A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and the Planning Board was held in the Council Chamber on Monday, April 3, 2006 at 6:30 P.M. for the purpose of discussing a proposed Zoning Amendment and map by rezoning the the Szetela Lane parcels located at 4 Szetela Lane, 1 Rear Fort Avenue, 1 Fort Avenue, 3 Fort Avenue and 20 Webb Street from R-2 (two family residential) to R-3 (multi family residential). Notice of this meeting was posted on March 31, 2006 at 10:57 A.M. and advertised in the Salem Evening News on March 20th and 27th, 2006.
Councillor Lovely, Furey and Corchado were recorded as absent. (Councillor Bencal resigned)
President Jean M. Pelletier presided.
On the matter of the proposed Zoning Amendment rezoning the parcel known as the Szetela Lane site making it R-3 (Multi-family residential).
Council President Pelletier opened the meeting by asking the City Planner Lynn Duncan to make a presentation and introduced Mr. Walter B. Power III chairman of the Planning Board.
Mr. Power, Chairman of the Planning Board, introduced the other members of the Planning Board that were present, Pamela Lombardini, John Moustakis, Charles Puleo,Timothy Ready and Christine Sullivan were in attendance.
Ms. Duncan, the City Planner – gave an overview of the site. She stated that changing the zoning from R-2 to R-3 would reflect a zoning matrix due to the surrounding neighborhood being R-2. She presented an aerial map and Fact Sheet. She went over some of the information regarding the types of structures in the neighborhood from the fact sheet which are as follows:
34% - single family
40% - two family
15% - three family
11% - four family
The Housing Authority property and the Bentley School also make up this neighborhood. This proposed zoning would allow one (1) dwelling unit per 35,000 square feet. There has been a clean up of the site. It is a brownfield site. Our Environmental Specialist stated it can be capped. The only reason we’re here doing this is because the City needs the money. We will be looking for the highest amount of money and the best use for the site. R-3 would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Councillor Pelletier asked if there was anyone appearing in favor of this zoning?
THERE WAS NO ONE IN FAVOR.
Councillor Pelletier asked if there is anyone opposed to this zoning?
APPEARING IN OPPOSITION
Richard Vardalakos – 9 Fort Avenue – stated he was there with a few of the neighbors and that they are in opposition. They want to keep it R-2. They don’t want a three-story unit to block the view.
Councillor Pelletier asked if a two-story unit would block the view?
Mr. Vardalakos stated that wouldn’t be bad. He also stated that he is a direct abutter to the site. There are other neighbors that didn’t come tonight that are also opposed to the R-3.
Raymond Page – 22-24 Webb Street, stated he is opposed.
Helena Keaton – 9 Essex Street, asked if there is a three family would there be more cars?
Ms. Duncan stated the zoning allows for 1 and ½ vehicles per unit.
Ms. Keaton asked if there’s not enough parking would they be allowed to park on the street?
Ms. Duncan stated no.
Lillian & Philip Bussone – 11 Fort Avenue, stated they are opposed to the R-3.
Jim Treadwell – 36 Phelps Street stated that if the Fact Sheet is a good reflection of the surrounding neighborhood then it’s his observation that the current R-2 if this data is correct the site could have 12 units that are 2 ½ stories high. If it were made R-3 there could be 26 units, 3 ½ stories high. He believes that this would be out of character with the neighborhood.
Councillor O’Keefe asked the Planner if all Rights-of-Way have been demarked?
Ms. Duncan stated there has been one issue. There’s only an outstanding title issue on the property. There are no remaining Right-of-Ways.
Councillor O’Keefe asked about the sewer Right-of-Way?
Councillor Pelletier stated it’s a non-issue.
Councillor O’Keefe asked about the strip of land marked #17 on the map.
Mr. Vardalakis – 9 Fort Avenue stated the Housing Authority area was filled land, it was water and a city dump. He also stated that he has been keeping this area up.
Councillor O’Keefe asked if Mr. Vardalakis was alleging right of way of this lot #17?
Mr. Vardalakis stated that he pays the taxes on this parcel and maintains it.
Councillor O’Keefe asked if this parcel #17 is part of the Szetela Lane site?
Ms. Duncan stated it is not. It is outside of the site. The site is marked on the map with a blue line. Also that a small piece that’s not identified at the Assessors office is in parcels marked 27903 and 8587 on the map.
Councillor O’Keefe asked for a better map that would show this?
