Salem Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing
Minutes of Meeting 04/28/2010
A Joint Public Hearing of the Salem Planning Board and the Salem City Council for the purpose of discussing a proposed Zoning Ordinance to create a Waterfront Industrial Overlay District (WIOD) was held on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were City Councilors Robert McCarthy, Thomas Furey, Joan Lovely, Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski, Jean Pelletier, Jerry Ryan, John Ronan, and Joseph O’Keefe, and Planning Board members Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Mark George, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh.. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk, and Tom Devine, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent from the City Council: Steven Pinto and Paul Prevey. Absent from the Planning Board: Randy Clark, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, and Christine Sullivan.
Public Hearing: In accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws for the purpose of amending the City of Salem Zoning Ordnance, a new section is proposed to be added to section 8, Waterfront Industrial Overlay District (WIOD). The purpose is to promote economic health and stability of the City of Salem by encouraging commercial and industrial development and investment in the waterfront area known as Shetland Properties, parcel No. 0448 on Assessor Map 34, which will generate employment and tax revenue.
Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting, introducing members of the Planning Board and Lynn Duncan and Danielle McKnight of Planning and Community Development. He introduced Thomas Kent, Vice President of Real Estate for Shetland Properties, and William Quinn, Attorney representing Shetland Properties.
Mr. Quinn said that he hopes people will agree that Shetland has been a good user of commercial and industrial property in Salem for many years. The site has a history and we have been engaged in a long improvement project. But like everyone else in this economy, Shetland Park has suffered. It is currently less than 60% occupied. Eight to nine years ago we lost Sears Credit with its 120,000 sq. ft. The park is comfortable at over 80% occupancy. We are the second largest tax payer in Salem and the owners are proud of it and wand to see what can be done to continue to thrive in Salem. We decided that we were at a competitive disadvantage to modern facilities like Cummings Center. Primarily we are concerned that the need for special permitting is a
barrier to attracting certain tenants. Some of our current tenants would need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals if they were coming into the park today. Examples include the storage facility and adult daycare. If they wanted to expand, that would also require action at the ZBA. Imagine how it appears to someone seeking space when they are told they need to go before the ZBA and that it could take some time.
Mr. Quinn said that they have a large facility with security, tons of parking, and successful management. We need the ability to have more flexibility to take in tenants. Our proposed solution is an overlay district that would make certain uses allowed that are not allowed today. All of these already exist in the park, but would require a special permit to expand or if they were new. I think we would want some of these uses in the park rather than in other places in Salem. All of these uses would still be subject existing rules, boards, and permitting. We are not talking about new development, but rather using existing space. He reviewed proposed uses and said that we are looking to have permission for these uses as a matter of right. He displayed a table
comparing the status of uses in Shetland Park versus Cummings Center in Beverly. He said he thinks what they are trying to do is be viable and keep tenancy up. Why an overlay district? The thinking is that rather than create a new district, we would just say that all industrial uses are governed by the existing bylaw, except as affected by the overlay. We have worked to reach out to the community, elected officials, and planning staff. We expect to go before the planning board.
Mr. Quinn stated that the main concern has been that there would be housing. We are not seeking that and none of this proposal would allow residential. There will not be a hotel. The other concern we heard is to make sure we don’t have anything dangerous on the site. The proposal prohibits hazardous uses and we are willing to fashion additional language to deal with specific noxious or hazardous uses. We will take comments tonight and speak more with the Planning Board. There will be changes by the time we return here. We are here to learn what concerns people have, starting a process that should take a couple months.
Ms. Duncan said the petitioner did work closely with the Planning Department. I am comfortable with what is proposed. We thought that outdoor recreation would have an impact on abutting residential properties, for example, and they took that out. I think this is a way to encourage economic development without a negative impact on abutters. It is great from a planning perspective to use and reuse existing buildings that are partially vacant rather than build on greenfields. It is a key element of a sustainable community.
Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting to comments from the City Council.
Mr. Sosnowski, referring to the table comparing allowed uses in Beverly versus Salem, asked why sale and storage of building supplies is not included in the proposal. Mr. Quinn said he does not know the answer, and that maybe it should be in the proposal. Ms. Duncan said she is not completely sure, but she thinks there was concern that it would be an outdoor use which could impact neighbors.
Mr. O’Keefe said this would be a beautiful place for a hotel on the water. It is an excellent idea and it has my full support.
Mr. Pelletier asked if the existing adult daycare and education uses had to receive a special permit. Mr. McCarthy said they became violations when zoning was recodified. Mr. Pelletier said he is concerned about the education use, with a charter school already present. My concern is with the city budget and the effect another charter school could have.
Mr. Furey said one of Salem’s best qualities is how it is resourceful and renews itself. This is a chance for the city to renew and reinvent itself. I would like to see a hotel. Mr. Quinn said the owner has weighed many options, and is not now interested in a hotel. We would have to come back here if a hotel turns out to be a good idea that the market can support.
Mr. Ronan said the uses have much in common—a club, yacht club, marina, and restaurant with alcohol. It seems that you are getting a marina, and I am not taking a position on that now. If that is the intention, where would it go? Mr. Kent said there is currently a Marina and the original 1980 plan was for an expanded marina. We have talked to the city about a walkway. Mr. Quinn said waterfront development goes through many regulatory hurdles. Mr. Ronan said he often walks along that wall and there is no path there. It is probably Salem’s best view. With a marina, it would be nice to continue the walkway.
