Loading...
103 BOSTON STREET - ZBA (2) G 1:1 103 BOSTON STREET f HILDA STERLING & HERNERT SELESNICK J i cam. t1�it of ,�a1rM' rffla95z1r11U5dts �Qnttrb of (Appeal �. _ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF HILDA STERLING & HERBERT SELESNICK. . . REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 BOSTONSTREET . . (R-2) A hearing on this petition was held October 16, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Joseph Ywu, Albert Hill, Richard Dionne and Paul Valaskatgis. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner requests a Variance for a Change of Use from a business use to professional offices for the property located at 103 Boston Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: 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. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. c. Desirable 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 purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of facts: 1. Petitioner was not present for the hearing of this petition. 2. A letter was submitted by Paul Butler of 32 Albion Street opposing this petition. On the basic of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. No special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property as opposed to the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. DECISION OF HILDA STERLING & HERBERT SELESNICK REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 BOSTON STREET (R-2) page two Therefore, the Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor and 5 in opposition to the motion to grant the Variance, having failed to garner the required votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. Variance Denied October 16, 1996 Joseph Ywuc, Member J 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 of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is 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 0 ,r> iru^ 14^: BURTON H. IVIARGOLIS ATTORNEY AT LAW 0)5 KV 23 CENTRAL AVE, SUITE 901 LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS 01901 Mr. Gary M. Barrett, Chairman Board Of Appeal Salem City Hall Salem, MA 01970 fll,,,„Ifill h,l I IIllh,,,,il,l __ __ �� f4 __. �. �� �' � {. bf � i i �� �._ � Law Office of Burton H. Margolis 23 Central Avenue, Suite 401 Telephone(617)581-7110 Lynn,Massachusetts 01901 Fax No. (617) 595-6672 October 30, 1996 Mr. Gary M. Barrett, Chairman Board of Appeal Salem, MA 01970 Re: Petition of Hinda Sterling and Herberr Selesnick for Variance on 103 Boston Street, Salem, MA Dear Mr. Barrett: I am writing to request a re-hearing on the Petition of my clients, Hinda Sterling and Herbert Selesnick, for a variance on their property at 103 Boston Street, Salem, MA. The Petition was scheduled for a hearing on October 16, 1996. Unfortunately, I am recovering from a quadruple by-pass operation and on the afternoon of October 16, 1996, I felt faint and had chest pains. I called the Salem City Hall and spoke with someone at the Board of Appeal office and left my message that I would be unable to attend. I believe that either I made the call or my secretary did. At the time, I was very afraid that I might have to return to the hospital or worse, so my memory is not quite clear as to whom I spoke with. I am requesting that I be allowed to present my clients arguments at the December, 1996 meeting. My clients have made a material change to their plan and I believe that their Petition warrants a hearing before the board. To require them to Have to wait two years would represent a hardship to them. This would particularly be unfair since they, knowing they would be away on business, had retained me to present their arguments on October 16, 1996. I therefore, respectfully request that you hear my Motion at your next meeting on November 13, 1996 and that a re-hearing be granted for December, 1996. r Very truly yours, Burton H. Margolis /PC ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA f . 