315-317 ESSEX STREET - ZBA (2) O�
l
I
�"ca�uird.Aa CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
s n
120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR
rE
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
'd' a TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 _
IIYE��
FAX: 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL �Llj( C't� >')
MAYOR -'
September 27, 2011
Decision: 315-317 ESSEX STREET
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
On September 21, 2011, the Zoning Board of Appeals met to clarify its intent with
regard to two petitions filed by 315-317 ESSEX STREET SALEM LLC for the property
located at 315-317 Essex Street. In the first petition, dated February 2, 2009, the
applicant requested a Special Permit to convert the first-floor office space to five units
of residential housing. The Board granted the Special Permit, and it was filed April 22,
2009. This decision was appealed. While the Special Permit decision was under appeal,
the petitioner filed another petition, dated February 26, 2010, requesting a Special
Permit to convert the entire building, a 13-room lodging house and office space, to six
two-bedroom residential units, and also requesting dimensional Variances to construct
two dormers. At the public hearing on March 17, 2010, the petitioner, the Board and
abutters/appellants discussed that it was the petitioner's intent that this project would
be constructed instead of the previously approved project. The Board granted the
requested relief, and the decision was filed on March 31, 2010. It was not appealed.
On September 21, 2011, the Board met to discuss its intent with regard to the two
decisions, per remand by the Essex County Superior Court, in the action appealing the
April 22, 2009 Special Permit. Whereas it was the Board's intent that by granting the
Special Permit filed on March 31, 2010, the Special Permit filed on April 22, 2009 would
be vacated, the Board voted on September 21, 2011 to vacate its 2009 decision by a
vote of 4-0 (Rebecca Curran, James Tsitsinos, Bonnie Belair and Annie Harris in favor,
none opposed). The vote was held to resolve any confusion remaining as to the Board's
intent. The Special Permit granted to 315-317 ESSEX STREET SALEM LLC for the property
located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET to convert the first-floor office space only to three
units of residential housing (filed on April 22, 2009) is void. The Special Permit and
Variances granted to allow conversion of the entire building from a lodging house and
office space to six residential units (filed on March 31, 2010), stand.
Rebecca Curran, Chair
Zoning Board of Appeals
RECEIVED
MAY 0 8 2009
John H. Carr, Jr., Esq.
N-FT.OF PLA11PUG L 9 North Street
GO'•,fRFJI"il'DEVELOPMEUT Salem, MA 01970
Phone: 978-825-0060
Fax: 978-825-0068
May 9, 2009 b 7 a
r
By Hand 41) RECO ED
Salem City Clerk 14 MAY q 2009
City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Sue Weaver Schopf, et al. v. Stephen P. Morris, et al. 't
"Dear Madam Clerk:
Enclosed please find Notice To Salem City Clerk Of Appeal To Essex Superior Court
From April 17, 2009 Decision Of Salem Board Of Appeal Granting Special Permit To
Stephen Morris Concerning 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Would you or someone from your office kindly date-stamp and file same, and also
acknowledge receipt of the foregoing by date-stamping the enclosed copy of this letter
and return same with our messenger.
Thank you in advance for your attention to the foregoing.
Very truly yours,
John H. Carr, Jr.
Enc.
cc Plaintiffs /
Salem Building Department �/
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO: 2669-- R(0,4
SUE WEAVER SCHOPF, MORRIS L. SCHOPF, )
JEROME J. SCHUERGER, JUDITH M. KEARNEY, )
JAMES L. KEARNEY, WALTER J. CATALDO, )
MAURA KELLEY CATALDO,ERIC P. HAYES, )
DOROTHY M. HAYES,JOHN BEDELL, JUDY WANG )
BEDELL, and LAURIE K. GAVENDA,
PLAINTIFFS )
V. ) RECEIVED
MAY S NO ? k
STEPHEN P. MORRIS, LINDA J. MORRIS, and )
REBECCA CURRAN, RICHARD DIONNE, ANNIE ) �,
HARRIS, JIMMY TSITSINOS, BETH DEBSKI, ROBIN )
STEIN, and BONNIE BELAIR, BEING REGULAR and
ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD ) I
OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SALEM, )
MASSACHUSETTS, )
DEFENDANTS )
NOTICE TO SALEM CITY CLERK OF APPEAL TO ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT
FROM APRIL 17,2009 DECISION OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL
GRANTING SPECIAL PERMIT TO STEPHEN MORRIS CONCERNING
315-317 ESSEX STREET, SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
I, John H. Carr, Jr., attorney for the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action, hereby give notice to
the City Clerk of the City of Salem,Massachusetts and to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
that said Plaintiffs have filed a civil Complaint with the Essex Superior Court appealing the April
17, 2009 Decision of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals granting a Special Permit to Stephen
Morns, owner of 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, to allow for a change in
use from five (5) non-conforming professional offices to three (3) non-conforming residential
units on a portion of the first floor of 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which
property is located in an R-2 zoning district. Said April 17,2009 Decision was filed with the
office of the Salem City Clerk on April 22, 2009.
A copy of said Complaint filed as Essex Superior Court Civil Action No.
on May 8, 2009 is attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric P. Hayes et al,
By their attorney,
May 8, 2009
John H. Carr, Jr.,Esq.
9 North Street
Salem, MA 01970
978-825-0060
BBO# 075281
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO: Z Q' 860
SUE WEAVER SCHOPF, MORRIS L. SCHOPF, ) b.
JEROME J. SCHUERGER, JUDITH M. KEARNEY,
JAMES L. KEARNEY, WALTER J. CATALDO, )
MAURA KELLEY CATALDO, ERIC P. HAYES, ) .v MAY 8 2009 a
DOROTHY M. HAYES, JOHN BEDELL, JUDY WANG )
BEDELL, and LAURIE K. GAVENDA, )
PLAINTIFFS )
V. ,.
STEPHEN P. MORRIS, LINDA J. MORRIS, and )
REBECCA CURRAN, RICHARD DIONNE,ANNIE )
HARRIS, JIMMY TSITSINOS, BETH DEBSKI, ROBIN )
STEIN, and BONNIE BELAIR, BEING REGULAR and )
ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD )
OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SALEM, )
MASSACHUSETTS, )
DEFENDANTS )
)
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 40A, SECTION 17
APPEALING APRIL 17,2009 DECISION OF THE SALEM BOARD
OF APPEALS GRANTING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW
CHANGE IN USE FROM OFFICE SPACE TO THREE RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AT 315-317 ESSEX STREET, SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
This is an appeal from a Decision of the Salem, Massachusetts Zoning Board of Appeals,
dated April 17, 2009, and filed with the Salem City Clerk on April 22, 2009, granting a Special
Permit to Stephen Morris, owner of 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, to allow
for a change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use, specifically from 5
professional offices to 3 residential units on a portion of the first floor of 315-317 Essex Street,
Salem, Massachusetts,which property is located in an R-2 zoning district, on the grounds that
said ZBA Decision was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, violated due process, exceeded the
Board's authority, was based on legally and factually untenable grounds, and was wrong as a
matter of law.
