Senior Center Committee Meeting
Held at the Council on Aging, 5 Broad Street, Salem
Meeting Minutes – 6-27-07
Chairman Veno calls the meeting to order at 6:35pm. All members of the committee are present with the exception of Mayor Driscoll.
The chair calls for reports of working groups.
Councillor Lovely presents a report from the Public Input Working Group. Councillor Lucy Corchado was an enormous help in translating the survey into Spanish, and the group is currently working to get it translated also into Russian. The group wasn’t able to check on funding for the printing. NS Elder Services, through committee member Paul Lanzikos has committed to contributing $100. For a cost of $420, we can get it into the Salem News, which has a circulation of 8,000. But the committee has no budget. Councillor Lovely indicates she will talk with the Mayor about this. Bill Wholley is asked is there may be a state grant for this. The goal is to have the survey released the week of July 10th. The hope is to get it in the Wednesday or Thursday paper
which has highest readership.
Teasie Goggin asks if it will be included in Senior Power as well.
Councillor Lovely responds that she will get it to Bill Wholley for inclusion in the August newsletter. The plan is to have the survey extend over the summer, through the end of August. Drop boxes will be placed at the public library, Steve’s Market, Crosby’s Market, City Hall, and other common locations. We will also try to get a story into the Salem News and Gazette, as well as coverage on SATV.
Frank Clocher moves that the report and plan be accepted, seconded by Councillor Lovely, which is unanimously approved.
John Walsh reports from the Site Analysis Work Group. Members of the working group went out that last two Mondays to all sites of city owned properties on our list. Next week the group will visit properties the City would have to purchase.
Barbara Cleary (presents maps and photographs), saying it was an excellent adventures in John’s van. Teasie Goggin also joined on the second trip.
John Walsh says that they tried to create a prioritized list based on what we observed.
Barbara Cleary starts the discussion with the two sites at Ft. Lee, and refers all to the maps.
The first site is on Fort Avenue at the split with Columbus, the parking lot. Based on eye-balling, it appears that the site is large enough to accommodate a building and lots of parking. Also, across from SESD there would be lots of overflow parking. We would need to look at architectural study. There is a bit of ledge and some hills. The group walked into wooded area. The site is easy to get to, but not on public transport line, which might require buses to get people there. The group also liked that the site was visible, which they thought was very important. People would know where it is.
Tony Salvo indicated that one downside is that it would be a little out of the way, which could lead to vandalism
Barbara Cleary indicated that the group had heard that there are illicit activities here. One positive about this is that this development could help resolve these problems. The Boys and Girls club wanted it once, which had lead to some opposition. The group did not know if this might spur opposition. We also don’t know soil conditions. A good portion of interior of site is ledgy and hilly.
Councillor Veno states that its proximity to willows and Winter Island is a huge asset.
Tony Salvo mentioned that it won’t cost too much money to develop. There is already sewer and water there, and it’s “a good, clean piece of land.” It’s also accessible, visible, and with the possibility of plenty of parking. It might also afford the opportunity to put more emphasis on Ft Lee.
Barbara Cleary indicated that this is not park land.
Paul Lanzikis asks about the implication of the lot being in an RC zone.
Barbara Cleary responded that it would likely need to be rezoned.
Barbara Cleary moves on to the next site, newt to Camp Naumkeag.
John Walsh mentioned that it is seldom used and usually locked, and that it used to be for handicapped children.
Barbara Cleary mentioned that it is out of the way of Willow’s activity.
Tony Salvo said “if you don’t have camp naumkeag, it might be too small.”
Barbara Cleary indicated that it might be possible to add parking across the street at Ft. Lee.
John Waslh said that with this site, it might be possible or preferable to do a two story building.
Barbara Cleary said it is a gorgeous site that seemed worth investigating further.
Teasie Goggin indicated that we could use parking at Camp Naumkeag for this site.
John Walsh said that there could be lots of ledge there too.
Barbara Cleary said that there is still lots we don’t know about the site, but it seemed worth investigating further.
The questions was asked whether it was park land. John Walsh indicated that this issue is before the City Council.
Pat Curtin said that this is city property, which hasn’t been turned over to Park and Rec. as park land
Councillor Furey (in attendance, but not a member of the committee) said that the City Solicitor is investigating the deed.
Pat Curtin indicated that this land has been refered to in the past as the “Handicap playground,” and that it does get used sometimes by children’s groups. He called it an outstanding site, but was not sure if crossing street for parking works.
Councillor Veno mentioned that it’s proximity to the shore means that it would have to come before the Conservation Commission.
Babara Cleary also added that it may be that this site would incur additional insurance costs given it’s proximity to water.
Barbara Cleary continues with the next site, which the playground, the new soccer field at the Willows. She indicated that this could also be combined with other sites.
Tony Salvo said that this site would have plenty of parking and be wide open. He also added that we are trying to build a senior citizens center, and there will always be objections, to every site. He said, “do we want to just forget seniors?” The soccer field can be moved just as the ballfield was moved before it. “We can find faults with all sites.”
