain whether further changes were needed. Being none , upon the motion of Ken May and second of Abby Burns , the subdivision plan was approved upon the condition that the cove- nant as agreed to and executed by the Emmertons be recorded with the plan and a notice that the covenant runs with the plan be noted on the plan. The vote was seven in favor, one voting present. PICKMAN PARK Susan Madison gave a brief summation of the Pickman Park situation. She gave a packet to each Board member containing a request for a continuation of the special permit, minutes pertaining to the special permits, the covenant for Pickman Park , copies of the zoning map change to R-3 , and minutes of the updates on the sub- division. Also included was a list of pertinent dates and a description of the thirty-acre parcel which was deeded to the City. Walter Power asked what would happen if we say they must re-submit? Susan Madison replied that Richard Stafford is to give us an opinion regarding the cluster development legislation (p.15, paragraph 15, section b) and whether it would take legal precedence over the subdivision approval. Then possibly we could extend without a i Minutes of Meeting--December 2, 1982 Page 3 However, the Planning Board needs a legal opinion from the City Solicitor as to its options in this matter. In light of the fact that our next meeting is a publid hearing regarding the Amusement Ordinance , Peter Beatrice and Richard Stafford will be invited to our January 6, 1983, meeting to discuss this matter further. AMUSEMENT ORDINANCE A joint public hearing with the City Council will be held on December 16, 1982, to air all views regarding the Amusement Ordinance. It was felt by the Board that an informal meeting with the authors of the ordinance might be helpful before the hearing. This will be arranged. Some questions the Board wishes addressed regarding this issue are what the boundaries of the A-1 district will be , whether the ordinance will affect other amusements, i. e . theatre , etc. Walter Power suggested that all Board members think this matter through and prepare their questions. There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded to adjourn. Having passed unanimously,. the meeting was adjourned • at 1Os05 p.m. Res ctfully submitted, Dale E . Yale Clerk • Chi#h of ttlexrr, Aassadjuse##s n r Wm Salem Green AMENDED MINUTES OF [MEETING November 18, 1982 The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, Second Floor, on Thursday, November 18, 1982. Present were Edward Stevenson, Ken May, Abby Burns, Donald Hunt, William Cass , and Walter Power. David Goodof, Normand Houle , and William Wheaton were absent. Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. FORM A--HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION Mr. Robert C . McCann, an attorney, was present to discuss the pro- posal of the House of Seven Gables to combine two lots into one . One lot is at 114 Derby Street and the second is at 24 Turner Street. This lot was recently purchased by the House of Seven Gables . They wish to combine the two lots , making a total of 11 ,952 square feet, and construct an addition to Emmerton Hall. This proposal has . been approved by the Board of Appeal and the Historical Commission. A motion was made by Abby Burns and seconded by Ken May to approve the Form A, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required . It was so voted with Edward Stevenson voting Present due to a pos- sible conflict. PUBLIC HEARING--NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY, 24 Fort Avenue Mr. Power opened the public hearing and read the public notice . Mr. Ronald Boches, Supervisor or Licenses and Permits for New England Power Company presented prepared testimony which was entered into the record (attached hereto and made a part hereof) . The Building Inspector concurs with the proposal, the Board of Health concurs , an Order of Conditions has been issued by the Con- servation Commission referencing the plans presented, as well as additional information provided at the request of the Commission. In response to several questions expressing concern for the dust emanating from the coal, Mr. Boches explained that they have now instituted a better procedure for the off-loading of the coal including water sprays to minimize the dust and also minimize the distance from which the coal can be dropped from the clam shell unloader. He added that in the future (late 1983) a self- unloading collier which will take the coal directly from the ship will be in place . This will reduce airborne emissions substantially. He further stated that the coal unloading procedure being used at present is now being monitored more closely to minimize the dust as much as possible . Minutes of Meeting--November 18, 1982 Page 2 • Ed Stevenson commented on the noise being generated from the bulldozer moving the coal pile . Mr. Boches replied that the actual shifting of the coal pile by bulldozer is done only during the day- time except during the off-loading of a ship. The time of off- loading is dependent upon the tide and the availability of the ship. It now takes forty-eight hours to unload a ship; this will be con- siderably reduced when the collier is in place . In response to a question from Walter Power, Mr. Boches added that the bull- dozing will still take place even when the collier is installed, but it will be done in less time . Walter Power asked if the collier will add to the noise problem. Mr. Jack Walsh of NEPCO replied that it will be run by a covered belt, using electric power from the ship itself, so he feels it will be less noisy, Mr. Power commented that compared to what it used to be , it probably will be much better. