162 BOSTON STREET - ZBA -I6� gasl-�i S��
� ,,/ , � \
goNnlTgao CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
.> 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
42 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970
TELEPHONE 978-745-9595
FAX, 978-740-9846 g
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL L ,lf j},^y� j4 P
MAYOR
i YI
March 24, 2011 "' tv"
Decision
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of EXPRESS AUTO BODY, INC, seeking a Special Permit to change one
nonconforming use to another in order to convert the existing building located at
164-168 BOSTON ST, Salem, MA to an auto body shop (Industrial Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 15, 2010 pursuant to
Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to January 19, 2011,
February 16, 2011, and March 16, 2011. The hearing was closed on March 16, 2011 with
the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski,
Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair(alternate), and James Tsitsinos (alternate).
Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2, Nonconforming Uses, of the
City of Salem Zoning Ordinances.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney Peter Martino represented the petitioner, Carlos Farias, at the hearings.
The property is owned by Robert Cucurull, who authorized the petition.
2. During the hearings, Board members expressed concern about parking on the site.
The Board requested a parking plan showing which spaces would be dedicated to
each use on the site.
3. Also at the hearings, several members of the public spoke in opposition to the
proposal, citing concerns about congestion, parking and fumes near a residential
neighborhood.
4. At the March 16, 2011 hearing, Board members noted the requested information,
a parking plan, had not been received; the applicant was not present; and a phone
call and email to the applicant had not been returned.
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:
2 c
1. The petitioner did not attend the hearing on March 16, 2011 or respond to
inquiries as to the status of the petition.
2. The petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed change would not be
substantially more detrimental then the existing nonconforming use to the
neighborhood.
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 to change the existing nonconforming use to another
nonconforming use (auto body shop) is not granted.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) opposed
(Curran, Debski, Dionne, Belair and Tsitsinos) and none (0) in favor, to grant petitioner's
requests for a Special Permit. The petition is denied.
Elizabeth Debski,
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.
Page 1 of 1
Danielle McKnight
From: Thomas Stpierre
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 12:53 PM
To: Danielle McKnight
Subject: FW. 168 Boston st
From: HawkjrInc@aol.com [mailto:HawkjrInc@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 9:32 AM
To: Thomas Stpierre
Subject: 168 Boston st
Mr StPierre,
It has come to my attention thru an add in the Salem news, that a partition to change the zoning of the
property at 168 Boston St is coming before the board of zoning affairs on December 15,
1 would like to voice my opposition to this zoning change at this address as i feel it would greatly affect
the traffic and property value in this area of Boston St.
The fact that the new owner has continually ignored city ordinances and parking regulations in this
area of Aborn St and Boston St and his other properties in this neighborhood to which they own and or
lease, has caused quality of life issues with the abutters and neighbors greatly affecting the area.
Where as the current body shop being operated across the street as Allstar Collision operates in total
disregard to ordinances i.e. working in the back storage/parking section of this property sanding and
painting of automobile parts in the open air of the back yard potentially exposing abutters to fumes and
dust particles
There is currently a U haul truck rental business being operated at this site . And i question weather
there is even a permitted enterprise?
The trucks and equipment that is being parked on the main entrance corridor of Boston St is already
impeding access to this very busy entrance road to Salem.
The business owner has shown in the past that illegally parking trucks cars and equipment on the
sidewalks and roadways in this area without regard to residents, traffic and pedestrians will only worsen
with the addition of a body shop at this site.The influx of tow trucks and disabled vehicles being
transported onto this property will greatly affect the flow of traffic and parking and quality of life. .
With the Upgrades being planned for this area in the near future is this really the type of business that
should greet visitors to The city of Salem?
Please feel free to contact me regarding our concerns for this site.
Regards Edward Ronan
21 Bow St Salem
978-745-7761
cc Jerry Ryan
12/9/2010
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
City of Salem provision M.G.L., Chapter 39, Section 23D.
(A City Councilor, board, or commission member, to sign upon listening to the audio
of a missed meeting and examining all evidence.)
Per the City of Salem provision M.G.L., Chapter 39 Section 23D, I, R2VJ eCCc- C J rr'."
hereby certify
..�''under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have examined all evidence pertaining
to 1 (0 W S`fU A s�rejeA which was distributed at the single missed session on
JfA n u�rt l Z�(� , which evidence included an audio recording of the missed session. This
certification shall become part of the record of the hearing.
4 L
Name A Date lI' lI
t /