A continuation of a Public Hearing of the City Council and the Planning Board was held in the Council Chamber on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 6:30 P.M. for the purpose of discussing proposed Zoning and map amendment for the creation of an Ordinance for an Adult Zone. Notice of this meeting was posted on February 1, 2007 at 6:36 P.M. and Advertised in the Salem News by the City Clerk on January 24 & 30, 2007 and by the Planning Board on January 22 & 29, 2007.
Councillors Furey, Corchado and O’Leary were recorded as absent.
In attendance was the City Planner Lynn Duncan and Solicitor Elizabeth Rennard. There were no members of the Planning Board recorded as present.
Council President Matthew Veno presided.
Councillor Pelletier – asked to waive the reading of a Massachusetts General Law Chapter 138 Section 12B, due to its graphic nature, regarding the operation of a business to sell alcohol/nudity. He stated that this started when the previous chairman of the Licensing Board Harold Blake wrote a letter to the City Council regarding the possibility of this type of business coming into Salem. Councillor Pelletier went on to say that in his opinion we don’t need this zoning because we have accepted this M.G.L. He asked that his fellow colleagues defeat this.
Councillor Sosnowski – stated that he attended many Licensing Board meetings and the Police stated that they have seen things going on and the Licensing Board tried to revoke licenses. He stated that the proposed ordinance was put under intense scrutiny for nine (9) months by a Committee which Councillor Prevey and the City Planner (who had previous experience in this) were part of.
Councillor Lovely – questioned the City Solicitor if this would prevent a juice bar from opening and then brown bagging.
Solicitor Rennards comment was no.
Councillor Lovely asked then that currently an establishment could open a juice and brown bag it?
Councillor O’Keefe requested that we hear from the Solicitor or Planner.
Councillor Prevey stated that there were some changes brought forth. He stated that they tried to address the concerns and met with the Solicitor. This provides for more restrictions.
Solicitor Rennard stated this needs to go to the Planning Board, they have twenty-one (21) days to report back to the Council.
This should be deferred to the Planning Board with recommendations to create a buffer zone around day care facilities. If the Planning Board recommends significant changes the process needs to start again.
Councillor Prevey stated we will submit this to the Planning Board.
Ms. Duncan, the City Planne,r stated that they will work with G.I.S. to create buffer zones. It may shrink the area but not sure if it will eliminate Swampscott Road completely.
Councillor Prevey stated that Solicitor Rennard touched on changes. He read the proposed changes. He stated that the Planning Board will have to work on this.
Councillor Pelletier moved to open the Public Hearing to the focus group:
Mike Harris – 164 Whalers Lane – concerns are still there after amendments it may still be on Swampscott Road. Different residents of different areas were asked to look at the map. Buffer zones may not work in all areas. Swampscott Road is 100 acres of Business Industrial Zone. This will stop industrial growth. Protection from crime won’t protect the quality of life in this area. If we zone this an Adult Zone on Swampscott Road this is inconsistent with the businesses already there. There are petitions sent by residents and businesses.
Patricia Liberty – 3 Lions Lane – We got all the state regulated day cares for this area. There are sixty-five (65). In looking at it all over the city and Jefferson Avenue there’s not much space, Canal Street, Loring Avenue, Bridge Street and Fort Avenue where the Power Plant is. Swampscott Road is a dark isolated space. In Florida crime rate was not increased due to restrictions such as brightly lit parking lots with cameras. 1,000 ft. buffer zone may be too much.
Scott Weisberg – 17 Tanglewood Lane – there is no solution. Twenty-five people joined this group, we submitted quite a bit of information which it seems the Council took into consideration. It should be licensed under a special permit with restrictions and a lot of restrictions. When we met with the Mayor it was suggested we meet with Councillor Prevey and his committee. He stated that he has two daughters and doesn’t want them seeing this. It’s a hard thing to do.
