Minutes of Joint Public Hearing with the City Council and Planning Board
January 7, 2009
A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Planning Board was held Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts on the proposed zoning amendment to amend Article VII, Sec. 7-15 Planned Unit Development of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the Business park Development (BPD) District with conditions.
1. ~In the Business Park Development (BPD) district, residential uses and associated improvements, such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the parcel(s); or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50% of the gross square footage of the proposed development.
2. ~The maximum number of stories of any building containing residential units in the BPD District is four stories.
The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the proposed change to the Salem Zoning Ordinance. ~~
The meeting was posted on January 2nd 2009 and advertised in the Salem Evening News on December 23rd and December 30th by the City Clerk.
Present: Mayor Kimberley Driscoll
City Council Members present: Paul Prevey, President, Mike Sosnowski, Jerry Ryan, Arthur Sargent III, Steven Pinto, Joan B. Lovely, Jean Pelletier, Robert McCarthy, Matthew Veno, Thomas Furey, Joseph O’Keefe, Sr.,
Planning Board Members present: Chuck Puleo, Chairman, Tim Ready, Pam Lombardini, Christine Sullivan, John Moustakis and Dave Weiner. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Danielle McKnight, Stacey Dupuis, Clerk Absent: Gene Collins, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom
City Council President Paul Prevey opened the meeting, read the meeting notice and noted that all City Councillors were present. He introduced Chuck Puleo, Chairman of the Planning Board, who then introduced Planning Board members.
Mayor Driscoll thanked City Council and gave a brief synopsis. Earlier last year this proposal was presented and it initially failed by 1 vote. They have re-filed and made changes to this proposed text amendment. This proposal allows PUD’S within BPD zones with conditions: 1. ~In the Business Park Development (BPD) district, residential uses and associated improvements, such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the parcel(s); or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50% of the gross square footage of the proposed development. 2. ~The maximum number of stories of any building containing residential units in the BPD District is four stories. Much of the discussion of the proposed amendment has centered around the potential Lowe’s/Walmart
project. Lowe’s is still interested in the site on Highland Avenue and if it goes in, it will bring more tax revenue to the City as well as more jobs. This text amendment could pave the way for other under-utilized sites. Of the number of parcels that this text amendment could affect (44), only 9 parcels meet size requirements and are developable. The largest piece is the Camp Lyons parcel, on which the Lowe’s/Walmart is proposed. The Mayor referred to discussions the City has had with Camp Lyons about the remainder of that parcel (the portion not to be used for Lowe’s/Walmart), which the City wishes to remain as open space. Camp Lyons understands this and has pledged to work with the City. They Mayor referred to a letter from Camp Lyons documenting this. The Mayor said there is still much to be worked out with the developer, including a land swap, MEPA filing, the placement of a conservation easement on the
property, etc., and there would be ample opportunity to work with the developer to ensure the land is used appropriately and the site is not overdeveloped.
Councillor O’Keefe, who supports this proposal, pointed out that the distributed letter states “limit residential height to 4 stories.” He suggested changing the language to 40 feet instead of 4 stories. Mayor Driscoll said there were various means by which allowed building height could be determined, but they could work with the building inspector to clarify this.
Councillor Tom Furey agreed with Councillor O’Keefe in his support of the amendment. He also said we were in an economic crisis and the City should take this opportunity to create jobs and tax revenue through commercial growth.
Councillor Sargent asked if there has been anything in writing from Walmart or Lowe’s relating to their proposal. When the Irving Gas Station project began, they presented their intentions beforehand. The Mayor responded there has been correspondence with Lowe’s, which has actually already spent money on the project. Lowe’s is looking at putting the water tower about 50 ft. back from its current location, so they have had to hire engineers to evaluate this. In addition, the Mayor noted that this proposed text amendment was not being done solely for Lowe’s, that it would be applicable to the entire BPD zone throughout the city.
Councillor Sergeant felt that anytime they’ve had zoning changes for a parcel, they’ve had plans beforehand. He said many people are for Lowe’s, but to rezone parcels of land with uncertainty is not good, they should be in presenting plans.
The Mayor said that there are many ways to do accomplish this (Lowe’s) project. They approached this by putting in place a text amendment, which she sees as a valuable tool. They have done spot zoning before and said they shouldn’t do it. She couldn’t point out one instance like this where there has been a failure for the City with bad consequences. With this economy, most are struggling and this could help Salem. Councillor Sargent didn’t agree with the Mayor’s assessment of PUD, they’ve had trouble with it. He’s concerned with losing commercial property from the limited developable land left in the City.
