43-45 BOSTON STREET - ZBA 43-45 BOSTON STREET
WALGREEN'S
� J
�J
LoW N jtice;
"
f r' CrrY OF SALEM
� `;'BOARD
'.i 745.9595 Ext.'381
Will.hold a public hearing for
persons interested'in the-petition sub=
j ; miffed by SUNCOR DEV. OF MASS, IFf
LP. requesting;a Variance from park-
ing� requirements, to allow a 30' curb
and from minimum parking aisle
width of 24. Also requesting a Special
Permit to allow a parking lot in an R-3
District for the property located at
-" 45.54 BOSTON. STREET (R3/B2).''
1 " Saidhearing to be held JUNE 1711998
k AT 6:30 P.M.,ONE SALEM GREEN,. i
4d°,.grid R001
�'� Ir Nina CoheI Chairman ,,k
(6/3,6/10;98)1 ^+ +L�. ;�..� x u 4 k;-
*ii.4r
, 4
(f ltv of Salem, ttsstttlluse##s
3oQ PDurD rrf cAtTad Jux 30 3 00 Ph 'gg
AMENDED CJI Y Of SALEM, }SASS
CLL'RK'S OFFICF
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SUNCOR DEVELOPMENT OF MASS, L.P. REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45-53 BOSTON STREET, 59 BOSTON
STREET, 3 POPE STREET AND 15 PROCTOR STREET R-3/B-2
A hearing on this petition was held June 17, 1998 with the following Board
members present: Nina Cohen, Paul Valaskagis, Michael Ward, Ronald Harrison
and Richard Dionne. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters aro others
and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 4OA.
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from parking requirements, to allow
curb cuts in excess of 30 ft. from minimum parking aisle width of 24 ft,
also a request for a Variance to allow a parking lot in an R3 district and
a Variance from parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
board that:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Petitioner Suncor Development of Mass . L.P. was represented by Bernard
F. Shadrawy, Esq. of 15 Broad Street, Boston.
2. The subject property is a former industrial site located both in a
B-2 zoning district and in an R-3 district. Ledge covers a portion of
the property, and substantial changes in grade also restrict building on
the site. Petitioner proposes to demolish existing structures and clean
up the hazardous conditions that currently affect the site to enable a
proposed Walgreen's drug store to be built thereon.
3 . Petitioner requests four different variances. Petitioner seeks a
parking variance to offer off-street parking for 63 cars instead of the
required 81. Secondly, because the
proposed project has entrance/exit
drives on three roadways, petitioner also seeks variances from width
requirements for three planned curb cuts. One of the curb cuts falls
within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District; for this curb cut
petitioner requests a variance form the 24 ft. maximum width specific to
such districts. For the other two curb cuts, petitioner seeks de minimus
variances from the 30 ft. maximum width.
4. The third variance is for aisle widths within the parking lot which do
not the minimum requirement in two places. The fourth variance is to
allow five accessory parking spaces in the R-3 zone that is on the Pope
St. side of the property.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF SUNCOR DEVELOPMENT OF MASS, LP.P REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45-53 BOSTON ST. , 59 BOSTON STREET, 3
POPE STREET AND 15 PROCTOR STREET R-3/B-2
page two
5. In support of their request, petitioner stated that, with the addition
of drive-through prescription pickup windows, it is anticipated that
parking needs will be adequately met by the proposed 63 space lot.
Aisle widths are dictated by the requirements of truck access and
traffic flow; one of the narrow spots occurs at the corner of the lot
nearest to the ledge outcropping. Petitioner further stated that the
plan for the reuse of this site will be reviewed by the Planning Board
at an upcoming meeting, and that it would be willing to modify hour of
business operation in accordance with community wishes.
