A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Planning Board was held in the Council Chamber on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 6:30 P.M., for the purpose of discussing a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment by adding language to Section 7-15, Planned Unit Development. Notice of this meeting was posted on August 28, 2008 at 6:00 P.M. and advertised in the Salem News by the City Clerk on August 21, & August 28, 2008.
Councillor Furey was recorded as arriving late at 7:25 P.M.
Council President Michael Sosnowski presided.
Council President Michael Sosnowski introduced Charles Puleo, Planning Board Chairman and also the other members present of the planning Board: Timothy Kavanaugh, Pamela Lombardini, John Moustakis, Timothy Ready and Christine Sullivan. Also in attendance was Lynn Duncan City Planner.
Councillor Sosnowski turned the proceedings over to the City Planner.
Lynn Duncan City Planner, stated that Business Park Development (BPD) is limited. Based on research for Planned Unit Development (PUD) which was adopted in 1977, Business Park Development was established in 1985 and believes this was an oversight not to be included in the Planned Unit Development list. She stated that there are many Councillors that they are working with on the re-codification of zoning and have been made aware of the problems with our current zoning book. She showed a zoning map and went on to explain that the pink areas define the Business Park Development parcels. There are 45 parcels. Of this, 45 parcels, only 25 parcels could be eligible for special permits for planned unit development. At a guess, 9 parcels are potential for development or redevelopment. They are Highland
Avenue and Technology Way. We are trying to encourage development. The purple areas on the map are Business Park Development Districts which have potential for redevelopment. The Salem Oil and Grease site would benefit from a PUD. The Planning Board findings would have to be very specific with any Special Permit and would have to have a negative impact on the area. If you allow one BPD parcel you have to allow all per law. Out of the 45 parcels we feel only 9 are possible for development or redevelopment. The catalyst for this ordinance amendment was the talk for the development of Camp Lion and Walmart. No plans have been submitted as of yet.
Councillor Prevey – Asked the difference between Planned Unit Development and Business Park Development.
Lynn Duncan – stated that Planned Unit Development is mixed use. It gives flexibility to the Planning Board on dimension but cannot waiver on the height. Business Park Development is not mixed use. Many communities have this tool, it is meant to encourage development.
Councillor Prevey- asked aside from the height are there any other restrictions?
Lynn Duncan – stated that the Planning Board needs to look at the requirements regarding traffic, run off, density and that there is no overall impact in the area that it’s in harmony with the area.
Mayor Driscoll – stated that Home Depot for example is in an area with business and Condos.
Councillor Ryan – asked that Business Park Development was adopted in 1985, what was it before?
Mayor Driscoll – stated it was industrial parks, it was a hodge podge. It was all sparked by the Walmart site, it’s preliminary but we have been approached by Lowe’s. We recognize needs of the community for Planned Unit Development (PUD) which allows for development to take place. We allow it in every other district except Business Park Development (BPD). This will keep everything in place but more uniform. You need the Planning Board to have more flexibility and not restricted by set backs. We need to avoid a piece meal approach. We want to make sure this works for everyone. This is a text amendment.
Councillor O’Keefe – Asked the City Planner to show the North Salem Map and asked are they official map?
Mayor Driscoll – stated this is a text amendment it is not for a parcel.
Councillor Sosnowski – made comment about the yellow line that seperates the parcels the station is Mineke Muffler.
Councillor McCarthy – asked about two squares what are they?
Lynn Duncan – stated they are cell towers.
Councillor Sargent – that on the other side of Swampscott Road you always get 500 signatures against development. PUD would allow housing instead of it being industrial. The parcel between Home Depot and the Condos what about that? Originally PUD was Pickering Wharf. When Stop & Shop came in it was a PUD and everyone lost faith in PUD’s. I don’t know of any PUD that’s ever been turned down, so where does that leave us? If we do this for one developer we have to do it for all developers. It will affect the whole city down the road.
Lynn Duncan – stated that’s why everything will have be looked at and abutters will be heard.
Councillor Sargent- stated that Parker Brothers was a PUD that changed to residential so taxes went from industrial to residential.
Lynn Duncan – stated that the City is changing
Councillor Sargent – stated that we’re loosing our industrial tax base. This has never come up before in all the meetings.
Lynn Duncan – stated that we’re looking at it at a city wide prospective. We allow PUD in industrial zone why not Business Park Development (BPD).
Councillor Sargent – stated this is an ENDRON around zoning. It allows anything to go anywhere.
Councillor Pelletier – stated he was confused in BPD there’s no housing? It’s not allowed?
Councillor Sargent – stated that in Section 7-15 of the Zoning Ordinance that R-3 would be allowed in a Business Park Development with PUD, he read out loud the current ordinance.
Councillor Pelletier – asked if this was true
Lynn Duncan – responded yes.
Councillor Pelletier stated can this be flexible
Lynn Duncan – stated everything but height and an acre and a half 60,000 sq. ft. minimum
Councillor O’Keefe – recognized Lynn Duncan and Amy Lash of the Planning Department for the good work and he also acknowledged Trill Levine of GIS.
