A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and the Planning Board was held in the Council Chamber on Thursday, May 5, 2005 at 6:00 P.M. for the purpose of discussing a proposed zoning amendment to amend Article IX Administration, Section 9-6, be deleting the paragraph in subsection (6). Notice of this meeting was posted on April 29, 2005 at 10:13 A.M. and advertised in the Salem Evening News on April 21 and 28, 2005.
Councillor Furey was recorded as absent.
Councillor O’Keefe arrived at 6:05 P.M.
Councillor Corchado arrived at 6:10 P.M.
Councillor Harvey arrived at 6:15 P.M.
President Michael Bencal presided.
Mr. Walter Power III of the Planning Board introduced the members of the Planning Board. The Planning Board Members present were Gene Collins, Paul R. Durand, John C. Moustakis, Timothy F. Ready and Christine B. Sullivan
President Lovely then called upon Councillor Sosnowksi.
Councillor Sosnowski clarified the intent of the amendment. Not to say that it should not be surveyed. The district is there and not important to establish.
The Chair then asked for comment from the audience, and asked for those residents in favor of the zoning proposal. There was no one appearing in favor.
The Chair then asked if anyone wished to be recorded as opposed. There was no one appearing in opposition.
Sally Byers, 12 Franklin Street stated the city didn’t have a competent committee.
The Chair stated we’re not talking tonight about the North River Canal Corridor Zoning.
Councillor Pelletier clarified that again that this meeting was not about the North River Canal Corridor.
Councillor Sosnowski stated what prompted this was the North River Canal Corridor. But that this change in the Zoning Ordinance for anywhere in Salem. The Planning Board has to follow these laws and it ties their hands.
Councillor O’Keefe asked if this is eliminated, what do we put in its place.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that it doesn’t forgo the process, of needing a survey can we bring forth a change so we can discuss these plans.
Councillor O’Keefe stated that his question was not answered. No surveyor, who will we get that’s professional and licenses.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that at the appropriate time we will have it surveyed and asked if this can be referred to the City Planner Lynn Duncan.
City Planner Lynn Duncan stated that Zoning is governed by Mass. General Law 40A. If the provision was taken out we still have to have a description but when a proposal comes in for development that’s when we need a surveyor. The North River Canal Corridor will go forward regardless with a surveyor’s stamp, it will be resubmitted.
Councillor President Bencal asked what the cost would be for a surveyor.
Ms. Duncan stated it would cost several thousand dollars.
Councillor O’Keefe stated this is a massive change, if we weren’t looking at the NRCC this change wouldn’t have been made, why are we making this change.
Councillor O’Leary stated if a development was to by all that land it would already be surveyed and he would be saving thousands. It should be the developer that has it surveyed.
Councillor Pelletier would we have to have all the properties surveyed or just that area?
Ms. Duncan we’re working with GIS people that would meet this requirement.
Councillor Pelletier stated it is a mute point now.
An unnamed resident stated she is a single property owner why would I need my land surveyed?
Ms. Duncan stated this is for Zoning Amendments not variances.
Councillor O’Leary asked Ms. Duncan if a developer came in using the canal and wanted a zoning change would he need a surveyor?
Ms. Duncan stated they will need a surveyors stamp, it would be the responsibility of the developer.
Councillor Sargent stated we need to make sure we have it clear. It doesn’t seem its all the parcels just the outline of the boundaries. The developer would still need a plot plan and be surveyed. It just means that if it’s the boundaries we may not have to change it.
Mr. Powers stated this line should carry your crossing land and don’t know where the line are. Any undefined property should be defined. It will only have to be checked when someone buys it.
Councillor Harvey moved that the public hearing be closed. It was so voted.
Councillor O’Leary takes the chair.
Councillor Bencal stated he understands the reason it was put in 20 years ago but now we can’t do what is necessary, by requiring the city to take an exorbitant cost. There are better ways to do this. I support this ordinance. It is unfair for city to protect neighborhoods at an exorbitant cost. We need to strike a balance.
Councillor Bencal assumes the chair.
Councillor Sargent asked Ms. Duncan it’s the boundaries correct?
Ms. Duncan yes, it’s correct, I don’t know if parcels that bound the boundaries need to be done.
Councillor Sargent the boundaries and property that abutt the boundaries should be done. Part of this goes into residential property we need to do just the boundaries.
Councillor Veno stated he appreciated all the comments. We see a lot of value in the North River Canal Corridor. They look to us for help and I want to move forward. This doesn’t sound like a lot of money and getting a surveyor is worth that money.
Councillor Sosnowski stated this could cost thousands it’s to much. Why is it important to only do boundaries if we were neighbors we have a fence between us, we know where the boundaries are. But when you go to develop that land that’s when you’ll get a surveyor and only then.
Councillor Bencal stated there are a lot of things going on in the North River Canal Corridor as far as different zones.
Councillor Lovely stated she is still confused. If we remove this wording is this wrong, is it challengable.
Councillor Bencal stated the parcel is defined and stays the same.
Councillor Pelletier stated he is still confused the NRCC will go on anyway we don’t need this change. We ask developers and single property owners but the city does not. City can avoid the land surveyor.
Ms. Duncan stated we are meeting what we need this is more for small property owners. If we didn’t have GIS this would have cost thousands.
Councillor Pelletier stated then small property owners would benefit.
Ms. Duncan stated putting the cost up front and having it turned down you’ve already spent thousands but if it moves forward then you get it surveyed.
Councillor Pelletier asked about Chestnut Street, was it surveyed?
Ms. Duncan stated no surveyed plan was done.
Mr. Power stated up front not having the lines defined it’s not necessary. They run along roads and they would be brought up when property is developed. An up front look at the boundaries if there are areas that can’t be determined then have it surveyed.
Ms. Duncan stated it would be defined in a descriptive plot plan.
Councillor O’Leary stated that DiBiasi spent 10 – 15 Thousand to have property surveyed and he was turned down.
Councillor Sosnowski stated Chestnut Street was illegal. Should be surveyed but
their plot lines were defined.
Councillor Harvey moved to refer the matter to the Planning Board for a decision. It was so voted by unanimous roll call vote of 10 yeas, 0 nays, 1 absent. Councillor Furey was recorded as absent.
Councillor Harvey moved for immediate reconsideration in the hopes it would not prevail. Reconsideration was denied.
On the motion of Councillor O’Keefe, hearing was recessed at 6:45 P.M.
ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK
| 