6. Speaking in opposition, Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street and Betsy Burns
of 22 Beckford St. stated that the proposed parking variance would
reduce available parking on the site by nearly a third of the required
amount, that parking in that sector can be very tight, and that
increased traffic at the intersection of Pope and Boston Street would be
very detrimental to traffic flow in the City.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property
and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substation hardship to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to
public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0 to grant '
the variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4 . A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
5. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
i. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem
Assessors office and shall display said number so as to be visible from
the street.
c
�o 0
r"
y D (a
r
O_ O
T; O
_�x s
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SUNCOR DEVELOPMENT OF MASS, L.P. REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45-53 BOSTON STREET, 59 BOSTON STREET,
3 POPE STREET AND 15 PROCTOR STREET R-3/B-2
page three
8. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board of Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
9. Petitioner will cause to be erected or marker, whichever is
appropriate, a permanent historical marker noting the Great Salem Fire
originated near this site. The marker must provide detail as to the
date, significance of the fire on this city's rich history as to
acreage destroyed, persons displaced, and total financial impact at the
time. The description must be approved by a local historian familiar
with details of the fire. And lastly, after set in place, the marker
must be kept free of obstruction by landscaping, ect.
that would keep it from being noticed by passerby. `
Variance Granted \
June 17, 1998 � /000'?tJ C�J
Ronald Harrison, Member
Board of Appeal
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 after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to 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 certification of the City Clerk that 20
days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South
Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
� c
-.. z
r o O
a-
v,> W
o= o
CD
N �
, c
SHADRAWY & RABINOVITZ
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BERNARD F.SHADRAWY,P.C. 15 BROAD STREET
BERNARD F SHADRAWY,JR.,PC. BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02109-3803
EDWARD RABINOVITZ .June 17, 1998
ROBERT E.BROOKS (617)523-3333
TELECOPIER(617)523-5185
RUSSELL F FANARA E-MAIL SIIADRABLAOLCOM
Nina Cohen, Chairman
City of Salem
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 45-53 Boston Street, 59 Boston Street, 3 Pope Street and 15 Proctor Street,
Salem ("Premises") Memorandum in Support of Variance/Special Permit
Dear Chairman Cohen& Members:
I represent Suncor Development of Massachusetts, L.P. ("Petitioner") relative to matters pending
before this Board for the above Premises as authorized agent of the owners thereof.
This memorandum is submitted to the Salem Board of Appeal (`Board") in support of certain
requested zoning relief for a proposed commercial project at the above described Premises. The Proposed
Project consists of the demolition of existing structures and the erection of a single story retail drugstore
with double drive through windows, signage (including a free standing sign) and accessory parking. As
the project site is somewhat unusual it is appropriate to begin with a description of the project site and
then to discuss the proposed building and accessory uses followed by the violations and reasons that the
requested zoning relief should be granted.
1. PREMISES/ZONING DISTRICTS
The Premises consists of the following four parcels:
Property Assessor's Lot Zoning
Address Parcels (Map 15) Area Districts
45-53 Boston Street 320 14,531 sf B-2, ECOD*
59 Boston Street 321 24,080 sf B-2, R-3, ECOD*
3 Pope Street 319 15,374 sf B-2, R-3, ECOD*
15 Proctor Street 322 35,836 sf B-2, R-3
*Entrance Corridor Overlay District
SHADR.AWY & RABINOVITZ
Nina Cohen,Chairman
Page 2
June 17, 1998
The total lot area for the Premises is 89,985+/- square feet per the Survey Plan entitled "Walgreens
Boston& Proctor Salem, Massachusetts prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc. dated 4/15/98
revised 4/28/98, No. SU-1 ("Survey Plan"). It should be noted that the lot area per the Survey Plan
contains 164 square feet more area than the total lot area per the Assessor's records (i.e., 89,821 sf).
As is indicated on the Survey Plan, the B-2/R-3 zoning district lines do not follow the property
lines for the 59 Boston Street, 3 Pope Street and 15 Proctor Street parcels but cuts through those parcels.
Under Section 7-9 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance(the"Ordinance") the regulations for the B-2 district
have been extended 30 feet into the R-3 district as is shown on the Survey Plan.
The Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan entitled "Walgreens Boston & Proctor Salem,
Massachusetts", dated 4/15/98 and revised 4/28/98, prepared by Atlantic Design Engineers, Inc. No. CO-4
("Existing Conditions Plan") shows that the 15 Proctor Street parcel contains substantial quantities of
ledge and a nearly 30 foot grade change from the abutting portions of the Premises. As such , this parcel is
substantially unusable and when it is understood that the 15 Proctor Street parcel contains almost 40% of
the project site, the difficulty of creating an economically viable development on this site becomes more
evident.