A certified copy of said April 17, 2009 Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
1. Plaintiff, Sue Weaver Schopf, owns and resides at 1 Cambridge Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and directly abuts 315-317 Essex Street.
2. Plaintiff, Morris Schopf, is the husband of Sue Weaver Schopf, and also resides with her
at 1 Cambridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970.
3. Plaintiff, Jerome J. Schuerger, owns and resides at 319 Essex Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and directly abuts 315-317 Essex Street.
4. Plaintiff, Judith M. Kearney, owns and resides at 1 '/2 Cambridge Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and directly abuts 315-317 Essex Street.
5. Plaintiff, James L. Kearney, is the husband of Judith M. Kearney, and also resides with
her at 1 '/z Cambridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970.
6. Plaintiffs, Walter J. Cataldo and Maura Kelley Cataldo, own and reside at 3 Cambridge
Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property is located within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and directly abuts 315-317 Essex Street.
7. Plaintiffs, Eric P. Hayes and Dorothy M. Hayes, own and reside at 329 Essex Street,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is located within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
8. Plaintiffs, John Bedell and Judy Wang Bedell, own and reside at 6 Cambridge Street,
Salem,Massachusetts 01970, which property is located within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and directly abuts 315-317 Essex Street.
9. Plaintiff, Laurie K. Gavenda, is an owner and resident of Unit No. 2, 324-328 Essex
Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is located within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Defendants
10. Defendant, Stephen P. Morris, who resides at 84 Ipswich Road, Boxford, Massachusetts
01921, is a co-owner of 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,and is the
petitioner/beneficiary of the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA herewith being
appealed.
-2 -
t
11. Defendant, Linda J. Morris, who resides at 84 Ipswich Road, Boxford, Massachusetts
01921, is the co-owner of 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970.
12. Defendant, Rebecca Curran,who resides at 14 Clifton Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to grant said Special Permit at
the April 15, 2009 hearing of the Salem ZBA on Mr. Morris' Petition.
13. Defendant, Richard Dionne, who resides at 23 Gardner Street, Salem,Massachusetts
01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to grant said Special Permit at
the April 15, 2009 hearing of the Salem ZBA on Mr. Morris' Petition.
14. Defendant, Annie Harris, who resides at 28 Chestnut Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,
is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to grant said Special Permit at the
April 15,2009 hearing of the Salem ZBA on Mr. Morris' Petition.
15. Defendant, Jimmy Tsitsinos, also known as James Tsitsinos, who resides at 6C Wharf
Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA who voted
to grant said Special Permit at the April 15, 2009 hearing of the Salem ZBA on Mr.
Morris' Petition.
16. Defendant, Beth Debski, also known as Elizabeth Debski,who resides at 43 Calumet
Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA, who did not
participate in the April 15, 2009 vote on Mr. Morris' Petition.
17. Defendant,Robin Stein,who resides at 141 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is
a regular member and the chairwoman of the Salem ZBA,who did not participate in the
April 15, 2009 vote on Mr. Morris' Petition.
18. Defendant, Bonnie Belair, whose mailing address is P.O. Box 685, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA who did not participate in the April 15,
2009 vote on Mr. Morris' Petition. (This is the only address available for Ms. Belair at
the office of the Salem ZBA.)
19. All of the foregoing Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action, as all are substantially
aggrieved by the April 17,2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting said Special Permit.
JURISDICTION
20. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the
Massachusetts General Laws.
21. This case is timely, as it has been filed within twenty(20) days from April 22, 2009,
which is when the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA was filed with the Salem
City Clerk.
- 3 -
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
22. According to records maintained by the Salem Assessor's office, 315-317 Essex Street is
a 2 % story building which was built"about 1920," and is located on .222 acres of land.
23. Also according to said Salem Assessor's records, the building consists of 3,629 square
feet of interior space on the first floor, 2,597 square feet on of interior space on the
second floor, 649 square feet of interior space in the "upper attic," and 2,549 square feet
of interior space in the basement.
24. Also according to said Salem Assessor's records, the building consists of "14 Units, 2
Baths, 0 HalfBaths, 0'/4 Baths, 13 Rooms, and 13 Bdrms." Emphasis added.
25. Said property is located in an R-2 zoning district, and is also located in the McIntire
Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws.
26. The card for said property maintained by the Salem Building Department recites in
relevant part that"8 rooms on 2"d. and 3`d. floors may be rented individually." Emphasis
added.
27. According to the December 31, 2007 Lodging House License issued by the Salem
Licensing Board to Stephen and Linda Morris which was filed in support of Mr. Morris'
within Petition for a Special Permit, Mr. and Mrs. Morris are licensed to maintain 13
rooms at"315-315 Essex Street." (sic)
28. The difference in the approved density for 315-317 Essex Street as per the records of the
Salem Building Department, the Salem Assessor's Office, and the Salem Licensing
Board was not explained in Mr. Morris' February 2,2009 Petition for a Special Permit, or
at either the February 18, 2009 or April 15, 2009 hearings on said Petition.
29. According to a Plot Plan dated February 13, 2008 prepared by LeBlanc Survey
Associates,Inc. of 161 Holton Street, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923 for Mr. Monis with
respect to 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts, there are a maximum of 10
parking spaces at said property,which parking spaces are asphalted and cover virtually
the entire rear of said property.
30. It would appear from said Plot Plan that the driveway to said parking spaces,which is not
measured on the Plot Plan, but which is shown as running along the westerly side lot line
of said property, is less than the 14 feet minimum width required by the Salem Zoning
Ordinance, ie. 12 foot minimum driveway width pursuant to Section 7-3(e)(4) of said
Ordinance, and an additional 2-foot setback"from all lot lines"pursuant to Section 7-
3(e)(5)(b)thereof.
31. On or about February 21, 2008, Defendant Stephen P. Moms filed a Petition for a Special
Permit with the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter"the ZBA"or"the Board")
seeking a"change of non-conforming use from a photography studio to five (5)
- 4 -
professional offices"on the first floor of the 315-317 Essex Street property, which
proposed office use was also non-conforming.