Ms. Duncan stated it says owner unknown. We’re doing title work now. There are two pieces that we’re doing the title work on.
Councillor Sosnowski stated we wouldn’t be doing this zoning if the city didn’t need the money. He asked Ms. Duncan if there is a Master Plan for this area?
Ms. Duncan stated that the previous Administration wanted a Senior Center. The current Administration does not.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that he can see this area from his house. There are houses in this area that look like two families then you see the door bells and there’s six on each side. He saw this while campaigning door to door. He just hopes that two years from now we don’t look back with regret. He believes this is not the right thing to do.
Councillor Veno asked for the Planner tell him how many units could they put up?
Ms. Duncan stated that Mr. Treadwell put it best that R-2 there would be three lots with 3 duplexes, 6 units. R-3 would give you 26 units.
Councillor Veno asked what do we know about the property between Mr. Vardalakis’s.
Ms. Duncan stated it is in dispute.
Councillor Sargent stated this is different from the Endicott School. This site is surrounded by R-1 and R-2. This lot is big enough for an P.U.D. If this change takes place we need to eliminate the P.U.D. from the R-3. What would be the sale price for it if it were R-2 or R-3?
Ms. Duncan stated if she didn’t believe that R-3 would be compatable with the neighborhood she wouldn’t have suggested it. She’s not sure where a road way would be on the property.
Face value R-3 – 26 units would be worth $1.8 million dollars
R-2 – 6 units (3 duplexes) would be worth $450,000.00
Councillor Sargent asked in regards to the Environmental concerns, could they come in as a hardship? How many times does this come up? Because of the clean-up they need to still make a profit, so they could come in for more units.
Councillor O’Leary wants the let the neighbors know what the procedure is from here.
Councillor Pelletier stated his concern is the issues at hand that need to be addressed. Do you want to close the Public Hearing?
Councillor O’Keefe asked in regards to the environmental issues, have there been test borings done?
Ms. Duncan stated yes, they pre date her tenure. It was tested and found contamination. From the Environmental Specialist report the city fenced in the area which make us compliant. The Specialist recommended that the area of contaminated soil be capped.
Councillor O’Keefe stated you can’t put buildings if it’s contaminated.
Ms. Duncan stated yes you can. The Environmental Specialist said you put a barrier to direct contact by structures, paving or landscaping. You need 3 feet of clean soil to cap.
Councillor O’Keefe asked about the Tannery that used to be there. There’s a problem with this site. He asked for a copy of this Environmental Specialist report.
Ms. Duncan state yes, the way to solve the problem with this site is to develop it. It would cost about $29,000.00 to clean it up. The concerns here tonight are duly noted. When we put proposals out P.U.D. will not be considered. On this site we can put a preference of two story units vs. three story units. The title issue will be worked out.
Councillor Sosnowski had two questions for the Planner. H & H Propeller have they been approached to add their property? If we rezone and price is worth $1.8 million will they come before us to increase 26 units to more units?
Ms. Duncan stated we (the City) have some controls. The estimate was based on 3 duplex lots.
Councillor Pelletier asked that for the record Councillor Corchado is not her due a sick child.
Councillor Sargent stated that an RFP this is real estate and be flipped? All that can be asked for can be gone. If we give them more by R-2 at 12 units they’ll come in and want 20 units. When we sold the old Police Station because of the old oil tank we lost more than we made.
Mr. Powers stated that the true source of the leak was from the Peabody Essex Museum. They reimbursed the City.
Councillor Sargent stated if we sell this they may try to make us clean the site. There should be a stipulation if they want us to clean the site that we give them their money back and we get back the possession of the land.
Ms. Duncan state the value for R-2 is considerably lower.
Councillor Sargent stated that he doesn’t see us keeping it at R-3.
Councillor Prevey stated that he shares the same concerns of the previous Councillors. There are a lot of unknown variables. He stated he was trying to imagine 26 units and having a developer try to get more. It will be a complete change to this neighborhood. He stated that he is uncomfortable with the change.
Councillor O’Keefe moved that the hearing be closed.
Councillor Pelletier explained that the process is that it is referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation. They will meet and send their recommendation to the City Council within 21 days.
Ms. Duncan stated the Planning Board will make a decision.
Councillor O’Leary moved to refer the matter to the Planning Board for their recommendation. It was so voted.
Councillor O’Leary moved that the hearing be adjourned at 7:35 P.M.
ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK
| 