With the above information regarding the constraints on the Premises in mind, let us turn our
attention to the Proposed Project.
II. PROPOSED PROJECT
Much of the relevant information regarding the Proposed Project may be gleaned from the Site Plan
entitled"Walgreens Boston & Proctor Salem, Massachusetts", dated 4/15/98 and revised 4/28/98,
prepared by Lawrence S. Levinson, Levinson Associates, A.I.A., No. CO-1 ("Site Plan"). That
information includes the following:
Proposed Building Footprint - 13,855 sf
Proposed Building Entrance - faces corner of Proctor & Boston
Streets
Double Drive-Thru - on Southwesterly (rear) side of
building
Zoning District - entire proposed building with drive-
thru and 58 parking spaces situated in
B-2 District; 5 parking spaces in R-3
District
SHADRAWY & RABINOVITZ
Nina Cohen, Chairman
Page 3
June 17, 1998
Off Street Parking - 63 spaces (including 4 handicap
spaces)
Free Standing (Pylon) Sign - 1 at corner of Boston &Proctor
Streets
Curb Cuts - 1-30' on Proctor Street
1-30' on Boston Street
1-30' on Pope Street
Landscaping - minimum of 5 feet around entire street
perimeter of the site with more at
corners
III. ZONING RELIEF
The proposed use of the Premises as a drugstore is permitted in a B-2 District (See Ordinance
Sections 5-2(e)(1) and 5-2(d)(4)). The only provisions of the Ordinance that the Proposed Project does not
meet are applicable parking requirements and curb cut dimensions. Specifically, the Proposed Project
does not comply with the following provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance;
Section 7-3 (g) - insufficient off street parking
Section 5-2 - off street business parking not permitted in an R-3 District
Section 7-19(c)(2) - 30 foot curb cut on Boston Street not permitted in the Enhancement Corridor Overlay
District
Section 7-3(e)(2)(d) - aisle widths of less than 24 feet not permitted
The Petitioner contends that zoning relief from each of the above provisions of the Ordinance is
appropriate for the Proposed Project. The reasons in support of such relief are set forth below.
A. Insufficient Off-Street Parking
SHADRAWY & RABINOVITZ
Nina Cohen,Chairman
Page 4
June 17, 1998
The Proposed Project consists of a retail drugstore with a gross floor area of 13,855 square feet. In
calculating off street parking Section 7-3(g) of the Ordinance permits the deduction of storage areas from
gross floor area of a retail business. As is indicated on the Fixture Plan entitled "SWC Boston Street and
Proctor Street, Salem, MA"dated 6/24/97 prepared by Walgreens Facilities Planning and Design,
Drawing No. Dl ("Fixture Plan"), 1852 square feet of the proposed store will be dedicated to storage of
stock. Deducting the storage area from gross floor area and applying the requirement of one (1) space per
each 150 square feet of gross floor area we find that 81 off street parking spaces are required (i.e. 13,855sf
- 1852 sf= 12003 sfx 1 space/150 sf= 80.02 or 81 spaces).
The Proposed Project will provide 63 off street parking spaces including 4 handicap spaces. Thus,
there is a shortfall of eighteen (18) spaces requiring a variance to be in compliance with the Ordinance.
The reasons that more parking cannot be provided at the Premises are as follows:
1. approximately 40% of the Premises is unuseable due to the presence of ledge and a steep grade change
of some 30 feet;
2. the Premises are oddly angled to the rear making access and use of the Premises difficult to
accommodate;
3. the double drive thru windows can accommodate six (6) vehicles at a time; and
4. site acquisition, demolition, hazardous waste removal and other costs make a substantially smaller
structure not economically viable.
Additionally, it has been the experience of Walgreens that a parking lot of approximately 60
spaces can easily accommodate the traffic generated by such a store. This is because customer visits are
usually very brief resulting in quick tum over of spaces. Moreover, this Board has previously granted a
variance in April, 1995 from off-street parking requirements for an Osco drugstore allowing 61 off street
parking spaces. It is equally appropriate to grant such relief for the proposed Walgreens.