Councillor Prevey recognized Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning & Community Development, who arrived.
Councillor Pelletier (to Councillor Sergeant) addressed concerns about losing commercial property due to rezoning. Councillor Pelletier explained that when the Ctiy created the NRCC zone, they basically took some BPD property and some B2 property and recoded it into the NRCC. It allows businesses, but it’s very restrictive. He feels the NRCC is so restrictive that some businesses can’t expand by right anymore. He feels his colleague wants to save BPD as it is, but yet the Council voted for the NRCC, which was established very quickly. After the NRCC passed, one business’s taxes went up $1,000. If we keep this up, we’ll lose businesses.
Councillor Ryan said he has spoken with some people whose concerns were that the Planning Board’s decision would be the final word on proposed PUD projects in the BPD. He suggested adding a provision to the zoning amendment that also requires City Council review.
Tom Furey asked if this would this preclude any manufacturing if it is voted in. Lynn Duncan said that it would not preclude it, the manufacturing ability would absolutely be available.
Councillor Sosnowski had a difference of opinion with the NRCC, which took 2 years to work on. He supports the NRCC but there are components within it he doesn’t like. The setback is so restrictive, he’d like to see it trumped so that certain things could go in there. Relative to the current discussion, he feels the City is too restrictive and most properties are odd in shape & size. Parcels need to be looked at individually, not as a broad sweep in zoning. Mayor Driscoll said that Councillor Sosnowski made an excellent point regarding individual parcels and that’s the exact reason for PUD - so that the Planning Board will have greater flexibility in deciding what is appropriate for individual projects. This text amendment will free up some restraints on some parcels.
President Paul Prevey opened the Public Hearing, stating that people in favor would speak first, then those in opposition.
In Favor
Patricia Liberti, 3 Lions Lane (Highland Apts), said the City needs to be aggressive and that the Planning Board and City Council should check and balance each other. She feels that times are tough; Salem is a small city not on major highway, so we need to think outside of the box. She added to give credit to Planning Board and City Council members.
Charlie B. Walsh, 2 Salt Wall Lane, feels that the Planning Board is a very serious group. He would appreciate it if this went through and stated to get it done now, get the job [Walmart/Lowes] in.
Scott Weisberg, 17 Tanglewood Lane (chairman of Highland Condos, immediate abutter) said they’ve had discussions with the companies (Lowes and Walmart), which were willing to listen to the neighbors and offered ideas with regards to traffic issues, lighting, etc. He, along with The Board of Trustees, supports the project.
James Moskovis, Rawlins St., said those who worked on the NRCC worked very hard but it’s restrictive. Developers have come in with good intentions but have walked away because of restrictions. Also, some people fight against opportunities in their wards. For example, the parcel on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street is still empty. He is in support of the project and any kind of development that could get the City on its feet.
Randy Clarke, 19 Bentley St. remarked on Councillor Prevey’s speech on a previous night that included Obama’s quote on working together and looking inside ourselves to get things done. He pointed out that the Planning Board has professional expertise and residents should take that into consideration when considering their judgment with regard to this issue. He said this is a valuable tool for the Planning Board.
Charlie Butler is in favor of the project but would like to see the question of “why isn’t this working” answered in regards to zoning.
A representative of the Salem Chamber of Commerce at 265 Essex St. noted that if you go to the Career Center, there are more and more people there in line and this will project bring jobs to those who need them. He asked the Council to please consider this opportunity and noted that we have reputable businesses looking to develop in Salem.
Dave Pelletier, 12 Crombie St, is in favor of Lowe’s/Walmart, but not the text amendment. He recommends addressing the Lowe’s/Walmart development first and not rushing projects the city doesn’t know the future of. All future potential developments under this amendment should be discussed. He also noted that one group shouldn’t have too much power, the Planning Board should not be the last stop, and the Councillors should make these decisions.
Michael Marcil, 15 Crombie St, feels that having Lowe’s/Walmart interested in coming in will bring in jobs. Having tools for the City to use so that each time someone comes in to develop will be good.
James Rose, 25 Linden St., is for the Lowe’s/Walmart project and said there are very knowledgeable people to make decisions for the City. At the Mayor’s speech Monday night, she talked about entrance corridors, which Highland Ave is. He feels an entrance corridor is only as good as the property on them and Lowe’s would make Highland Ave more attractive.