Barbara Cleary asks whether Park and Rec. can look at how big a deal this would be.
Pat Curtin indicates that this used to be a softball field, and it was converted to soccer, and that it is tremendously used. He also indicated that we can’t move all soccer to Palmers Cove until the current baseball use there has somewhere else to go. He said “Those are the problems…you rob Peter to pay Paul,” and that “it’s a great site, but this may lead to more neighbor objections, as you’re closer to residential areas.” He indicated that we’re trying to get to the point where we eliminate those sites that have major objections.
The next site reviewed is Mack Park. Barbara Cleary says that, leaving aside the legal issues, it is a very pretty site. The working group, according to Cleary, was a little concerned with a couple of things. It is a pretty steep drive in winter months. It’s got quite a bit of ledge. It felt a little isolated; many people wouldn’t see it. There is no place to walk to or do anything.
Frank Clocher indicated that we would have to worry about vandalism at this site.
Barbara Cleary also reiterated the unresolved legal issue
Councillor Veno provided an update on his investigation. He said that use of this property for this purpose would likely require further legal process, including seeking a “declaratory judgment” that the use is consistent with the previous Supreme Court ruling relative to the prior proposal for building a school on the property. Alternatively, it could be relitigated, arguing that case law since that supreme court ruling have expanded the possibly “park” use of the property.
Pat Curtin indicated that the SJC’s problem was that it was school department, and that the park was defended by Park and Rec.Commission. This use would be Park and Rec now, which would make it legal.
John Walsh indicated that this would be more expensive.
Jim Willis (not a member of the Committee) also gave his opinion, stating first that he’s not the solicitor, and that the committee has not retained him. He said that the SJC has gotten more restrictive since the decision, not less restrictive on the use issue. The will of the Mack’s and theCity’s acceptance constitute a contract, and a home rule petition can’t change the contract. There was a more recent case in Rockland involving the possibility of a hockey rink, which indicated that the SJC favors outdoor recreation. There is also a similar case in Revere. The intent in the will of the testator was for open space. He said that “my reading of the case law is that it’s more restrictive.” The bottom line, he said, is that “I don’t think you can do it without going before the SJC.”
Tony Salvo says that he doesn’t think we should proceed unless we get something that says that we can build on it.
John Walsh makes the suggestion that the committee drop it to a second priority, and then asks whether we should drop the site entirely.
Beverly Cleary and Teasie Goggin say no. Beverly suggests that we should keep it on the list.
Councillor Veno says that we should keep it on the list, but note the complexity as a minus for this site.
Beverly Cleary moves the committee on to the next site, which is Gallows Hill Park. She states that the layout is less than ideal. It’s hilly on one side. The ball fields get heavy use. When the group visited, the park in the front was full of kids in middle of the day. It also didn’t seem that it was easy to get to. The group didn’t want to rule it out, but it didn’t make you say, “what a great space for a senior center.” The group also noted that when they wanted to build a school at this location, “the neighborhood went ballistic.”
The next site discussed is the current COA Broad Street site. Barbara Cleary indicates that the group didn’t spend much time on this site. The city has a rehab report for this building, and will share with committee. The group did identify parking as an issue. The overall location is attractive in a lot of ways. The committee needs to do more work and analysis on this one.
The next site discussed is the Church Street Lot. Barbara Cleary indicated that with the initial analysis, it doesn’t rise to top of list. Its location in the downtown comes with an enormous price to be paid for parking that’s needed. In the downtown you’re dealing with smaller, more constricted sites, and the only way is above or below ground parking, which is very expensive. Cost, therefore, is a big issue. There is already a need for more parking for other needs of the downtown, which this would add to.
John Walsh said he didn’t think seniors would want to sit and watch traffic go down St. Peter Street, and though it wasn’t a pleasant site.
Barbara Cleary indicated that on these issues we need input from the public, which we don’t have that yet. A key negative is parking needed for this site.
The next site discussed is an area behind the high school, near the tennis courts, and the vocational school. Barbara Cleary said the group through that access to the site isn’t good, and people would have to go through high school to get to it. “It didn’t seem to us to be promising.”
Another site was brought to Tony Salvo’s attention in a letter. This location is near the power lines, and very much out of the way. Not a good site.
The next site discussed was Palmer Cove Park.
John Walsh indicated that this neighborhood has very little green space, and the current ball field is used extensively. The SHA housing is already currently looking for more parking, and the Saltonstall School is looking for a possible turnaround there. Furthermore, flooding will be an issue. We didn’t consider the site seriously.
The next site discussed was Szetela Lane property, previously proposed as a site for a senior Center.
Barbara Cleary said that if the current deal for this parcel falls apart, it’s worth looking at again. The group noted contamination issues. Also, the City is expecting money from the sale of this parcel. However, the City owns it, it seems big enough, and the group thought it should stay on the list.