THERE WAS NO ONE APPEARING IN FAVOR
Webb Primason – 21 Carriage Hill Lane – An Attorney in the city of Lynn. He stated that the preamble he read has a negative impact and it indicates to restrict concentration in any areas. But after reading the Ordinance that’s what it does, it restricts the use to industrial zones. He is not advocating but why 1,000 ft. from a school why not 800 ft. or 1,400 ft from a school? If you didn’t why restrict to an industrial zone it ends up in only 1 area. If buffers were decreased they wouldn’t be allowed in a residential zone anyway. If you shrink the circles this would give you more potential sites and not put one area of the city against the other. Defeat this ordinance but adopt the amendment.
Councillor O’Keefe asked if Councillor Prevey, Planner or Solicitor could say where the 1,000 ft came from?
Solicitor Rennard stated it came from similar ordinances around the country.
Ms. Duncan City Planner, stated this needs to be clear, if buffer zones were shrunk when referred to the Planning Board, they need a clear message at what you are looking for. And if this is changed too much we have to start the process again.
Councillor Veno restated what the Solicitor stated earlier regarding the steps to be taken:
- Could refer the matter to the Planning Board
- Keep the public hearing open
- Or refer the matter with amendments to the Planning Board
The members of the Task Force should be invited if the Public Hearing is continued.
Solicitor Rennard reminded the Council that if this ordinance is significantly different from what was originally submitted the process needs to start over.
Also if there is no action for 90 days by the City Council then this dies.
Demitris Savalas – 2 Indian Hill Lane – stated that he has been a resident for seven years and he is not a lawyer and may not understand it all but as a father why does this have to be in Salem? It would deteriorate Salem. Swampscott and Marblehead wouldn’t even discuss this. They would be opposed to it.
Councillor Pelletier stated that we’re not trying to establish a zone but any business of this kind could open anywhere in the city, they are legally entitled.
Mr. Savalas – asked don’t they need a license?
Councillor Pelletier responded that it’s allowed without a license if it’s in a business zone.
Peter Engel – 13 Patriot Lane – feels this is an economic debacle for Salem. It will lead to more abatements.
Curtis Flory – 67 Aurora Lane – a representative for the Sanctuary Condo Board voted to fight against this. This will have a negative effect on the value of homes and quality of life.
Councillor Veno stated that if we do nothing a business could establish itself. We need to make restrictions, but not violate the Constitution.
Bob Ridge – 6 Clark Street – stated that he is not a lawyer. Adult Entertainment is given freedom of speech, so you can’t close them out. Restrict the size of the lot to make it undesirable. Instead of 20,000 to 30,000 square feet make it smaller like a 1,000 square feet.
Councillor Pelletier stated you can’t restrict so much that it gets challenged in court.
Michael Kobialka – 65 Aurora Lane – stated that he understands the law but is not an attorney and talking about buffer zones and linear feet. We have enjoyed a good reputation but find no benefits to this kind of establishment. Salem is a good place to raise a family. This encourages drugs, users, pedophiles, and prostitution. There are no redeeming features to this. They make their money on alcohol. You will be inundated with abatements from the property owners. I urge this body to do everything to limit it so no one would come here.
Craig Johansen – 40 Aurora Lane – asked if there is a list? Are there people waiting to do this?
Councillor Lovely – stated there is no list but they could come in and open up where a business is currently allowed because there are no restrictions on adult entertainment. There was an establishment on Canal Street that was talking about it and one on Bridge Street.
Councillor Veno – stated this started due to a letter written by Mr. Blake the former chairman of the Licensing Board. He started the alarm on this. He stated we can’t put our head in the sand.
Bob Lajoie – 63 Cavendish Circle – Is a Lawyer (retired), he stated that he is not clear why we can’t control this by the licensing commission. Restricting one zone is a disaster. He stated that he has lived here for three years and has never seen a police car on his street.
Diane Caplan – 34 Brittania Circle – What is taking so long to get an ordinance in place? How long does it take?
Councillor Prevey – stated it will take as long as needed to get it right. There is a process. If we rush this we’ll be left with a mess.
