Full Text
1 August 14, 2023 To: Salem Cemetery CommiƩee Board Members Jacob St. Louis, Chair Anthony O’Donnell Beth Gerard Kate Hanson Phillip Johns cc: Ray Jodoin, Director of OperaƟons, DPS Salem Conor Morgan, General Foreperson, Cemetery/Tree Division, DPS Salem Megan StoƩ, Ward 6 Councillor, Salem Paƫ Kelleher, PreservaƟon Planner, Salem Re: Master Plan for Greenlawn Cemetery, 2022 Dear CommiƩee Members: I am wriƟng as a concerned Salem resident and frequent walker in Greenlawn Cemetery (“Greenlawn”) about the Master Plan for Greenlawn 2022 (“the Plan”) that was prepared by Martha Lyon Landscape Architecture LLC (“the Consultant”). I have read and re-read the Plan several Ɵmes as I am sure you also have done. I’ve aƩended Cemetery CommiƩee meeƟngs on Zoom over the past 18+ months as my schedule would permit. I may have a schedule conflict for the next meeƟng on Aug. 15 and I offer my comments below to help the Cemetery CommiƩee (“the CommiƩee”) in its discussion and decision-making about acƟons to take at Greenlawn. Comments There are many good, solid recommendaƟons in the Plan. However, with the “Dickson west side chapel slope” on the CommiƩee’s Agenda for August 15, 2023 I feel the comments below are most important. Page numbers in parentheses refer to the Plan. The CommiƩee needs a clear Mission and Vision for Greenlawn to provide a strategic focus for decision- making. Without a strategic focus, there is no way to evaluate whether any parƟcular acƟon will help make Greenlawn what we want it to be. There is no Mission Statement referenced in the Plan. The Vision Statement (“Vision”, p.5) is preƩy mushy. Ask 10 people what it means… For example, what does the phrase “welcoming to all” mean? The CommiƩee has debated who is eligible for burial at Greenlawn residency requirements) without any reference to the Vision or Mission. This is a key quesƟon as Salem feels it is running out of burial space. For example, is the F. Carroll Sargent Arboretum at Greenlawn (“the Arboretum”) saƟsfactorily reflected in the Vision commemoraƟve landscape that preserves the natural world;” – p.5)? What does this mean? The arboretum aspect of Greenlawn is not sufficiently considered in the Plan’s recommendaƟons. Indeed, the Plan describes Greenlawn’s primary purpose “to provide interment space for Salem residents.” 58), a ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 potenƟal conflict with the Vision. Certainly, a challenge given the ArbNet accreditaƟon. How to balance cemetery/burial space with the Arboretum? An Arboretum involves not just public enjoyment of trees and shrubs, but also conservaƟon, educaƟon, and botanical research1. Decisions involving burial space, planƟngs, open space, public use, programming, historical features, cooperaƟon with other botanical organizaƟons, etc. directly affect the Arboretum. The Plan does not menƟon that Greenlawn is the only accredited Arboretum Cemetery north of Boston, and one of only three city-owned Arboretum Cemeteries in MassachuseƩs2. As such, the Arboretum is a special asset to Salem and to MassachuseƩs. Some of the tree/plant species in Greenlawn have been idenƟfied as rare and of potenƟal interest to the global horƟcultural community. This disƟnguishes Greenlawn and demands a duty of care for the Arboretum. Salem could find itself on the map for the wrong reasons if these special horƟcultural specimens are allowed to (further) deteriorate. ArbNet accreditaƟon includes contractual requirements for specific planning, development, maintenance, and governance acƟviƟes for the Arboretum, as well as compliance reporƟng. Also, the Arboretum’s diverse and rare planƟngs were important in the applicaƟon for the NaƟonal Register of Historic Places. These are also reasons why the Arboretum demands a duty of care, and simply adding burial spaces and columbaria walls at Greenlawn wherever they can be fit in is not the answer. The Plan ignores the historic 1894 Dickson Memorial Chapel (“the Chapel”) as a potenƟal ongoing source of revenue for Greenlawn, if restored. This, despite describing the Chapel as “one of Greenlawn’s most prominent and beloved features”, “a cemetery landmark” and “Greenlawn’s crown jewel” [pgs. 12, 22 and 26, respecƟvely]. The Plan does not menƟon that mulƟple inquiries are received each month by the Cemetery Office and the Friends of Greenlawn about the availability of the Chapel for uses such as funerals, memorial services, weddings and other events. The Plan does not have any illustraƟon of the financial contribuƟons that a restored Chapel could make, nor any emphasis on its historical contribuƟon to the town of Salem puƫng Salem on the map