Loading...
31 ARBELLA STREET - ZBA 3 � g,-�c� s�-. �r l ZBA ACTION FORM BOARD MEMBERS i<'"" MOTION: "SECOND" VOTE' Date: S-/ /g/ // Rebecca Curran (Chair) Elizabeth Debski Petitioner: /L/J' Richard Dionne IV Annie Harris IV Address: Jamie Metch r/ Bonnie Belair(Alternate) Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alt.) Total: Conditions: ` ttlau Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. of IJ All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3 Ali requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. Y Q Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. fj ®Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. IO ©A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. icate-of is to be obtained. ❑'retitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7 ®Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not n limited to, the Planning Board. b ®Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent(50%)of its floor area or more than fifty percent(50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent(50%)of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent(50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. ❑ St,5 e5-4,o,, `VPJ- /01Z r14400r ^9 ' " ora /y i ri V67 coNDI CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR "a Q SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS-01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ``7M1t7E�� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2011, AW P l: 0�` MAYOR Y i L i;. 114 CITY C!.Zi i{, Jit!Fr IIA55. June 1, 2011 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of NICOLE BARLETTA requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and Variances from number of stories, lot coverage and side and rear setbacks, and from off-street parking regulations, in order to construct two rear decks and create two parking spaces on the property located at 31 ARBELLAST (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 18, 2011,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40,4, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Jamie Metsch,Bonnie Belair and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5 and Variances pursuant to Section 4.1. and 5.1.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. In a petition date-stamped Apti128,2011,the petitioner requested a Special Permit and Variances to construct two decks at the rear of the two-family house at 31 Arbella Street, and to create two parking spaces on the property. 2. Antonio Barletta and Amy Wallick presented the petition at the hearing on behalf of petitioner Nicole Barletta. 3. At the hearing,the Board of Appeals heard three letters from residents opposing the petition due to concerns regarding the size of the lot,proximity of the structures to abutters, use of the rear yard for parking, and objections that the house should not be used as a two-family home. 4. At the hearing, Board members asked Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre about the legal use of the building;Mr. St. Pierre confirmed that records indicate the building is a legal two-family home. 5. At the hearing,Board members expressed concern about the dimensions of the proposed parking area, noting the width did not seem great enough to accommodate cars easily. f 2 6. At the hearing, Board members suggested decreasing the dimensions of the decks and relocating them so as to be less obtrusive into the rear yard area. The Board also suggested eliminating the rear parking area and placing tandem spaces along the side of the property. The petitioner revised the drawing according to the Board's comments. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. In pemntting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to,the Plans,Documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit under Sec. 3.3.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance is granted to alter a nonconforming two-family house by constructing two rear decks as shown in the revised plans. 2. Variances from number of stories,lot coverage and side and rear setbacks, are granted to construct two decks at the rear of the properly as shown in the revised plans. 3. A Variance from off-street parking regulations are granted to allow two tandem parking spaces, as shown on the revised plans. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Hams, Curran,Dionne, Belair and Metch in favor) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and Variances to construct two rear decks and create two tandem parking spaces,subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 3 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. A new set of drawings to reflect the Board's comments,based on the revised drawings submitted at the May 18, 2011 hearing, are to be submitted for approval by the Building Commissioner. 10. Dimensions of the second floor deck are to be no greater than 5'x14'. Dimensions of the third floor deck are to be no more than 4'x8'. 11. The second parking space is to be 9'wide. 12. The back yard is to be restricted from parking. N UlaX ia,CGG n n/&.n JN �'l-/L Rebecca Curran, air Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. t 16 May,2011 Ms. Rebecca Curran Chairperson Zoning board of Appeal Ms. Curran, Due to council meeting conflicts I will not be able to attend the ZBA meeting scheduled this Wednesday, May 18`' 2011 therefore I need my opinion to be submitted in writing to be part of the hearing on the request for variances for 31 Arbella Street. The board's past decision to allow a shed dormer to be built does not negatively impact the neighborhood and was a good decision. The request for conversion to a two family does negatively impact this tight neighborhood and I do not support that action for the following reasons. Parking: Even without the added problem of snow, parking is so restricted here that it forces neighbors to park out on Collins Street. There are some members of the board that can attest to that. A two family here would create the need for at least four cars to find parking.The developer states that he intends to remove the existing side stair to create enough room to allow the driveway to continue into the back yard and at one point he stated that he could get 2 cars out back and two in the driveway.The additional space of the back yard has proven to not be a viable option at all as no car could make the turn.The addition of a second car end on end would require the car to be not only within the two foot buffer of the neighbor's yard but actually on the property line, which is illegal.That brings us back to one car only in the yard. We next could say that there is room for one car in front of the house.That is true so long as the space was available. That would total two spaces, not four. The fact that the address is zoned R-2 means that in order to qualify for the benefits of R-2 zoning, it should at least be close to the footage that defines what an R-2 property is defined as, that being 7500 square feet. Here we have less than 2800 square feet. Not even half of the required space. Directly abutting neighbors have weighed in on this and two of the three want it to remain a single family unit and oppose the conversion to a two family unit.The third is unknown. Unsubstantiated reports say that they are not in favor but that is hearsay. Other neighbors have told me they are opposed but they do not directly abut the property so I do not know if they have standing. Should these variances be approved and survive the appeal, I would like to ask that at a minimum, two conditions be added. 