'baa CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS ROBERTA. LEDOUX Legal Department JOHN D. KEENAN City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant city solicitor 508-741-2111 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-745-7710 January 17, 1997 Mr. Leo Tremblay Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Board of Appeals Meeting - October 16, 1996 In the Absence of Burton H. Margolis Dear Leo: I had an occasion to speak to Mr. Margolis with reference to his failure to appear before the board on the evening in question. It seems appropriate that if the facts were presented to the board a new hearing would beheld. The facts are that Mr. Margolis has been a heart patient and had open heart surgery in the recent past. I am sure that you will do what is best in this instance. Very truly yours, ROBERT A. LEDOUX City Solicitor RAL/leh �� G� '� ��• `, �. � . r .. ` � � � � � ,, 1 �tcwvotc� ofttlent, Httsttr��usc##s planning pottrb Mm Saknt Gum September 23, 1996 Mr. Gary Barrett Chairman Salem Board Of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE: 103 Boston Street Dear Mr. Barrett: On September 19, 1996, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 16,the Salem Planning Board met to discuss the application of Hinda Sterling and Herbert Selesnick for a"Determination of Specific and Material Change"to their plan for 103 Boston Street, which was denied by the Board of Appeal on June 19, 1996. According to the law, there must be an affirmative vote of all but one member of the nine member Planning Board to approve the specific and material change request. The specific and material changes shown to the Board included the reduction in the number of proposed offices and the provision of adequate parking. On September 19, 1996,the Planning Board voted by a vote of eight(8) in favor, one(1) opposed to accept the specific and material change and refer the application back to the Board of Appeal for reconsideration. Sincerely, &�J6 Walter B. Power, III Chairman bd/sel.boa H & H Realty Trust Co. 97 Boston Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 508.741.3939 October 11, 1996 To: Gary Barrett, Chairman Board of Appeal City of Salem, Massachusetts From: Hinda K Sterling & Herbert L. Selesnick (DBA H&H Realty Trust Co.) Owners of 103 Boston Street Subject: Revised petition for a Variance for Change of Use from residential to business use for professional offices at 103 Boston Street, Salem (R-2) Concerning this revised petition and its predecessor, which appeared on the Board's June 19, 1996 agenda, please reference our August 7, 1996 request to the Planning Board for determination of a Specific and Material Change. Mr. Paul Butler (32 Albion Street), the owner of the multi-family property at 2-4 Nichols Street that abuts our 103 Boston Street property, appeared at the June 19, 1996 Board of Appeal hearing as the sole objector to the petition, expressing concerns about the parking demands that an office use would impose on the neighborhood, and about an extension of business uses into the residential district. We understand that Mr. Butler's concerns are the following: that there already is a surplus of office space in Salem and therefore no need for additional office space; that this proposed extension of business use into the residential district, if granted, might encourage or invite further such extensions and ultimately devalue his 2-4 Nichols Street property; and that visitors to a 103 Boston Street office-use property might park on Nichols Street instead of Boston Street for fear of the possibility of having their parked car struck by oncoming Boston Street traffic. Our revised petition, which the Salem Planning Board has determined to be specifically and materially changed from our original petition, seeks no variance from parking; provides sufficient additional off-street parking spaces, in a separate lot on an abutting property (97 Boston Street) that we own and maintain, to meet the applicable Zoning Ordinance parking requirements for both 103 and 97 Boston 2 Streets; is based on a plan for 4 professional offices (rather than the original 6); and specifies the adverse impact on our ability to service the outstanding debt on 103 Boston Street if the relief we are requesting is not granted. Our intent is to rent 103 Boston Street offices to attorneys. While there may be excess office space generally speaking in Salem, the location of our 103 Boston Street property on one of the heaviest trafficked streets on the North Shore, approximately halfway between the Peabody Square and Federal Street court houses, would give the property a distinct competitive advantage in the law office rental market. Placing four attorneys (instead of two families with children) in 2,000 square feet of space would actually lower the density of usage of the 103 Boston Street property, both inside and out, because attorneys would attract visitors and cars only five days per week during business hours, while families (with driving age children and friends) have been attracting visitors literally all hours of the day all days of the week. We