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, the hearing was opened up to the audience . There being no comments for or against the proposal, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by Ken May and seconded by Edward Stevenson to approve the Special Permit. It was so voted with William Cass voting Present. • FORM A--45 BROAD STREET Two houses existing on one lot now desire to be separated with a building being located on each lot. These two houses were in ex- istence before the Subdivision Control Law was in effect. There was some question as to actual proof that these lots existed before June of 1962, had not been provided. As there was no attor- ney present to provide that information, upon the motion of Ken May and second of Abby Burns, it was voted to approve the Form A with the stipulation that the linen not be released until satis- factory proof be provided. It was so voted. In the future a state- ment of proof will be required on all linens . EMMERTON - SUBDIVISION City Solicitor Stafford was present to discuss the matter of a cov- enant covering this proposed subdivision. A draft of the covenant was drawn up and will be entered into the record (attached hereto and made a part hereof) . Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Abby Burns , the subdivision proposal was approved with the addition of the completed covenant. It was so voted. • Minutes of Meeting--November 18, 1982 ; Page 3 PICKMAN PARK There has been some question as whether sufficient improvements have been made on the Pickman Park subdivision property to pre- clude the owners from coming in for a new public hearing. It is the opinion of many in the City that there have not been sufficient improvements . It is Mr. Stafford's suggestion that Attorney Beatrice be invited to appear before the Board to dis- cuss the matter further. There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded to adjourn. Having passed unanimously, the Chairman declared the meet- ing adjourned at 10 ,30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �Ajf' Dale E . Yale Clerk • j Testimony of Ronald J. Boches NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY • Before the Salem Planning Board November 18, 1982 My name is Ronald J. Boches. I am Supervisor, Licenses and Permits, here tonight representing New England Power Company. On October 8, 1982, New England Power Company submitted an application to the Salem Planning Board requesting the Board to issue a Special Permit that would allow the Company to perform work at Salem Harbor Station, within Zones A3 and V3 of the City of Salem's Flood Hazard District. The entire Generating Station site is located in an industrially zoned district . We are proposing to excavate, fill and install foundations and structures, including new pollution control equipment, at Salem Harbor Generating Station in connection with the long-term conversion of Units No. 1, 2 and 3 from oil burning to coal • burning. We are presently burning coal in all of the three coal capable units at the Station under a Delayed Compliance Order issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As you may recall from our earlier submittal to your Board, the Delayed Compliance Order established a compliance schedule for the long-term conversion. This schedule requires all three units to be converted to coal burning within 43 months after the burning of coal in any unit, but not later than December 31, 1985. In order to meet our long-range schedule, work on the overall project has begun and, in fact, the concrete shell of the new chimney is now complete. The site plan, SK10182, submitted as a part of our application, shows the approximate relationship of the proposed work to the horizontal limit of the Flood Hazard District. This limit was derived from the Flood Hazard Boundary Map for this area as established by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section VII.P.2.b. , Supplementary Regulations. 5 - 2 - • The existing elevation of the land on which the proposed work will be conducted, that is, the southerly portion of the Station, varies from approximately elevation 16.0 mean low water (MLW) to 13.0 MLW. The 100-year flood plain elevation established for this District is 15.36 MLW. The majority of the proposed work will be located within Zone A3. Major structures or work associated with coal conversion are three new precipitators, an induced draft (I.D. ) fan house, a new ash handling system, a coal pile runoff collection system, and miscellaneous piping, pipe racks and drain trenches. The ash handling system will include a fly ash silo, two dewatering or decanting bins, two settling basins, a surge basin and an ash sluice pumphouse. Of these structures, the ash handling system and the