32. Pursuant to its April 2,2008 Decision, the Salem ZBA granted Mr. Morris' Petition,
thereby allowing"the first floor space which formerly housed a photography studio to
house professional offices."
33. In support of said April 2, 2008 Decision,the Salem ZBA stated the following:
The building currently contains thirteen(13) licensed rooming
house rooms on the second and third floors (See Exhibit 1,
License) and a beauty salon on a portion of first floor (See Exhibit
2,ZBA Decision). Both uses are nonconforming uses in the R-2
zoning district. The remaining area of the first floor was
previously occupied by a photography studio which was also a
nonconforming use (See Exhibit 3, Building Inspector Street
Card). The petitioner is requesting a change of the use as a
photography studio to a use for five (5)professional offices, with
shared reception, conference, lounge, and lavatoryfacilities.
Emphasis added.
34. It is unclear from both Mr. Morris' February 21, 2008 Petition and from the
corresponding April 2, 2008 Decision of the Salem ZBA how much of the 3,629 square
feet of interior space on the first floor of 315-317 Essex Street was allocated to the former
photography studio, and how much was allocated to the beauty salon.
35. The non-conforming beauty salon use on the remaining portion of the first floor of 315-
317 Essex Street has since been discontinued, and the entire first floor is now vacant,
although(as is visible through the first-floor,plate-glass windows) interior framing work
has been commenced throughout the first floor.
36. Since January 1, 2006 the Salem Police Department has received in excess of 150
complaints concerning loud, obnoxious, or other inappropriate behavior at 315-317
Essex Street.
37. Since January 1,2008 the Salem Fire Department has received 10 calls concerning fires,
or other problems at 315-317 Essex Street.
38. Pursuant to his Petition for a Special Permit dated February 2, 2009,Mr. Morris sought a
"change of non-conforming use(5 professional offices—granted April 2008)to five (5)
residential units on the first floor."
39. A hearing on said Petition was held before the Salem ZBA on February 18, 2009, and
was continued to its regular meeting on April 15, 2009.
- 5
40. Plaintiffs, Eric P. Hayes and Dorothy M. Hayes, never received actual or written notice of
either the February 18, 2009 or the April 15, 2009 ZBA hearings, either at their current
address of 329 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which they have owned since
July 18, 2008, or at their former address of Unit No. 4, 324-328 Essex Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970. Both 329 Essex Street and 324-328 Essex Street are located within
the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
41. The April 15, 2009 meeting of the Salem ZBA commenced at its usual time of 6:30 p.m.
and involved several long and contentious matters before the continued hearing on Mr.
Morris' Petition was reached at approximately 11:00 p.m.,by when there was a bare
quorum of only four ZBA members present, including one alternate member.
42. At the April 15, 2009 hearing Mr. Morris had already downgraded his requested change
from 5 residential units to 4 residential units.
43. At the April 15, 2009 continued hearing on Mr. Morns' Petition, one City Councilor
(Ward 2 Councilor Michael Sosnowski)and"several [unnamed] residents" spoke in
opposition to Mr. Morris' Petition, and three residents (Mary Whitney,Nicholas Nowak,
and Jim Kearney) submitted letters in opposition to the project; and two City Councilors
(Ward 3 Councilor Jean Pelletier, in whose ward 315-317 Essex Street is located, and
Councilor At Large Steven Pinto) spoke in favor, and two residents (Jim McAllister and
John Tom Skerry) submitted letters in support of the Petition.
44. At the close of the April 15, 2009 public hearing on Mr. Morris' Petition at
approximately 11:15 p.m.,ZBA member Annie Harris proposed a further reduction in
density to 3 residential units without substantive explanation, which was adopted by the
Board in a 4 to 0 vote.
45. It was clear from the abbreviated discussion following the close of the public hearing (at
approximately 11:15 p.m.)that the four remaining ZBA members thought they were
voting on a change involving the whole first floor of 315-317 Essex Street, as opposed to
only an unspecified portion of said first floor.
46. Said abbreviated discussion also failed to take into account the overall non-conforming
parking at said property, as well as the differences in the existing approved density at said
property based on the differing records of the Salem Building Department,the Salem
Assessor's Office, and the Salem Licensing Board.
47. Said April 15, 2009 vote was incorporated into the April 17, 2009 Decision herewith
being appealed from, which Decision was filed in the Salem City Clerk's office on April
22, 2009.
48. As to each of the following Counts,the Plaintiffs reaffirm,re-allege, and incorporate all
of the prior allegations contained in paragraphs 1-47 inclusive above.
- 6 -
ARGUMENT
COUNTI
The Special Permit was granted in violation
of Article IX,Section 94(b) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
49. Article IX, Section 9-4(b) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance entitled, "Special Permits,"
provides the following in relevant part:
The board of appeals may authorize the issuance of a
special permit for a change to another nonconforming use
of an existing nonconforming ...use or its alteration or
enlargement, provided that the board finds that the use
as changed,altered or extended will not depart from the
intent of this ordinance and its prior use or degree of
use, provided such...use is neither increased in volume
unreasonably. Emphasis added.
50. In its April 17, 2009 Decision the Salem ZBA did not in fact make an express finding that
the change from the prior non-conforming use to the approved non-conforming use"will
not depart from...its prior use or degree of use,"nor did it make an express finding that
the approved non-conforming use "is neither increased in volume unreasonably."
51. The prior non-conforming use was a photography studio whose hours were basically
Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
52. The number of customers associated with the former photography studio use was light, as
was the parking and traffic associated therewith.
53. By contrast,the approved change of non-conforming use to three residential units is a
significantly more intense use,both in terms of the fact that the new non-conforming use
exists 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and also because of the
significantly increased traffic and parking associated with said approved change of non-
conforming use, including with respect to the inevitable deliveries to, and guests of, said
new three residential units.
54. Article I, Section 1-1(a) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, entitled"Purposes,"includes the
following explicit Purposes of said Ordinance: "to lessen congestion in the streets, ...to
secure safety from fire... and other dangers,... to prevent overcrowding of land,to avoid
undue concentration of population, to facilitate adequate provision of transportation....to
conserve the value of land and buildings,to encourage the most appropriate use of
land..."
7
55. The Special Permit awarded to Mr. Moms pursuant to the April 17, 2009 Decision of the
Salem ZBA is contrary to the above explicit Purposes of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
56. Said Special Permit does in fact constitute substantial detriment to the public good, does
in fact nullify and/or substantially derogate from the intent and purposes of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance, and does in fact unreasonably increase the intensity of the prior non-
conforming use.