for this reason). The Plan did not point out that Greenlawn’s 2015 NominaƟon to the NaƟonal Register of Historic Places by Secretary of State William Galvin described the Chapel as “the most prominent architectural feature in the cemetery”. InstallaƟon of free-standing columbaria walls, especially on the west slope of the Chapel is, simply, a bad idea. Such walls: will alter and destroy the historical landscape (a conflict with the City’s goals as expressed in the Plan3); 1 ArbNet’s widely recognized industry accreditaƟon standards include planning, governance, number of species, staff or volunteer support, educaƟon & public programming, and tree science & conservaƟon. Source: ArbNet website. 2 In addiƟon to Greenlawn, the 2 other city-owned Arboretum Cemeteries in MassachuseƩs are Island Pond Cemetery in Harwich, and Milton Cemetery in Milton. The other 3 Arboretum Cemeteries in MassachuseƩs are privately or non- profit owned: Knollwood & Sharon Memorial Park in Canton; Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge; and Newton Cemetery in Newton. Source: ArbNet website. 3 Plan, p.1: “In developing this [the Plan], the City aimed to restore the character and quality of the historic landscape, funding this effort, in part, through the development and sale of new, sensiƟvely designed interment sites.” [emphasis added by MF] ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 will detract from the Chapel (Greenlawn’s “crown jewel”, and “most prominent feature” on its NaƟonal Register of Historic Places lisƟng – thus, requiring protecƟon and support); are unproven as a popular burial method (no data is provided to support free-standing walls as a popular choice); and once installed, will be costly and difficult to remove if they prove unpopular; subjecƟng the CommiƩee and the town of Salem to a lot of extra work (and expense) under fraught condiƟons given that some families may have chosen this interment already. The Plan notes that Greenlawn and its neighboring spaces make up one of the largest undeveloped areas of Salem, providing expansive habitat for wildlife, certain flora, and both acƟve & passive recreaƟon (p.17-18, my emphasis). This is important, as bit-by-bit curbing of this expansive space (especially via free-standing columbaria) will erode it away. The proposed columbaria wall on the west side of Sargent Pond (p.45, Site G) – where a retaining wall is needed – should be considered before the Chapel west slope. In the event that columbaria niches have limited take-up, the wall will sƟll serve the purpose as a retaining wall. For cremated remains, in-ground burial and scaƩering sites make sense, although it’s not clear in the Plan what exactly is meant by “scaƩering sites”. Unless I missed it, the Plan does not include a place for memorial plaques for those who choose to scaƩer cremated remains. I disagree with the idea to create a Visitor Parking area inside Greenlawn along Aspen Avenue (p.64) – it’s not necessary or pracƟcal and harms the Arboretum, requiring the removal of exisƟng shrubs and, possibly, trees, as well as likely damaging tree root systems. It will also crowd the cemetery, destroying the character and quality of the historic landscape. Finally, the Plan fails to even bring up the subject of an addiƟonal cemetery for Salem. I appreciate this topic may seem outside the scope of the Plan, but it is not. Even if the recommended full burial sites are added, Greenlawn will run out of full burial space in about 10 years (at the current rate), and then where will we be? We’ll sƟll need to find another cemetery spot, while the fate of the Arboretum is unclear – certainly Greenlawn’s historic character and landscape will be diminished, and possibly the Arboretum withered away. Thus, the need to at least discuss addiƟonal cemetery space cannot be avoided. Salem has a detailed Housing Road Map (5-year plan) which states that Salem’s populaƟon is growing and has an increasing share of residents over age 65 compared to regional and statewide averages (Salem Housing Road Map, p.8). We may wonder how that affects planning for burial space. The Housing Road Map idenƟfies potenƟal addiƟonal land for affordable housing development. Why was potenƟal addiƟonal cemetery land not even menƟoned in the Plan? It certainly begs the quesƟon of whether there may be a locaƟon(s) that could be considered (not limited to the locaƟons in the Housing Road Map). Due to the lead Ɵme involved for a new cemetery, and compeƟng interests for the space, the Ɵme is now to discuss it. Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon. Respecƞully submiƩed, Margaret Fleming Salem Resident, Ward 6