Salem Harbor Plan Update
Harbor Plan Implementation Committee
Meeting Notes
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
City Hall Annex (3rd Floor, 120 Washington Street)
7:00pm to 9:30pm
Committee Members Present:
Fred Atkins, Chairman, Mimi Ballou, Claudia Chuber, Councilor Lucy Corchado, Peg Harrington, Craig Burnham, Annie Harris, Malia Griffin, Dolores Jordan, Patricia Trap and Doug Haley
Salem City Staff:
Kathleen Winn, Deputy Director DPCD
Frank Taormina, Planner/Harbor Coordinator
Consultants:
Greg Ketchen (Fort Point Associates)
John Simpson (Apex)
State Officials:
Dennis Ducsik (Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management)
Kathryn Glenn (Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management)
Other Attendees:
View attached sign-in sheet.
Chairman Atkins opened the meeting with introductions and then turned the meeting over to the consultant for a presentation.
Greg Ketchen (GK) provided a brief project update including a review of comments collected from stakeholder interviews. He then presented seven key themes for the Harbor Plan update developed from stakeholder and committee input received to date. (Attached is a list of the themes and other items presented for discussion at the meeting plus a copy of the PP presentation shown to the HPIC.) Following is a summary of the significant points made by committee members:
· One committee member expressed disappointment that there has been little progress on dredging of the South River. “Is completion 100 years away?”
· Re: Winter Island.
o R/V parking and camping sites should be separated both physically and visually from the main public recreation areas and, for esthetic reasons, from important view corridors on the island.
o There should be a time limit on R/V parking on Winter Island, e.g. one week or less?
o Need to review fees and operating expenses to determine if there is potential to increase income without having an unreasonable/significant impact on the public use and enjoyment of the Island.
· For the Tourist Historic Planning District, should consider using gas lights to illuminate the streets/sidewalks and put all overhead utilities (electricity, cable TV, phones) underground.
· Consider creating a “T” wharf off and to the east of Derby Wharf to utilize the recently dredged channel.
· Improvement to the beaches located within the Harbor Plan area should be a priority.
· Encourage use of kayaks, canoes, sail boats and other environmentally friendly recreational boating activities.
· Should have a local committee to review Chapter 91 applications.
· Waterfront groups and stakeholders need to work better together in efforts to improve the waterfront/harbor.
· Re: Governance for waterfront activities/facilities
o Should be a public/private partnership
o Needs to be more proactive and more official with specific authority
o Apparently the EDIC was authorized/approved in the early 1990s (1992?) but was never established. Needs to be reconsidered.
o Implementation Oversight Committee needs to meet regularly to track and, when necessary, stimulate progress on harbor improvements.
· Harbor could benefit from more ferry service (to Cape Ann, Cape Cod, South Shore).
· The Harbor Plan area should be expanded to include at least The Willows and Forest River Park and possibly the North River. Some felt the entire waterfront within the City of Salem should be included under the Salem Municipal Harbor Plan
· Parking and traffic along the waterfront are not considered critical issues by the Committee. They prefer to focus on alternative forms of transportation such as water shuttles, trolley/busses, bicycles, and walking. They expressed support for a continuous Harborwalk along the water’s edge, bike racks, benches, directional/distance signs, and public transportation. They recognized that access and parking
challenges for the Salem Wharf would be important to solve.
· Although there was continued support for a moratorium on gambling boats operating out of the Salem waterfront, they felt there was a need for a better definition for what is a “gambling boat”. Although there is gambling aboard many cruise ships, they did not want the Harbor Plan to prevent cruise ship port calls. The definition of a gambling boat should possibly be restricted to boats that offer gambling and that depart and return
from the port without at least one overnight stay at sea.
· There was general agreement that cruise ship port calls would be good for the waterfront and City and that the City should enthusiastically support initiatives to attract cruise ships to Salem. Using Salem as a cruise ship turn around/homeport was less attractive because of local traffic and waterfront access challenges.
· The Committee considered the Sailing Vessel Fame typical of the waterfront attractions that should be encouraged/supported by the City, offering a vibrant commercial water-dependent use while also helping to celebrate Salem’s rich maritime history. They also felt the City should support efforts of the National Park Service to attract more port visits by historic vessels.
· The Committee supports the need for a Port Security Group to ensure preparedness for potential threats to harbor operations and waterfront facilities.
At the end of the meeting, the operators of the new LNG Deep Water Port in Mass Bay were introduced and they provided a brief overview of their activities in Salem and the timetable for the offshore LNG project. They indicated that they had leased office space in Shetland Park which will be occupied by less than two dozen employees through the end of 2007. At that time, construction of their deepwater terminal is expected to be nearly
complete and the on-shore staff will be reduced to a half dozen or fewer employees. They may be interested in renting space for this smaller staff at Salem Wharf when that project is completed, if office space is available there.
| 