Appearing in favor:
Beverly McSwiggin of Ward Six asked if nothing is changed what would Lowe’s and Walmart have to do?
Lynn Duncan stated that she didn’t know how to answer. We are not currently working on that. It’s text for Business Park Development.
Councillor Furey arrived at 7:35 PM
Beverly McSwiggin asked if they could get variances?
Lynn Duncan stated variances hold huge threshold. Businesses don’t want to move forward to get variances.
Teasie Riley Goggin stated that she has listened but doesn’t understand. Seems it’s taking something away from Planning Board.
Councillor Pelletier stated that it gives the Planning Board more flexibility.
Teasie Riley Goggin asked how?
Councillor Pelletier stated it gives them more. We have limited amount of space This will attract businesses.
Teasie Riley Goggin asked why are we doing this?
Councillor Sosnowski – asked why are we opening up to other things.
Mayor Driscoll – stated this is a text amendment. We are not looking to rezone a parcel. We believe it will give a comprehensive review of a development.
Councillor Sosnowski stated Business Park Development wants to build. Planning Board has authority for setbacks etc. now, PUD could increase residences.
Mayor Driscoll stated that PUD does allow mixed use. We’re not looking at a specific development.
Councillor Veno stated that Section 7-15 (c) that Councillor Sargent read stated it would again give flexibility.
Scott Weisburg – asked about the map some lines stripped some not, why is it different.
Lynn Duncan stated the purple area is currently Business Park Development (BPD) zone, the solid white lines are not yet developed.
3 Lions Lane resident stated her understanding was that they are in R-3 and recreational. Now the map doesn’t reflect it.
Lynn Duncan – stated it could have been a PUD.
Mayor Driscoll stated it was non conforming use back from the 1960’s
Scott Weisburg stated we have documentation that it’s residential and a residents name is on the map.
There was no one appearing in oppostition.
Councillor Sargent stated that Indian Hill Lane the back yard is hot top and a short distance to the back of stores. This is an old problem that is still happening. I find it hard to believe when they were creating PUD that BPD didn’t come up. I have to believe it’s for a reason.
Councillor Sosnowski asked if Lowe’s could come in with the current zoning?
Lynn Duncan stated no.
Councillor O’Keefe asked Lynn Duncan, Old Village Drive why is a day care included in that district.
Amy Lash stated that it may be undersized under 60,000 square feet
Councillor O’Keefe stated could you find out Lynn?
Attorney Joseph Correnti – 63 Federal St. Salem, Thanked the Planning Board and representatives of several property owners. Abutters are notified if there is land being rezoned. This is amending the Planned Unit Development text. With him was Attorney Joe Sano for Camp Lion of Lynn. The benefit of what might go there is a project that is being looked at. With the current zoning it would not allow a developer to come in with a mixed use plan.
Attorney Sarno for Camp Lion of Lynn, Camp Lion has a long history since 1945. Salem owns 4 acres by eminent domain. Major concern is to be a good neighbor to the City of Salem. If the project goes forward we want Salem to be happy and we want to be a good neighbor.
Councillor Veno – questioned Attorney Correnti, not being asked anything but PUD in ordinance. Technically true but the amendment would allow broader use by design not changing zoning but changing use.
Attorney Correnti responded yes.
Councillor Pelletier – stated he appreciated the comments of housing by Councillor Sargent. But today it would be a hard sell to the Planning Board. But this is what we need.
Councillor Sargent – not all property owners were notified because land is not being rezoned just use.
Councillor Sosnowski asked if residents will be allowed to speak with the Planning Board.
Lynn Duncan responded, yes.
Councillor Sargent stated use not zoning is changing but abutters should have been notified that their area could change, rules are changing.
Councillor Ryan stated amending text to allow Business Park Development to apply for Planned Unit Development maybe no one would apply. But if someone came with a project the abutters would have to be notified. He stated he is in favor of giving developer this tool.
Councillor Furey – we need to have confidence in the Planning Board.
Councillor Lovely stated that Planned Unit Development allows us to have a comprehensive plan instead of doing things piece meal.
Councillor Pelletier stated the Planning Board is not a Public Hearing
Lynn Duncan stated this is the Public Hearing
Councillor Pelletier stated the people won’t have a voice
Lynn Duncan corrected her previous statement, the meeting is open meeting not a public hearing
Councillor Pelletier stated then there will be no public comment. Thanked Councillor Veno and Lovely addressing the questions with clarification.
Denise a resident stated notification of public hearing was in the newspaper several times. Close the hearing but what if we had another meeting to address issue of abutters.
Councillor O’Keefe moved that the hearing be closed. It was so voted.
Councillor O’Keefe moved to refer to the Committee on Economic Development and report back by September 25, 2008. The motion was withdrawn.
Councillor O’Keefe moved to refer the matter to the Planning Board for their recommendation. It was so voted.
On the motion of Councillor O’Keefe the hearing adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK
| 