57. For the foregoing reasons alone, said April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA should
be annulled in its entirety.
COUNT II
The Special Permit was granted in violation of Article V,
Section 5-30) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
58. Article V, Section 5-30) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, entitled"Extension of
nonconformity,"provides the following in relevant part:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this
ordinance,the board of appeals may, in accordance with
the procedures and conditions set forth in sections 8-6 and
9-4 herein, grant special permits for alterations...of
nonconforming...uses,provided, however,that such
change, extension,enlargement, or expansion shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming use to the neighborhood...Emphasis
added.
59. For the reasons set forth in the Count I above, the approved change of non-conforming
use pursuant to the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA is in fact substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the prior non-conforming use was detrimental
to the neighborhood.
60. For the foregoing reasons alone, said April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA should
be annulled in its entirety.
COUNT III
Plaintiffs Eric P. Hayes and Dorothy M. Hayes did
not receive notice of the February 18,2009 and the
April 15,2009 hearings on Mr. Morris' Petition.
61. As owners of real estate within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance, Plaintiffs Eric P. Hayes and Dorothy M. Hayes were entitled to receive direct
- 8 -
written notice from the Salem ZBA of the February 18, 2009 hearing on Mr. Morris'
Petition for a Special Permit concerning 315-317 Essex Street as a matter of law.
62. Said Plaintiffs did not receive direct written notice, either at their current address of 329
Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which they have owned since July 18, 2008,
or at their former address of Unit No. 4, 324-328 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970.
63. Both 329 Essex Street and 324-328 Essex Street are within the 300 foot notice
requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
64. Mr. and Mrs. Hayes were not otherwise aware of the February 18, 2009 and April 15,
2009 hearings on Mr. Morris' Petition.
65. For the foregoing reasons alone,the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA should be
annulled in its entirety.
COUNT IV
The Special Permit violates Article VII, Sections 7-2 and 7-3 of
the Salem Zoning Ordinance because there is
insufficient off-street parking for the property.
66. Article VII, Section 7-2(a)of the Salem Zoning Ordinance provides the following in
relevant part:
Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained
by the owner of the property for...each use
which...is...enlarged or altered according to the regulations
set out in this section.
67. Article VII, Section 7-3(g)requires "one and one-half(1 ''/Y) spaces per dwelling unit..."
for"rooming houses" and properties located in R-2 zoning districts,plus "one (1) space
for each one hundred fifty(150) square feet of gross floor area of the building..." for
retail businesses.
68. Thus,the owner of 315-317 Essex Street has to provide 1 % spaces for each of the
legitimate rooms on the second and third stories of said property,plus an additional 4.5
spaces for the three residential units approved for the portion of the first floor formerly
occupied by the photography studio pursuant to the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem
ZBA,plus additional parking spaces depending on the actual square footage of the former
beauty salon.
69. At a minimum,this would include a total of 16.5 parking spaces if the correct number of
rented rooms on the second and third floors of 315-317 Essex Street is 8,24 parking
spaces if the correct number of said rented rooms is 13, and 25.5 parking spaces if the
- 9 -
correct number of rented rooms is 14, >l lus said additional parking as is required by the
former beauty salon retail use on the first floor of said property, which would involve one
at a minimum.
70. The maximum number of available parking spaces at 315-317 Essex Street is 10, even
assuming the westerly driveway access to these spaces complies with the Salem Zoning
Ordinance,which is questionable at best.
71. Relaxing said parking requirements must be done by Variance, and cannot be done by
Special Permit.
72. For the foregoing reasons alone,the April 17, 2009 Decision of the ZBA must be
annulled in its entirety.
COUNT V
The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals acted arbitrarily,
capriciously,and unreasonably in approving a Special
Permit for three residential units on a portion of the first floor
of 315-317 Essex Street formerly occupied by a photographic
studio in its April 17,2009 Decision.
73. Given the extent to which Defendant Stephen P. Morris has shown that he is incapable of
operating the existing rented(residential) rooms on the second and third floors of 315-
317 Essex Street, as evidenced by the extraordinary number of complaints to the Salem
Police Department since January 1, 2006 concerning said property(in excess of 150
complaints since said date), and by the extraordinary number of separate complaints to
the Salem Fire Department since January 1, 2008 (10 complaints since said date),the
Salem ZBA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably in approving three
additional residential units in its April 17, 2009 Decision.
74. The Salem ZBA also acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably in approving said
three residential units by disregarding the parking and traffic problems that will be
inevitably caused by said units.
75. The Salem ZBA also acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably in its April 17,
2009 Decision by exacerbating the existing excessive residential density of 315-317
Essex Street.
76. The Salem ZBA also acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably in its April 17,
2009 Decision by approving three residential units on aop rtion of the first floor of 315-
317 Essex Street, which first floor density is clearly and unreasonably excessive.
77. The Salem ZBA also acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably in its April 17,
2009 Decision by apparently not being aware that the approved three residential units
- 10 -
was limited to aop rtion of the first floor of 315-317 Essex Street, as opposed to the entire
first floor.
78. For the foregoing reasons alone,the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA must be
annulled in its entirety.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
a. enter a Judgment in their favor annulling in full the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals;
b. award the Plaintiffs cost and reasonable attorneys fees in connection with their
prosecution of this appeal; and
c. grant such other relief as is just and expedient.
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Weaver Schopf, et al,
By their attorney,
May 8, 2009
John H. Carr, Jr., Esq.
9 North Street
Salem, MA 01970
978-825-0060
BBO# 075281
- 11 -
14,1 J J
CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETfS
BOARD OF APPEAL
KiMBERLEY DRisooLL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSAQ4US ETTS 01970
MAYOR 'I�ELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-740-04)4
n
Notice of Decisions a
'n
N
April 17, 2009 Z3
Decision
0
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently
nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use (multifamily
residential) to allow conversion of the existing office space on the first floor to five
residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA
(112 zoning district).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 18, 2009 and closed on
April 15, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The following Zoning
Board of Appeals members were present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Jimmy
Tsitsinos (alternate), and Annie Harris.
Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 8-5 of the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinances.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner, Stephen Morris, at the hearing.
2. The property at 315-317 currently contains thirteen (13) licensed rooming house
rooms on the second and third floors and a beauty salon on a portion of the first
floor. Both uses are nonconforming uses in the R-2 zoning district. The
remaining area of the first floor was previously occupied by a photography studio
which was also a nonconforming use.