1 That under no circumstance can this ever be anything but a two family home. 2, That at least one of the units forever be owner occupied. It all comes down to quality of life issues and in this neighborhood we are already at the saturation point. With all due respect for the developer/owner, I ask you not to approve the request for a two family unit at 31 Arbella Street. Thank you for your consideration, Mike Sosnowski Ward Two City Councilor 17 Collins Street �t Ms. Rebecca Curran May 15, 2011 Chair Zoning Board of Appeals RECEIVED 120 Washington Street Salem, Ma. 01970 MAY 16 2011 DEFT:OF PLANNING& OOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Ms. Curran, This letter is in response to a proposal for Variance/ Special Permit for 31 Arbella St. As an abutter located at 5 Collins St. this request by Nicole Barletta would directly impact my property. The rear of the house at 31 Arbella bordering my property is located about 21 feet from the property line. The normal rear yard setback zoning requires 30 feet. I am strongly against any reduction of the existing setback depth. The yard areas within this neighborhood are small and this reduction to 13 feet setback is unacceptable as it would place these decks right on top of my yard and looking in my windows and over my fence. The conversion of what is now a single family into a two family will increase parking which is already a problem on the street. It also appears that the third floor dormer and deck may be a prelude to attempt a three family conversion in the future. The final building design should be carefully reviewed. Drawings submitted so far lack necessary and required details. Ms. Barletta's three car parking, two of which are proposed in a tiny backyard area, would eliminate most of the limited green area that exists. The parking design plan defies common sense and engineering functionality for turning into and out of the driveway. Snow removal for the driveway and proposed additional parking is impractical and will result in complaints to this board since fencing on two sides is almost guaranteed to be damaged. r � It is also unclear from Information available whether Ms. Barletta intends to keep this property an owner occupied residence or flip the property as soon as possible creating another problematic multi-rental in the neighborhood as exists next door now on Collins St. I think Ms. Barletta should be asked to appear at the May 18th meeting to answer this and other questions. Also in question is the work now being done at 31 Arbella Street that appears to be in violation without having prior variance approval. Has the building inspector checked this property recently to ensure code is being followed? In conclusion, it is my firm opinion that the requested variances should be denied. The board of appeals has no obligation to satisfy created requests for variances to redesign a structure and land use that will negatively impact established neighbors. Financial profit for Ms Barletta should not be a reason for granting variances to city code. Thank you for your consideration on this matter, Kevin Byrne/ Frank Byrne 5 Collins St., Salem, Ma 01970 L Ms Rebecca Curran Chairperson 35 Arbella Street Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Salem, MA 01970 120 Washington Street May 17, 2011 Salem, MA 01979 Dear Ms Curran, I am writing to express my continuing opposition to the Board granting a special permit to extend a nonconforming structure and variances from number of stories, lot coverage and side and rear setbacks, and from off street parking regulations at 31 Arbella Street, Salem Ma. This is a undersized lot that was grandfathered in as a two family prior to zoning rules. For the past several years it has been used as a single family home. As such it doesn't meet even the minimal requirements for a two family being located on a 2800 square foot lot. Giving the current new owner permission to expand the back of the building by using half of the current green space would overwhelm this lot while impacting abutters by limiting privacy, light and airflow in this very densely populated area. The addition of decks would overlook abutting yards and buildings. The proposed decks would be in a direct line or overlooking windows in my house impacting light as well as privacy into my bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. I am also concerned about the side variances that would allow a driveway to extend to my property line. In order to utilize the limited side space any vehicle would be parking on the property line. Currently I have a fence covering two thirds of the property line. This fence, given the closeness, would be at risk for damage from cars unable to fully open their doors without hitting it. It would also be at risk during any snow removal efforts. During the last hearing when I expressed concern about this the current developer rather cavalierly stated that if damage is done it would have to be fixed. He's already stated that he has no intention of living here. He states the purchaser and petitioner is his sister who will be living there "for now" yet she did not attended the previous hearing and nobody has received any assurance that this will be owner occupied. He has stated he would remove a set of steps as well as a concrete wall on the base of the building to add additional space. Ibelieve this is still not tenable and would result in encroachment on my property. While a narrow driveway is currently evident on the property I believe it was never an approved usage. If I extend my fence along my property line, which is under consideration,this space is just too narrow to allow approved usage. Granting a variance I believe would be tantamount to allowing usage of my property by neighbors which I am not prepared to accept. If it is done, a legal challenge would be given strong consideration. While I applaud the renovation of this building, I believe this re-design would have a major negative effect on neighbors and the neighborhood. I ask that you deny these requests in keeping with the City of Salem thoughtful regulations. Sincerely, Jerome & Doris Curley 1