A discussion of each of the requirements for a variance set forth in Section 9-5(b) shall be reserved
for a later part of this memorandum.
B. Thirty(30) Foot Curb Cut
The Proposed Project seeks a thirty (30) foot wide entrance/exit onto Boston Street. Because this
portion of the Premises is situated in the Enhancement Corridor Overlay District Section 7-19 (c)(2)
permits only a 24 foot wide curb cut instead of the 30 foot wide entrance permitted in a B-2 District, the
underlying district for this portion of the Premises.
SHADRAWY & RABINOVITZ
Nina Cohen, Chairman
Page 5
June 17, 1998
The Petitioner seeks the wider access onto Boston Street to allow its delivery trucks sufficient
maneuvering room to exit. The loading area is situated along the Pope Street side of the proposed
building. The traffic flow on the Pope Street side would be one (1) way toward Boston Street preventing
trucks from exiting through the Pope Street exit. This is necessary also to avoid interference of trucks with
any vehicles using the drive-through windows.
The Petitioner is willing to mitigate the wider curb cut onto Boston Street by limiting exiting
traffic to right turns only. Additionally, Petitioner has included extra landscaping at the corner of Boston
and Pope Streets to minimize any unsightliness caused by the extra 6 feet of driveway opening requested.
C. Aisle Widths
Section 7-3 (e)(2)(d) of the Ordinance requires parking aisle widths of at least 24 feet. Generally
the Proposed Project meets this requirement except in two locations.
On the Pope Street side of the building toward the rear is situated a trash compactor across from 5-
6 parking spaces. Due to the presence of the trash compactor the size of the aisle in this area was reduced
from 24 feet to 22 feet. This deviation from the Ordinance's requirements is minimal and should in no
way adversely affect traffic flow for the site. Also, the maneuvering room to back out of the affected
spaces should prove more than adequate since only one row of vehicles is located in this area.
The other place where aisle width is less than 24 feet is along the Proctor Street side rear corner of
the building. This lane is for use by drive-thru vehicles only and is one way. Moreover, the aisle in this
area does not provide access to stalls so it is doubtful that Section 7-3(e)(2)(d)(2) applies. As this aisle is
sandwiched between the building and ledge there is no way to make the aisle any wider assuming the
Ordinance requirements apply to this location.
Any variance from the 24 foot aisle width requirements should refer to the Site Plan and grant the
variance as necessary for aisles as shown on the Site Plan.
D. Accessory Parking in Residence District
To the rear of the site near the Proctor Street entrance are situated five (5) off street parking spaces
in the R-3 District portion of the Premises. These five (5) parking spaces are being provided in order to
increase total off street parking at the Premises by providing parking for employees.
Because the principal drugstore use of the site is not permitted in the R-3 District (although not
expressly excluded), the proposed accessory parking for the drugstore in the R-3 District is not a
permitted accessory use. Petitioner requests this Board to grant a special permit (or alternatively a
variance) for such accessory parking under Section 5-3(a) and Section 5-3 (d) (14). A special permit
SHADRAWY & RABINOVITZ
Nina Cohen,Chairman
Page 6
June 17, 1998
would be appropriate because these 5 spaces are an accessory use not to be prohibited under Section 5-3
(d) nor is such accessory parking use otherwise expressly prohibited by the Ordinance. Therefore, it is
requested that the Board use its discretionary powers to grant a special permit for use of these 5 accessory
parking spaces in the R-3 District.
If this Board deems itself to be without authority to grant a special permit for this accessory
parking use, then Petitioner requests a variance for such accessory use. It should be noted that this small
portion of the R-3 zoned portion of the site is the only portion that is at all useable. It is clearly not large
enough to build residential uses on it because of the ledge and substantial grade change (hill) located
there. The only sensible use for such an area is as an accessory use to whatever principal use the main
(business)portion of the site is used, in this case a retail drugstore.
N. VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Petitioner contends that it has met the following conditions for a variance from the above
discussed provisions of the Ordinance.
A. SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ESPECIALLY AFFECT THE
LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT GENERALLY
AFFECTING OTHER LANDS, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME DISTRICT.