3. In a petition dated February 21, 2008, the applicant requested a Spacial Permit to
change the nonconforming use (photography studio) in the first floor area to
another nonconforming use (office space). In a decision dated April 2, 2008, the
2
Board of Appeals granted the requested Special Permit to allow the petitioner to
convert this portion of the first floor to office space.
4. In a second petition dated February 2, 2009, the applicant requested a Special
Permit to change the nonconforming office space use to another nonconforming
use, multifamily housing, to accommodate conversion of the space to five
residential housing units.
5. The Board of Appeals opened the hearing at its February 18, 2009 meeting, with
the following Board members in attendance: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,
Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). At this
meeting, Attorney Atkins stated that the petitioner sought the Special Permit
because he had been unable to rent the office space.
6. At the February 18 meeting, a resident spoke in opposition to the petition, citing
previous problems with residents of the rooming house and traffic concerns. The
Board also received a letter from Morris Schopf opposing the project, citing
concerns about traffic and the physical state of the building.
7. Also at the February 18 meeting, At-Large Councillor Steven Pinro, 55 Columbus
Avenue, spoke in support of the petition; he did not feel significant traffic would
be generated and wished to avoid an empty building in the neighborhood.
8. The petition was heard again on April 15, 2009 with the following Board
members in attendance: Annie Harris, Rebecca Curran, Jimmy Tsitsinos
(alternate) and Richard Dionne. Several residents spoke in opposition to the
petition, citing concerns about density, traffic and property values. Ward 2
Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, also spoke in opposition.
9. Also at the April 15 meeting, a resident spoke in support of the project, stating his
preference to remove commercial uses from the neighborhood. Ward 3
Councillor Jean Pelletier also spoke in support of the project.
10. Two residents (Jim McAllister, Jon T. Skerry) submitted letters in support of the
petition, and three residents (Mary Whitney, Nicholas Nowak, ajrd Jim Kearney),
submitted letters in opposition to the project.
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. The petitioner's request for a special permit does not constitute substantial
detriment to the public good.
2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the
intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
3. In permitting such change, the Zoning Board of Appeals requires certain
3
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 is granted to allow for the change in use from office
space to three residential units.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor
(Tsitsinos, Curran, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's
requests for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and
safeguards:
1. The building's current office space may be converted to no more than
three (3) residential units.
2. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted
to and approved by the Building Commissioner. The plan dated
December 19, 2007 and revised February 2, 2009, March 3, 2009 and
April 15, 2009, is to be revised showing conversion of the office space to
three (3) residential units instead of five (5).
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction are to be in harmony with
existing structure.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
8. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
10. 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 of 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
4
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.
L�7-�:y.
Richard Dionne, 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 I he 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.
7 fi iY
1 E
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO: Z0(3 9
ERIC P. HAYES and DOROTHY M. HAYES, )
PLAINTIFFS )
V. )
STEPHEN P. MORRIS,LINDA J. MORRIS, and )
REBECCA CURRAN, RICHARD DIONNE, ANNIE )
HARRIS, JIMMY TSITSINOS, BETH DEBSKI, ROBIN )
STEIN, and BONNIE BELAIR, BEING REGULAR and )
ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD )
OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SALEM, )
MASSACHUSETTS, )
DEFENDANTS )
NOTICE TO SALEM CITY CLERK OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L.
CHAPTER 40A, SECTION 17 APPEALING/CHALLENGING THE APRIL 17,2009
DECISION OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING 315-317 ESSEX
STREET SALEM MASSACHUSETTS DUE TO LACK OF NOTICE
I, John H. Carr, Jr., attorney for the Plaintiffs, Eric P. Hayes and Dorothy M. Hayes, in the
above-entitled action, hereby give notice to the City Clerk of the City of Salem,Massachusetts
that said Plaintiffs have filed a civil Complaint with the Essex Superior Court
appealing/challenging the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
granting a Special Permit to Stephen P. Morris, owner of 315-317 Essex Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, to allow for a change in use from five (5) non-conforming professional
offices to three(3)non-conforming residential units on a portion of the first floor of 315-317
Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 01970 due to lack of notice. Said April 17, 2009 Decision
was filed with the office of the Salem City Clerk on April 22,2009.
A copy of said Complaint filed as Essex Superior Court Civil Action No. ZU 0 g^ /3 S y L
on July 17, 2009 is attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric P. Hayes et al,
By their attorney,
July 17, 2009
*. E-,
ED
I �UL 2 2 2009
CREPT. OF PL AfJW1G&
CO ti FUFItTY QEVELOPURIT
t
John H. Carr, Jr., Esq.
9 North Street
Salem, MA 01970
Phone: 978-825-0060
2059 JUL I l A It: 05 Fax: 978-825-0068
-!i. ,<
CITY CLrIT f;.SS
July 17, 2000
By Hand
Salem City Clerk
City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem,MA 01970
Re: Eric P. Hayes, et al. v. Stephen P. Morris, et al.
Dear Madam Clerk:
Enclosed please find Notice To Salem City Clerk Of Complaint Pursuant To Chapter
40A, Section 17 Appealing/Challenging The April 17, 2009 Decision Of The Salem Board
Of Appeals Regarding 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts Due To Lack Of
Notice.
Would you or someone from your office kindly date-stamp and file same, and also
acknowledge receipt of the foregoing by date-stamping the enclosed copy of this letter
and return same with our messenger.
Thank you in advance for your attention to the foregoing.
V truly yours,
John H. Carr, Jr.
Enc.
cc. Jerald A. Parisella, Esq.—By Hand
George W. Atkins,III, Esq.—By Hand
Mr. & Mrs. Eric P. Hayes—By Hand
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
1Q09 !'! i l A !1: OS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
!-;IL _. CIVILACTIONNO: 2-06c ^- 135 v C
ERIC P. HAYES and DOROTHY M. HAYES, )
PLAINTIFFS )
V. )
IN:FH IL
STEPHEN P. MORRIS, LINDA J. MORRIS, and ) FOR THE Cour,r"Nf1 F�r'w°F
REBECCA CURRAN, RICHARD DIONNE,ANNIE ) OF EssEX
HARRIS, JIMMY TSITSINOS, BETH DEBSKI, ROBIN ) JUL , 7 2009
STEIN, and BONNIE BELAIR, BEING REGULAR and )
ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD )
OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SALEM, ) CLERK
MASSACHUSETTS, )
DEFENDANTS )
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 40A, SECTION 17
APPEALING/CHALLENGING THE APRIL 17, 2009 DECISION OF THE
SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING 315-317 ESSEX STREET,
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DUE TO LACK OF NOTICE
The Plaintiffs, Eric P. Hayes and Dorothy M. Hayes, are two of nine Plaintiffs who on
May 8, 2009 filed a timely civil action with this Court, entitled Sue Weaver Schopf, et. al. v.