Eileen Luddy, 16 Intervale Road, was appreciated how Mayor Driscoll explained this and how smaller parcels could be developed creatively. Because of that, she’s in favor of this amendment. While other communities are losing businesses, Salem has businesses wanting to come in.
Martin Imm, 174 Federal St, feels this project would be a big win for everyone in Salem. The process of creating the NRCC, which he took part in, took 3 years. All the planning for NRCC brought together many resources and perspectives from professionals and citizens. He feels for this case, other parcels should be considered while making a blanket decision. It seems to him they’re going too fast. Traffic, infrastructure, business patterns should all be considered for all potentially developable parcels. He feels the neighbors and abutters of the other parcels should be heard.
Sandy Power, 18 Loring Ave, supports the project although she is unsure if it should be done piece-meal or not. She also applauded the Council and Planning Board members.
Stan Franzeen, 34 Daniels St., spoke in favor of the project as well.
Paul Prevey read into the record a letter from Goldberg Properties, which stated that they are in favor of the project and they feel PUD mixed use development is important.
In opposition:
Polly Wilbert, said business development requires more resources, financing, and legal information. She pointed out that Salem lost the Weir property and Parker Brothers, and gained residential and condominiums. She is concerned about the level of the density of new residential development. She stated her preference for more “sophisticated” business development that offers high-skilled, high paying jobs, as opposed to high-density residential. She noted the need for greater city resources (fire, police, etc.) when many new residences are brought in. By allowing residential development instead of sophisticated business development, the City is breaking the bond with the students and administration of Salem State College. She feels Salem will become a bedroom for somewhere
else of residents don’t have good job options. She doesn’t think Lowe’s/Walmart is good business development, we should be bringing in businesses that provide good jobs for those students and others. She also pointed out that what Lowe’s provides is the same as Home Depot’s services and wonders what benefit the development will bring if Lowe’s causes Home Depot to close.
Leslie Lyman, North Salem, asked for clarification that PUD developments were mixed use. If so, how do the JPI, Stop and Shop (Howley St.) and proposed Lowe’s/Walmart developments qualify as PUDs? Lynn Duncan explained that JPI predated her tenure in Salem, but when proposed, it included commercial component that included a health or fitness facility; that the Stop and Shop development has a single-family home on the site; and that Lowe’s/Walmart would qualify because a municipal use, a water tank, is part of the site. Ms. Lyman said she did not think that the examples she mentioned exemplified cohesive mixed-use development in which uses complemented each other.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St, is not opposed to Lowe’s/Walmart but the problem is that there are two different objectives. He suggested the Council not confuse support for this project with proposed amendment. He said if the city applied the PUD language as described, we would be opening doors for this type of development to happen all over. We don’t want large residential housing projects and Lowe’s all over Salem. He also mentioned that there is a reason zoning laws exist and are not left to local planning boards. These boards, change every couple of years, and if we want the kind of high quality developments Salem has had in the past, the City has to allow people to plan for longer than a couple of years. Otherwise, we will get strip malls, big box stores, high density
residential, and other easily approved developments. With these types of developments, the City is getting minimum wage jobs and housing to house those workers. We need to do more to encourage long-range planning for families that includes good jobs.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St, asked Lynn Duncan if there is any way to get the Lowe’s/Walmart project done without the proposed PUD amendment. Lynn explained that there are other alternatives, such as overlay districts and use variances, but they feel this is the best approach. Ms. Goggin asked for clarification on how a PUD would be created, and Ms. Duncan explained it is done by special permit through the Planning Board, and that the zone of the BPD parcels would not change. Ms. Goggin also asked if Walmart was currently grandfathered in. Ms. Duncan confirmed that it is, and that retail is currently not allowed in the BPD. Ms. Goggin asked if there was any other way to allow retail on the site. The Mayor clarified that the site is on a very large parcel which is part of
more than one zone, which complicates the issue of grandfathering uses. Ms. Goggin then said that she knows that the Salem Chamber urges improvements to the Highland Ave. corridor, and wonders if there has been a feasibility study begun to assess possible improvements to the corridor, and whether any improvements have begun? Mayor Driscoll said yes, all the lights on Highland Ave have been re-sequenced from the Lynn/Salem line and noted that traffic studies along with other studies will be required. Ms. Goggin suggested the PUD should be studied more before the Lowe’s/Walmart project begins.