As previously noted, the Premises includes unbuildable ledge as well as a 30 foot grade change
over approximately 40%of its area. Additionally, the Premises is bordered on three sides by streets and
the configuration of the site is highly angled to the rear following the street lines.
These conditions especially affect the land and are not generally affecting other land in the district.
Such conditions are a major constraint on the use of the land and clearly justify a variance for the
Proposed Project.
B. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD INVOLVE
SUBSTANTIAL HARSHIP TO THE PETITIONER.
The Premises contains over 2 acres of land nearly 40% of which cannot be used for anything but
open space. The Proposed Project will allow a use of the entire Premises but is only economically viable
if a business of adequate size can be constructed thereon.
If the proposed drugstore were to be made smaller to comply with all requirements of the
Ordinance, it would allow a structure that only occupies about 10% of the Premises which is way too
small to viably support a business use in this Highway Business District. Moreover, it would be
substantially less than the 25% of lot area coverage allowed by the Ordinance.
SHADRAWY & RABINOVITZ
Nina Cohen,Chairman
Page 7
June 17, 1998
Additionally, the Premises requires demolition of large unsightly structures, hazardous waste clean
up and other substantial site preparation costs which cannot be supported unless a structure of sufficient
size and use can be erected. The odd shape of the Premises and its unusual topography make matters only
worse.
For these reasons and others presented at the hearing literal enforcement of the provisions of the
Ordinance would involve a substantial hardship to the Petitioner and owner of the Premises.
C. DESIREABLE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT-TO THE
PUBLIC GOOD AND WITHOUT NULLIFYING OR SUBSTANTIALLY DEROGATING FROM
THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT OR THE PRUPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE.
The Premises has situated on it an auto repair shop and an old industrial factory building in run
down and unsightly condition. The proposed use of the Premises will demolish these buildings and
construct a modern retail building with brick and glass facade which will provide pharmaceuticals and
health and beauty aids, among other items to the residents in the neighborhood.
The buildable portion(except for some parking spaces) of the Premises is situated in a B-2
(Business Highway) District created for providing sites for businesses accessible by automobile traffic
from major streets. That is exactly the type of use proposed by the Petitioner.
The surrounding area includes a Dunkin Donuts store,a retail paint and wallpaper store, the
Sylvania plant, the Sportshaven lounge, an electric substation and other business establishments. Abutting
residential dwellings situated to the rear of the Premises are well buffered by the ledge and hill between
the proposed store and those dwellings. There are a few apartments across Proctor Street but the structure
is set back over 75 feet from Proctor Street which is 40 feet wide. As such, these apartments are only very
slightly impacted by the proposed use which will be much further away from them than the existing
unsightly industrial factory structure.
For these reasons Petitioner contends that by granting the requested relief the Proposed Project
will have no substantial detriment on the public good but will provide a public benefit. The Proposed
Project is also consistent with the intent of this Business Highway District as well as the purposes of the
Ordinance including the prevention of overcrowding of land, avoidance of undue concentration of
population, securing safety from fire, panic and other damages, preservation of health and the
conservation of the value of land as described in Section 1-1 of the Ordinance.
V. CONCLUSION
SHADRAWY & RABINOVITZ
Nina Cohen,Chairman
Page 8
June 17, 1998
Upon all of the evidence presented including the plans and evidence submitted at the hearing, the
Petitioner requests this Board to grant variances to allow:
A. a minimum of 63 off street parking spaces; and
B. a 30 foot wide curb cut on Boston Street; and
C. a reduction in parking area aisle width to less than 24 feet per the Site Plan; and
D. use of a portion of the Premises situated in the R-3 district for 5 spaces of accessory parking or
alternatively, if applicable, grant a special permit to allow such accessory parking in the R-3 District.
Respectfully submitted,
Bernard F. Shadrawy, Jr.
Authorized Agent for the
Owner and Attorney for the
Petitioner, Suncor
Development of Massachusetts, LP.
cc: Stuart Goldman
Stephen Thayer
Ed Gless
BFSJr/ml
mi cro s o ft\wa I green\n in a.sale m