Stephen P. Morris, et. al., Essex Superior Court Docket No. 2009-860A, appealing the April 17,
2009 Decision of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter"ZBA"or"the Board")
granting a Special Permit to Stephen P. Morns to allow for a change from one non-conforming
use to another non-conforming use at 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts on the
grounds that said ZBA Decision was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable,violated due process,
exceeded the Board's authority, was based on legally and factually untenable grounds, and was
wrong as a matter of law.
This is a separate action pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the
Massachusetts General Laws wherein the within Plaintiffs, Eric P. Hayes and Dorothy M. Hayes
are additionally appealing/challenging said April 17, 2009 ZBA Decision on the grounds that
they did not receive the requisite notice to which they were entitled as a matter of law, and as
such, they additionally contend that said ZBA Decision was likewise arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, violated due process, exceeded the Board's authority, was based on legally and
factually untenable grounds, and was wrong as a matter of law.
A certified copy of said April 17, 2009 Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
RECEIVED
JUL 2 2 2009
V,PT.OF P•-A1IDMG&
00110mUNIIN D kLQPMSRT
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
1. Plaintiff, Eric P. Hayes, owns(with his wife, Dorothy M. Hayes) and resides at 329 Essex
Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, and is the former owner(also with his wife, Dorothy
M. Hayes)of Unit No. 4, 324-328 Essex Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, both of
which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance.
2. Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Hayes, owns (with her husband, Eric P. Hayes)and resides at 329
Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, and is the former owner(also with her
husband, Eric P. Hayes) of Unit No. 4, 324-328 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, both of which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Defendants
3. Defendant, Stephen P. Morris, who resides at 84 Ipswich Road, Boxford, Massachusetts
01921, is a co-owner of 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, and is the
petitioner/beneficiary of the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA herewith being
appealed.
4. Defendant, Linda J. Moms, who resides at 84 Ipswich Road, Boxford, Massachusetts
01921, is the co-owner of 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970.
5. Defendant, Rebecca Curran, who resides at 14 Clifton Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to grant said Special Permit at
the April 15, 2009 hearing of the Salem ZBA on Mr. Morris' Petition.
6. Defendant, Richard Dionne, who resides at 23 Gardner Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to grant said Special Permit at
the April 15, 2009 hearing of the Salem ZBA on Mr. Morris' Petition.
7. Defendant, Annie Harris, who resides at 28 Chestnut Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,
is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to grant said Special Permit at the
April 15,2009 hearing of the Salem ZBA on Mr. Morris' Petition.
8. Defendant, Jimmy Tsitsinos, also known as James Tsitsinos, who resides at 6C Wharf
Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA who voted
to grant said Special Permit at the April 15, 2009 hearing of the Salem ZBA on Mr.
Morris' Petition.
9. Defendant,Beth Debski, also known as Elizabeth Debski, who resides at 43 Calumet
Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA, who did not
participate in the April 15, 2009 vote on Mr. Morris' Petition.
- 2 -
10. Defendant, Robin Stein, who resides at 141 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is
a regular member and the chairwoman of the Salem ZBA, who did not participate in the
April 15, 2009 vote on Mr. Morris' Petition.
11. Defendant, Bonnie Belair,whose mailing address is P.O. Box 685, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA who did not participate in the April 15,
2009 vote on Mr. Morris' Petition. (This is the only address available for Ms. Belair at
the office of the Salem ZBA.)
12. The within Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action, as they are substantially
aggrieved by the lack of notice (to which they were entitled as a matter of law) resulting
in the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting said Special Permit.
JURISDICTION
13. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the
Massachusetts General Laws.
14. This case is timely, as it has been filed within ninety(90)days from April 22, 2009,
which is when the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem ZBA was filed with the Salem
City Clerk.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15. On or about February 2, 2009, Defendant Stephen P. Monis filed a Petition for a Special
Permit with the Salem ZBA seeking a"change of non-conforming use from a
photography studio to five(5)professional offices" on the first floor of the 315-317
Essex Street property, which proposed office use was also non-conforming.
16. In connection with said Petition, the Salem City Assessor prepared a document entitled
Assessor's Certification Of Abutters And"Parties In Interest" (hereinafter"Assessor's
Certification")on February 2, 2009,which Assessor's Certification expressly included
"Abutters within 300 feet"to be"Parties in Interest."
17. Said February 2, 2009 Assessor's Certification certified 329 Essex Street, Salem,
Massachusetts to be within 300 feet of 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and
listed its owner as follows:
26_0483 0
Braunstein William Peter
329 Essex Street
Salem, MA 01970
- 3 -
18. Said February 2, 2009 Assessor's Certification also certified 324 Essex Street, Salem,
Massachusetts to be within 300 feet of 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and
listed its owner as follows:
260521804
Hayes Eric P.
324 Essex Street U4
Salem, MA 01970
19. In June of 2008,the Plaintiffs sold Unit No. 4, 324-328 Essex Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970,which deed was recorded on June 27, 2008 at the Essex South
Registry of Deeds at Book 27880, Page 519.
20. In July of 2009 the Plaintiffs purchased 329 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970
from William Peter Braunstein, which deed was recorded on July 18, 2008 at the Essex
South Registry of Deeds at Book 27923, Page 566.
21. A hearing on Mr. Morris' February 2, 2009 Petition was held before the Salem ZBA on
February 18, 2009, and was continued to its regular meeting on April 15, 2009.
22. Plaintiffs, Eric P. Hayes and Dorothy M. Hayes, never received actual or written notice of
either the February 18, 2009 or the April 15,2009 ZBA hearings, either at their current
address of 329 Essex Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, or forwarded from their former
address of Unit No. 4, 324-328 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970.
23. The first Mr. & Mrs. Hayes became aware of Mr. Morris' February 2, 2009 Petition,the
February 18, 2009 and April 15, 2009 ZBA hearings, and the April 17; 2009 ZBA
Decision, was after said Decision.
24. As to the following Count I,the Plaintiffs reaffirm,re-allege, and incorporate all of the
prior allegations contained in paragraphs 1-23 inclusive above.