Diane Caplan – 34 Brittania Circle - asked if nothing is in place they could come in?
Councillor Pelletier stated we had accepted a M.G.L. and it is in place, but a juice bar could open. What we need is an Ordinance to deal with brown bagging.
Roger Leger – Marlborough Rd. – stated we have islands they could open up on.
Janet Lack – 2 Admirals Lane – voiced her opposition.
Councillor O’Keefe – they made restrictions in Time Square and you don’t see these places outwardly also the combat zone in Boston? He went on to explain that the Council makes the ordinances and Licensing handles liquor licenses. We are trying to create a law to help these boards.
Councillor Veno asked if any business could presently establish itself. What would happen to the business while going through this process?
Solicitor stated that they would run the risk of having to close up shop because of the ordinance
Linda ? – stated this is still not an answer. Why are we creating something new? Can’t we go by something already passed by another city?
Ms. Duncan, Planner – stated that the task force did use models by other cities. We did call a number of cities. Wilmington put it in an industrial zone and land prices were high and this is now ten years later and nothing has come in.
Rhonda Tarmy – 60 Cavendish Circle – stated she grew up in Salem on Swampscott Road there use to be a stable there. Now she stated she lives near the edge and can see this area on Swampscott Road and feel 500 feet is to small of a buffer zone.
Philip Blaskovich – 8 Admirals Lane – stated more than Constitutional why can’t we bring this to the voters on a binding referendum. Lawyers always find ways around things. This is a family City and a grass roots of people here should be able to vote on this.
James Lajoie – 63 Cavendish Circle – stated they can’t have nudity without a liquor license.
Councillor Pelletier – stated no liquor licenses are available but they can open a juice bar.
Peter Engel – 13 Patriot Lane – stated no one has come in because if we pass an ordinance they may have to shut down.
Solicitor Rennard – stated we have to keep the public hearing open and never close it. Then the matter would die with the calendar year.
Diane Caplan – 34 Brittania Circel – Asked can’t we vote on this?
Mike Harris – stated we can’t do that. A fundamental right cannot be on the ballot. The Constitution doesn’t allow that.
Councillor Pelletier – stated that he doesn’t know how his colleagues feel if they would like to keep the public hearing open. We could institute an ordinance on brown bagging and with the M.G.L. we should be alright and wait and see.
Councillor Pelletier – motion to keep the public hearing open.
Councillor O’Keefe – asked if the Solicitor could give words of wisdom.
Solicitor Rennard – stated if the ordinance is not going to pass close the hearing and let 90 days pass and it will die.
Councillor Sosnowski – stated that the public hearing be continued and groups meet, include amendments and brown bagging and make it restrictive but not illegal.
Councillor Pelletier – stated if we keep the hearing open and if there’s a substantial change we have to start over. We don’t want to waste people’s time. If we do an ordinance for brown bagging, we should be fine.
Councillor Pelletier moved to close the hearing and let it die after 90 days.
Councillor Blair stated these folks are going to be here whether we close the hearing or not.
Councillor Sosnowski asked which method keeps the buffer at risk?
Solicitor Rennard responded a continuation would do this.
Councillor Sosnowski moved for a continuation with instruction on sub-committee to meet on the proposed amendment and focus group to be invited. Refer to Committee on Adult Zone and the chair invite the focus group, 3 members from this evening, and co-post it with the Committee of the Whole.
Councillor Veno stated if we are continuing the public hearing open we need a time definite for the continuation.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that it should be advertised for the whole city.
Councillor Lovely stated the point of having posted meetings everyone should be informed.
Councillor Pelletier asked that it be posted on the web page
Ed Goldstein – after listening to comments send it back to committee for special permit process.
Councillor Sargent – stated that this whole thing is by special permit not be right. The still have to apply. He supports keeping the public hearing open so we can research the legality.
Councillor Blair reminded that they need a date certain
Councillor Prevey moved to recess the meeting until Wednesday, April 11, 2007. It was so voted.
The meeting was recessed at 8:15 P.M.
ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK
| 