The next site discussed is a parcel in the area of the Police Headquartgers and the DPW area. John Walsh indicated that the area is not pleasant at all, and the lots are “all chopped up.”
The next site discussed is Winter Island.
Barbara Cleary said that this site wasn’t high on the list. She noted that there are federal restrictions on the uses allowed. She also noted that this area is used heavily, that there is lots of activity, and that there is no obvious place to put it without distributing this activity. It’s also more out of the way.
John Walsh said “at some point we need to break down this list before we go out to the public,” suggesting that the committee should vote down some sites.
Paul Lanzikos said that it wouldn’t be until early August until we have public input discussions.
John Walsh said “we have until early August.”
Paul Lanzikos said that sites that have structural/physical limitations should be taken off table, but that low probability sites that don’t have these limitations should stay on the list, and we can let input shape the list from there.
John Walsh said that the DPW sites can come off, the High school site can come off, and Palmers cove should come off.
Barbara Cleary said that these sites should go to low priority.
Paul Lanzikos said that we should have at least one downtown location in the list. Barbara Cleary agreed, and mentioned that there once was a proposal for Church Street.
Teasie Goggin said that Broad Street should be on the list, others agreed.
Barbara Cleary said that we should keep items A-F as the list for now. There is also a suggestion that the Szetela Lane site also remain under consideration “as a backup if it becomes available.” The other sites on the list can be listed at “considered but not recommended.”
For the record, this is includes the following sites (as pulled directly from working groups list):
A. Fort Lee, Fort Avenue side
B. Fort Lee, Memorial Drive side and Children’s Playground
C. Mack Park
D. Gallows Hill Park
E. Broad Street
F. Church Street
Frank Clocher moves that the committee accept working group’s recommendations, which is seconded by lovely, and unanimously approved.
The discussion then moves to that of “private sites.”
Barbara Cleary notes that all have issues, but primarily that they’d have to be acquired, which require additional money. The work group will do more analysis on these site, which shouldn’t be eliminated now. But the working group agreed that they don’t think we should spend a lot of time on them, as they’d have to be acquired.
John Walsh indicated that there are 8 such sites.
Teasie Goggin asked about 89 Margin Street.
Barbara Cleary indicated that the South Essex Sewage District properties should probably come off list, as they are long and narrow. John Walsh says that there is lots of ledge; they may be useful as backup parking.
Tony Salvo said that cost is the issue, as these lots are all privately owned, and given prices, “this is not something we want to look at unless we have to.”
Paul Lanzikos said that on site characteristics criteria we should add “image/reputation.” The question about whether to do it next to SESD, perhaps that sends a message. Perhaps doing it at the Jefferson Avenue sites sends a message.
The Program and Use working group report is given by Denis Coleman, who says that the group is pretty much at a standstill, waiting for public input and waiting for site possibilities to emerge. We reviewed the three centers on the north shore – large, med and small, and there is not much more we can do right now. We want to resurrect the old plans, St. Joes and Szetela Lane and look at them.
Teasie Goggin felt there are programs that if there’s green space, we could incorporate that into the plans.
Bevery Cleary says that the Program and Use workgroup could provide information, it would be helpful to the site analysis workgroup…information such as “minimum size is x, ideal size is Y, if you want green space.
Teasie Goggin asks “how long do we wait until we get city groups involved?”
Bevery Cleary says that there’s more work we can do at work group level, we’ll want to do some due diligence, environmental testing, design work, geo-tech work, etc. She says that planning, building inspector, contract services, some of this we might have to pay for.
Paul Lanzikos says that we’ll want to do that analysis with some objectivity
Barbara Cleary says that maybe when we get to three sites first.
Teasie Goggin says that maybe we can get the Geology Department at Salem State to help.
Paul Lazikos says that we don’t want to fall into trap of “build it and they will come”
We want it to be as inviting as possible, and unique as possible. Salem is unique. It is important to make the center a resource as unique as the city is. This can’t be the driver, but it should be a conscious part of what we’re about here. Right now, we don’t have high use of this senior center, we’ve seen it. This center needs to be a destination. We need to leverage resources you already have. Happened to be near the Willows recently, and it was a very inviting experience.
Teasie Goggin says that we want this building to be a magnet senior center that invites people in, to get the boomers in. People will be looking for a place to go that’s affordable.
Paul Lanzikos said that the location can be a nice spin off to local businesses there too.
Councillor Veno moves the meeting on to Public Comment.
Nancy Olbrick reports that Councillor Veno came to registry
To be honest, we were looking just at Mack Park, and the bird-eye view on the assessors map of Mack park is only record. It would have to have it surveyed. I would venture to say that for most of these properties you’d have to get it surveyed.
Teasie Goggin says that with the court decision someone must have done surveys.
Frank Clochar says that this should be a green building. This might also give us access to grant money.
Frank Clocher makes a motion to adjourn, seconded by John Wash, unanimously approved.
| 