Mr. Sosnowski asked what would be the extent of the overlay district. Mr. Quinn said it is only what is on the map. Mr. Kent said the other two lots could not be built on anyway.
Ms. Lovely asked if there is retail there now and whether that is what they want. I think the marina is a good idea, and the waterfront site should be used as best it can. I like the restaurant idea as well. Cummings Center is mixed use and includes restaurants. Mr. Quinn said that the existing district allows neighborhood retail, but large stores and supermarkets are not allowed. Mr. Kent said any retail would support park tenants, as there is already great retail and there are great restaurants at Pickering Wharf. Ms. Lovely said this creates a great opportunity. Cummings Center has had an amazing transformation.
Ms. Duncan said she wanted to clarify regarding educational uses. I agree with Mr. Pelletier about the charter school, but that is an exempt educational use. The proposal doesn’t make is any easier or harder for a charter school to open. A non-exempt educational use could be something like a dance school. Charter schools are exempt by state statute. Mr. Pelletier asked whether a new charter school would need a special permit. Ms. Duncan said no, it is exempt under state law. Mr. Pelletier said he thinks the city should give this place a boost. I agree with most of it, but I think we should dig a little deeper. I have other concerns.
Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting to comments from the Planning Board.
Mr. George said he understands industrial zoning has certain constrictions. I don’t have any problem with most of this change, but I am concerned with R and D. I am not sure what language we could put it to prohibit hazardous uses related to that. Mr. Quinn said they will work with planners to see what makes sense to address this concern. Mr. George said there may be state and federal permitting that covers this anyway.
Mr. Ready said he thinks the comparison with Cummings Center is a poor one. Shetland Park has a magnificent waterfront view which is largely underutilized. I am inclined to see uses broadened. Our long-time historic and maritime uses can be focused and brought to bear.
Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting to comments from members of the public in favor of the proposal.
A gentleman from the Palmer Cove Yacht Club said he has received assurances from Mr. Quinn that this proposal will not damage their yacht club. Shetland Park is a very good neighbor. They are very clean and professional. We are in full support.
Shirley Walker, 51 Lafayette St., said she once owned a condo at Marina Bay in Quincy and it was a terrific waterfront space. I park in the South Harbor Garage. I see people park all the way down Congress St. The buildings are very active. The welfare and registry offices are terrific. I fully support this.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., said the petitioner made a presentation to the neighborhood association alliance and it was appreciated. I would hope that there could be some historical signs. Cummings Center has a pond and walkways, and a walkway along our water has been mentioned. The Beverly ordinance allows outdoor, but walled, storage. They also have some screening requirements to prevent adverse lighting and glare. Our ordinance already does have very extensive rules for research uses, but I think it could be updated. We already have two overlays, but not one that could be considered spot zoning. I think uses could be expanded, not only here, but in all industrial zones.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., said she supports the proposal and she is happy that this may help with the city’s budget.
Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting to comments from members of the public in opposition to the proposal. No members of the public spoke in opposition.
Mr. O’Keefe asked about the storage of building supplies. Mr. Quinn said that has been removed from the proposal but inadvertently left on the document. Mr. O’Keefe said he is glad it was removed.
Mr. George asked if there is any public access now. Mr. Kent answered no. Mr. George asked if it would be hazardous or heavy handed to ask for it. Mr. Kent said that logistically, it is not practical for the public to be on the property. We are willing to talk to the city about a harbor walk. But if you build there, you are under Chapter 91 regulations. We are open minded to public access, but it isn’t practical now. Mr. George asked if it would be more practical to have public access on only part of the site. Mr. Kent said someone suggested a walkway on piers, but that won’t happen anytime soon.
Mr. Treadwell asked whether there was a condition for public access in past approvals. Mr. Kent said not that he is aware of. Mr. Treadwell asked if the council would like to see that researched. Mr. Kent said they would find out.
Mr. McCarthy said Shetland Park is in his ward. I have the two largest taxpayers in the city in my ward. The petitioner approached me early on. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Kent have been very cooperative. Issues raised tonight have been addressed early on. We took things out before they were mentioned here. They reached out to The Point neighborhood group. Outdoor uses were a concern and they have addressed them. I truly believe the petitioner will work with everyone to make sure all are happy. I would like to publicly state that I appreciate their work and hope we will support them at the end of the process.
A motion was made by Michael Sosnowski to close the Joint Public Hearing and was approved 9-0 (Robert McCarthy, Thomas Furey, Joan Lovely, Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski, Jean Pelletier, Jerry Ryan, John Ronan, and Joseph O’Keefe in favor, none opposed).
A motion was made by Michael Sosnowski to move the issue to the Planning Board and was approved 9-0 (Robert McCarthy, Thomas Furey, Joan Lovely, Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski, Jean Pelletier, Jerry Ryan, John Ronan, and Joseph O’Keefe in favor, none opposed).
A motion was made by Michael Sosnowski to adjourn and was approved 9-0 (Robert McCarthy, Thomas Furey, Joan Lovely, Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski, Jean Pelletier, Jerry Ryan, John Ronan, and Joseph O’Keefe in favor, none opposed).
Meeting Adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Devine
Planning Board Clerk
| 