ARGUMENT
COUNTI
Plaintiffs Eric P. Hayes and Dorothy M.Hayes did
not receive notice of the February 18, 2009 and the
April 15,2009 hearings on Mr. Morris' Petition.
25. As owners of real estate within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance, Plaintiffs Eric P. Hayes and Dorothy M. Hayes were entitled as a matter of
law to receive direct written notice from the Salem ZBA of the February 18, 2009 and
April 15, 2009 hearings on Mr. Morris' Petition for a Special Permit concerning 315-317
Essex Street.
-4 -
26. Said Plaintiffs did not receive direct written notice, either at their current address of 329
Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which they have owned since July 18, 2008,
or at their former address of Unit No. 4, 324-328 Essex Street, Salem,Massachusetts
01970.
27. Both 329 Essex Street and 324-328 Essex Street are within the 300 foot notice
requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
28. Mr. and Mrs. Hayes were not otherwise aware of the February 18, 2009 and April 15,
2009 ZBA hearings on Mr. Morris' February 2, 2009 Petition, or indeed, of the Petition
itself.
29. They only became aware of same after the within April 17, 2009 ZBA Decision.
30. For the foregoing reasons alone, the Board exceeded its authority and said April 17, 2009
Decision of the Salem ZBA should be annulled in its entirety.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
a. enter a Judgment in their favor annulling in full the April 17, 2009 Decision of the Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals;
b. award the Plaintiffs cost and reasonable attorneys fees in connection with their
prosecution of this appeal; and
c. grant such other relief as is just and expedient.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric P. Hayes et. al.,
By their attorney,
July 17, 2009
John H. Carr, Ji , Esc
9 North Street
Salem, MA 019 0
978-825-0060
BBO# 075
5 -
�ionu(Tg y
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHLTSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
KbaERLEYDRisooLL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SAUM,MASSACHLNETIS 01970
MAYOR MEI-E:978-619-5685 ♦FAx:978-740-04 4 1001 JUL !A I I; 0'j
CITy rj
n
Notice of Decisions
Y, -o
N
April 17, 2009 Z7
Decision o
0
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently
nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use (multifamily
residential) to allow conversion of the existing office space on the first floor to five
residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA
(112 zoning district).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 18, 2009 and closed on
April 15, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The following Zoning
Board of Appeals members were present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Jimmy
Tsitsinos (alternate), and Annie Harris.
Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 8-5 of the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinances.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner, Stephen Morris. at the hearing.
2. The property at 315-317 currently contains thirteen (13) licensed rooming house
rooms on the second and third floors and a beauty salon on a portion of the first
floor. Both uses are nonconforming uses in the R-2 zoning district. The
remaining area of the first floor was previously occupied by a photography studio
which was also a nonconforming use.
3. In a petition dated February 21, 2008, the applicant requested a Special Permit to
change the nonconforming use (photography studio) in the first floor area to
another nonconforming use (office space). In a decision dated April 2, 2008, the
2
Board of Appeals granted the requested Special Permit to allow the petitioner to
convert this portion of the first floor to office space.
4. In a second petition dated February 2, 2009, the applicant requested a Special
Permit to change the nonconforming office space use to another nonconforming
use, multifamily housing, to accommodate conversion of the space to five
residential housing units.
5. The Board of Appeals opened the hearing at its February 18, 2009 meeting, with
the following Board members in attendance: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,
Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). At this
meeting, Attorney Atkins stated that the petitioner sought the Special Permit
because he had been unable to rent the office space.
6. At the February 18 meeting, a resident spoke in opposition to the petition, citing
previous problems with residents of the rooming house and traffic concerns. The
Board also received a letter from Morris Schopf opposing the project, citing
concerns about traffic and the physical state of the building.
T Also at the February 18 meeting, At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus
Avenue, spoke in support of the petition; he did not feel significant traffic would
be generated and wished to avoid an empty building in the neighborhood.
8. The petition was heard again on April 15, 2009 with the following Board
members in attendance: Annie Harris, Rebecca Curran, Jimmy Tsitsinos
(alternate) and Richard Dionne. Several residents spoke in opposition to the
petition, citing concerns about density, traffic and property values. Ward 2
Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, also spoke in opposition.
9. Also at the April 15 meeting, a resident spoke in support of the project, stating his
preference to remove commercial uses from the neighborhood. Ward 3
Councillor Jean Pelletier also spoke in support of the project.
10. Two residents (Jim McAllister, Jon T. Skerry) submitted letters in support of the
petition, and three residents (Mary Whitney, Nicholas Nowak, and Jim Kearney),
submitted letters in opposition to the project.
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. The petitioner's request for a special permit does not constitute substantial
detriment to the public good.
2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the
intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
3. In permitting such change, the Zoning Board of Appeals requires certain
3
and safeguards as noted below.
appropriate conditionsg
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 is granted to allow for the change in use .Isom office
space to three residential units.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor
(Tsitsinos, Curran,Dionne and Harris) and none(0) opposed, to grant petitioner's
requests for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and
safeguards:
1. The building's current office space may be converted to no more than
three (3) residential units.
2. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted
to and approved by the Building Commissioner. The plait dated
December 19, 2007 and revised February 2, 2009, March 3, 2009 and
April 15, 2009, is to be revised showing conversion of the office space to
three(3) residential units instead of five (5).
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction are to be in harmony with
existing structure.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
8. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board.
10. 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 of 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
4
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.
-2004 J'4L 11 A {►. 01
Richard Dionne, 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.
'JT
UE Uy
SALEM, MASS.
- - }r�iONUlTq.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC FRJSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
C
yF�ra1N7;'ltl�'•
KIM6ERLEY DRISOOLL 120 WASMNGTON STREET♦SALEM,MAssAa-tLsEi-is 01970
MAYOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAY-.978-740-0404
n
n
. - N
Notice of Decisions
:n O
n O
April 17, 2009
Decision
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS,seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently
nonconforming use(office space)to another nonconforming use (multifamily
residential) to allow conversion of the existing office space on the first floor to five
residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET,Salem,MA
(112 zoning district).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 18, 2009 and closed on
April 15, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The following Zoning
Board of Appeals members were present: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Jimmy
Tsitsinos (alternate), and Annie Harris.
Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 8-5 of the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinances.
Statements of fact:
1. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner, Stephen Moms, at the hearing.
2. The property at 315-317 currently contains thirteen(13) licensed rooming house
rooms on the second and third floors and a beauty salon on a portion of the first
floor. Both uses are nonconforming uses in the R-2 zoning district. The
remaining area of the first floor was previously occupied by a photography studio
which was also a nonconforming use.