often park our cars on Boston Street in front of 97 Boston Street where our consulting offices are located, and we frequently see customers of Salem Door and Window (the first-floor tenant of 97 Boston Street) park their cars on Boston Street in front of 97 Boston Street as well. To our knowledge, during the past 10 years that we have owned the two properties, no car parked on Boston Street in front of either building has ever been struck by a vehicle that was part of the Boston Street traffic. Our revised petition makes eight off-street spaces at the rear of 97 Boston Street newly available for visitors to the two buildings. The front entrance to 103 Boston Street is on Boston Street (not Nichols Street), and is clearly marked as such. Finally, we wish to bring the following additional points to the attention of the Board of Appeal: 1. We are willing to stipulate in writing that no changes will be made to the landscaping and grounds of 103 Boston Street; that no tenant of 103 Boston Street will be allowed to place commercial signage of any kind on the sides of the building facing Nichols Street itself or facing the 2-4 Nichols Street property, or on the roof of the building; and that we will abide by these same restrictions if we ever occupy the property, and will require the same written stipulation from any entity acquiring ownership of the property from us. . 3 2. We are willing to affix signage on the fence between 97 and 103 Boston Street (facing Boston Street), inviting visitors to both buildings to use the 8 off-street spaces at the rear of 97; and we are willing to construct a private walkway from the parking lot at the rear of 97 to the 103 Boston Street property, to further encourage use of these off-street spaces by visitors to 103. 3. Nichols Street is a one-way street heading into Boston Street. Accordingly, since it is illegal for any car on Boston Street to turn directly into Nichols Street, since virtually all of the visitors to 97 and 103 Boston Streets come to the buildings via Boston Street, and since the front entrance to 103 Boston Street is and will remain on Boston Street (not Nichols Street), it is highly unlikely that any visitors to 103 Boston Street would ever even attempt to park on Nichols Street (which would require them to drive around an entire city block), when their fust and second options are the much quicker ones of either parking on Boston Street or in what would be the clearly demarcated parking lot at the rear of 97 Boston Street, both of which are legally accessible by turning directly off Boston Street. 4. Mr. Butler's property at 2-4 Nichols Street abuts a door and window retailer (Salem Door & Window, Inc.) and management consulting offices (Sterling & Selesnick, Inc.) at 97 Boston Street, and a leather shop and warehouse at 6 Nichols Street that have been converted to a chemical testing laboratory (New England Chromachem Environmental Testing and Analysis), and it faces Salem Housing Authority's Colonial Terrace apartments at 105 Boston Street. Putting low-density, white-collar professional offices on the one remaining side of Mr. Butler's property would actually enhance its value. In fact, if the testing laboratory use at 6 Nichols Street were also converted to professional office use, this change would further enhance the value of Mr. Butler's property. hi light of the foregoing considerations, and the fact that the Salem Planning Board has determined our revised petition to be specifically and materially changed from our original one, we respectfully request that the revised petition for a use variance at 103 Boston Street be granted by the Board of Appeal. Petitioners 4inda K. Sterling Herbert L. Selesnick NOTE: There are no changes being made to the existing wall layouts. H11 areas are ettisting. Total Sq. Feet at first floor 993 SQ. Feet Total Sq. Feet at second floor 987 SQ. Feet Total Sq. feet at common entry 120 SQ. Feet ©)aquith& Siemasko,lrx Total Sq. Feet 2100 SQ. Feet y A .{ ygQ/11tj ALI w. I�•j w W _ w C, sutUt4yi'I r447h _ =4r 4, -)1'; ,s oir-P14 ., iAM rNfl�� 6>'�Sf r'vora-7 ,- ► � � J 12001` ISI'�olf� - f E z — c�aoiZ 0) o x0 � j i I i I a 4' CP 51.94 ^ _IL( t",II N151� Orr-'I Fy S ' � o --- hisr suPPl.Ylrr,'+f aw lurJcH 9470H � -- � 4 rN�ty� rv'�ST 1- 00 ® r,; Ln° s.� �, �i �' v� c 1111, ` -7 00. • � _ c�r`ir.12 s �a � i � �i_� _GaHF�(���Fz � � o ttitp� oZf s toe r X04, 5 t4a 1040r3ot"{" j N__ V Q -- - - n I � r — - -- Z�r� ! L r * 5s�.2Z 57.7 - Z ( RK14 — cc � - sem•V k.,ya';T�o' v, T - Drawip-; Number z M ph� 'J �� r