coal pile runoff collection system will be located on land which is below the 100-year flood elevation of 15.36 feet MLW. The precipitators and the induced • draft fan house will fall just outside of the 100-year flood plain. The coal pile runoff collection system is the only work proposed within Zone V3. Many of the proposed structures are integrally related. At this point, a brief explanation of the operation of each of the proposed structures might be helpful. When coal is burned, not all of it undergoes complete combustion. The unburned portion remains behind as ash. The heavier ash, known as bottom ash, falls into collecting bins known as hoppers. From there, it will be carried by water to the proposed dewatering bins. The ash will be separated from the water in these bins. The clarified water then goes to the settling basins where most of the remaining ash settles out and from there, the clarified water is routed to the surge basin where it is pumped via the ash sluice pumphouse back to the existing Station for reuse. ` - 3 - The lighter fly ash is transported via flue gas to the precipitators. The • precipitators collect the ash particles on electrically charged plates and the particles then fall into a hopper located below each precipitator. The fly ash is then blown via enclosed pipes into the fly ash silo. The silo will function as the storage receptacle for the ash. The induced draft fans control the velocity of the flue gas traveling through the precipitators to insure effective ash removal.' Finally, the coal pile runoff collection system, to be located at the most southerly portion of the site, will collect runoff from rainfall in trenches to be located along the edge of the coal pile and carry this runoff to a lined basin. A more detailed description of these structures was included as Attach- ment A to our application. • In the ash handling area, we propose to place clean granular fill material in order to raise the existing grade from approximately 14.0 feet MLW to a final grade of approximately 18.0 feet MLW. This will raise the grade level of the proposed structures in this area to 18.0 feet MLW, which is well above the 100-year flood plain. Once filled, this area will be paved. Runoff from this area will be collected in area drains and routed to the new settling basins and will then be used as makeup for the recirculating bottom ash system. All building floors to be placed within the Flood Hazard District have been designed to an elevation of no less than 16.0 feet MLTd, that is, above the 100-year flood level, with the exception of the ash sluice pumphouse; however, this pumphouse will be water tight and designed to resist hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. The coal pile runoff collection system is an insubstantial improvement consisting of a lined basin to be located below grade with a berm, the top of which will be above the 100-year flood level at Elevation 15.5 MLW. An associated pump will be placed on a 4' x 4' concrete pad. This collection system will be located landward of the reach of the mean high tide. - 4 - Utility work associated with the proposed project includes electrical and • sewage disposal lines. Where permanent electrical power is necessary, an electrical conductor will be buried below ground level. It will be of a type suitable for underground use and will be placed in conduit for mechanical protection. Permanent sewage disposal lines will be buried below ground level in ductile iron pipe. All lines will be pressure tested prior to actual use. In both cases, proper bedding and backfill will be utilized. Although the proposed work will displace some 3.1 acre-feet of flood storage, the removal of facilities and the addition of the coal pile runoff collection system will provide 3.7 acre-feet of storage. The relative size of the site, the type of development and the existing ground contours serve as effective measures to contain and control flood flows within the site. As a result of these existing land contours, any flood flows on the site will be • directed into Salem Harbor and will have no additional impact on surrounding landowners. Thus, the work as proposed, will not detract. from the overall flood storage capability of the site, nor will it result in an increase in stormwater runoff velocity. The proposed work will not impact groundwater resources; nor will it destroy valuable habitat for wildlife. Due to the highly industrial nature of the existing site, it is not a suitable habitat for most wildlife. Moreover, the proposed construction will not affect fisheries or shellfisheries. As an integral part of the site, roadways and access ways exist which safely handle movement of vehicles and pedestrians both within the site and to and from the site. The proposed work will not affect this safe movement. 5 — Therefore, a grant of permission to allow work within Zones A3 and V3 will not be a departure from the present use of the site, will be in harmony with the general purpose of the district and the intent of the ordinance, and will not alter the essential character of the location. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Planning Board. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. b r •