Tony Salvo, 18 Sumner Rd, thought adding residential on a parcel was a requirement, but Mayor Driscoll explained that this was not the case. The proposed PUD amendment provides flexibility; as part of that flexibility, the City can allow limited residential as part of PUD projects, but it’s not required. There are BPD zoned parcels that would be appropriate for the addition of limited residential development (such as Salem Oil and Grease), and other areas for which the City would never recommend this (such as Lowe’s/Walmart). This zoning text amendment will provide
flexibility to allow appropriate mixed-use development. She added that the Planning Board will vet each project and evaluate the appropriateness of proposals for each site. Allowing PUDs opens the door for mixed-use project on certain sites where appropriate. Mr. Salvo said the reason the BPD zoning was introduced in the first place was to keep residential out where business and commercial could generate more tax revenue.
Shirley Walker is for Lowe’s/Walmart project, but for the other parcels, she’s concerned. There are many residents that don’t know what it’s all about and gave an example of a situation she was in years ago that has made her uneasy about not knowing about what could be built around residential areas. She feels the entire area shouldn’t be rezoned; rather, the city should evaluate changes on a property-by-property basis.
Natalie McSwiggin, Ward 6, was for Lowe’s/Walmart but not the amendment. 2 of the 8 parcels are in her ward and she is not in favor of “blanket zoning” all of the parcels. She wants to know what’s going on in her neighborhood, and she does not wish to see zoning changes without knowledge of what projects could be proposed in the parcels the zoning change affects.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St., was not speaking for or against. In response to an earlier resident comment, she said a red flag went up for her when she was told to “trust the experts.” She has a master’s degree in Planning and knows that Massachusetts has some of the oldest zoning laws and now cities like Salem are struggling with them. She thinks what you zone is what you get and what concerns her is the rush to rezone. She said it seems it’s being fast-tracked. She suggested rather than working like “we’re going to lose Lowe’s” to use due diligence.
Councillor O’Keefe moved to close the public hearing.
Councillor Sargent asked about keeping it open so the public can go to the Planning Board meeting. Lynn Duncan explained that this is the joint public hearing and the only forum for all public questions and comments. The Planning Board will open their meeting, everyone is welcome to listen, but it will not be a public hearing. There was discussion as to whether to keep the public hearing open or not.
Councillor Sosnowksi reminded all that last time this was defeated, and there was an urgent call to action memo sent out to various members of the public. He asked where the urgent action was to the abutters to the 8 other buildable parcels in the BPD zone. He expressed a desire to see more people affected by the proposal to be encouraged to attend a hearing. He is concerned that not enough people know this is being discussed. He wondered if this goes to committee, would the Council have the time to listen to the people that will be directly affected by this?
Mayor Driscoll clarified the basic concepts of the proposal: PUD can only be brought forward on at least 60,000 sq ft. Within BPD zone there are a total of 44 parcels. Of those 44, 24 meet size requirements and of those 9 are potential developments (not already built out) which include Camp Lions, the Technology Way site, the Walmart shopping center, a property on Robinson Rd., the Salem Oil and Grease site (owners of which were at the last public hearing on this and were in favor of it), the property off of Highland Ave next to the animal shelter, the site of the factory across from Home Depot, and the old moose building. This project was started last July, so it has not been rushed and the City is following the proper process that is laid out statutorily. She said this is not traditionally sent to committee,
but that this was done with this particular draft, which is why the City was up against a 90-day timeframe. The Council should be ready to vote on this tomorrow after receiving the Planning Board’s anticipated recommendation. Mayor Driscoll urged to close the public hearing and to let the Planning Board make their recommendation.
There being no further comments, Councillor O’Keefe made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Councillor Pelletier, all in favor.
Councillor Sargent asked when they would be meeting with Lowe’s. A motion was made to suspend the rules to allow the mayor to speak. Mayor Driscoll said there had already been discussions between the developer and the City, and there would be many more discussions since the process the developer must undertake (MEPA filing, an easement swap, the Planning Board filing, etc.) was a long one, and there would be ample opportunity for Lowe’s to share plans throughout the process. The Mayor said she is happy to connect people with the developers who wish to share ideas about possible proposals, but right now, the developers had no opportunity to move forward with presenting proposals. This is a complicated process when zoning doesn’t exist that allows these projects. The Mayor also
emphasized that the zoning change does not apply just to any one particular parcel, but to the entire BPD zone.
There being no further business to come before the City Councillors and Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Councillor O’Keefe to refer this matter to the Planning Board seconded by Pelletier, all in favor.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the City Councillors and Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Councillor O’Keefe to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| 