3. In a petition dated February 21, 2008, the applicant requested a Special Permit to
change the nonconforming use(photography studio) in the first floor area to
another nonconforming use(office space). In a decision dated April 2, 2008, the
2
Board of Appeals granted the requested Special Permit to allow the petitioner to
convert this portion of the first floor to office space.
4. In a second petition dated February 2, 2009, the applicant requested a Special
Permit to change the nonconforming office space use to another nonconforming
use, multifamily housing, to accommodate conversion of the space to five
residential housing units.
5. The Board of Appeals opened the hearing at its February 18, 2009 meeting, with
the following Board members in attendance: Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,
Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). At this
meeting,Attorney Atkins stated that the petitioner sought the Special Permit
because he had been unable to rent the office space.
6. At the February 18 meeting, a resident spoke in opposition to the petition, citing
previous problems with residents of the rooming house and traffic concerns. The
Board also received a letter from Morris Schopf opposing the project, citing
concerns about traffic and the physical state of the building.
7. Also at the February 18 meeting, At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus
Avenue, spoke in support of the petition; he did not feel significant traffic would
be generated and wished to avoid an empty building in the neighborhood.
8. The petition was heard again on April 15, 2009 with the following Board
members in attendance: Annie Harris, Rebecca Curran, Jimmy Tsitsinos
(alternate) and Richard Dionne. Several residents spoke in opposition to the
petition, citing concerns about density,traffic and property values. Ward 2
Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, also spoke in opposition.
9. Also at the April 15 meeting, a resident spoke in support of the project, stating his
preference to remove commercial uses from the neighborhood. Ward 3
Councillor Jean Pelletier also spoke in support of the project.
10. Two residents (Jim McAllister, Jon T. Skerry) submitted letters in support of the
petition, and three residents (Mary Whitney, Nicholas Nowak, and Jim Kearney),
submitted letters in opposition to the project.
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. The petitioner's request for a special permit does not constitute substantial
detriment to the public good.
2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the
intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
3. In permitting such change, the Zoning Board of Appeals requires certain
3
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 is granted to allow for the change in use from office
space to three residential units.
In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor
(Tsitsinos, Curran, Dionne and Harris) and none (0)opposed, to grant petitioner's
requests for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and
safeguards:
1. The building's current office space may be converted to no more than
three(3) residential units.
2. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations.
3. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted
to and approved by the Building Commissioner. The plan dated
December 19,2007 and revised February 2, 2009,March 3, 2009 and
April 15, 2009, is to be revised showing conversion of the office space to
three(3)residential units instead of five(5).
4. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
5. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
6. Exterior finishes of the new construction are to be in harmony with
existing structure.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
8. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission
having jurisdiction including,but not limited to the Planning Board.
10. 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 of 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
I
4
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.
-Richard Dionne, 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.
ZBA ACTION FORM BOARD MEMBERS MOTION SECOND VOTE
Date: rt'l I S� 20 D9 Robin Stein (Chair)
I � Rebecca Curran ✓
Petitioner: S' s—p w-A I or'!S Elizabeth Debski
Annie Harris ✓
Address 3�5 -31 I�sS zit S�. Richard Dionne
Bonnie Belair(Altemate)
J.`mmy ; ✓
Total: — U I 1—ago,/
Conditions: XP. 16-
1-�-,'PPeentioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations.
LTJ All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building
Commissioner.
2AII requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
l_+2�1 petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
y,e'>✓xterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
LJ AA Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
LATA Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained.
❑Petitioner 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.
LJ Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not
limited to, the Planning Board.
LY 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.
onulr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ...
BOARD OF APPEAL
n 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR -
s0' W— VJ
tq SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
p�— TELEPHONE'. 978-745-9595
ne por FAX 978-.740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZOOO.APR _2 A 11 42
MAYORFIL
April 2, 2008
CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS.
Decision
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of Stephen Morris requesting a Special Permit for a change in
nonconforming use to allow the photography studio on the first floor to
be converted to five (5) professional offices at 315-317 ESSEX STREET
JR-1 1.
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2008 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2008 with the
following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran,
Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair (Alternate).
Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance: Sec. 5-30) Extension of nonconformity.
Statements of fact:
I. The petitioner, Stephen Morris, owns 315-317 Essex Street, a property located in
the Residential Two Family [R-2] Zoning District.
2. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Plans accompanying the petition include a plan entitled "Plot Plan 315-317 Essex
Street, Salem, MA", dated February 13, 2008, prepared by LeBlanc Survey
Associates, Inc. as well as, a plan entitled "Proposed Renovations to 315 Essex
Street", dated December 19, 2007, prepared by David F. Jaquith Architects &
Planners.
4. The proposed renovations to the property do not involve exterior dimensional
changes.
5. The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to change the nonconforming use of a
portion of the first floor, which is approximately 2,700 square feet, and had been
previously occupied by a photography studio. The new proposed use is five (5)
professional offices, with shared reception, conference, lounge, and lavatory
facilities. Both the photography studio use and the professional office use are
nonconforming uses in the R-2 Zoning District.
6. In addition to the space for which the petitioner is seeking a Special Permit, the
building currently contains thirteen (13) licensed rooming house rooms on the
second and third Floors, and a space on the first Floor which recently became.
vacant. The recently vacated space housed a beauty salon at the time the
application Was submitted to the Board of Appeals. If the nonconforming use of
this space was to change, a special penmit would be needed from the Board of
Appeals.
7. There are ten (10) on-site parking spaces.
8. Attorney William Quinn, representing the First Church In Salem, Unitarian, spoke
against the petition. Attorney Quinn submitted an Opposition Memorandum,
which cites "inadequate on-site parking and traffic congestion" as grounds to
deny the request. A letter of opposition was submitted by the Standing
Committee of the First Church In Salem, Unitarian. Peter Copelas and William
Henning, who are both affiliated with the First Church also spoke in opposition to
the request.
9. Councilor At Large, Steven Pinto, spoke in favor of the request.
10. David Williams (342 Essex Street) requested that if the Board chooses to grant
the petitioner's request, that they place limitations on the special permit.
11. Ward 3 Councilor, Jean Pelletier, spoke in favor of the request saying the church
is exempt from the parking regulations and is a much larger use that the use
proposed.
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. The proposed change in nonconforming use would not be substantially more
detrimental than 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:
I. A special permit for a change in nonconforming use is granted to allow the
first Floor space which formerly housed a photography studio to house
professional offices.
2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor
(Dionne, Stein, Curran, Harris, and Debski) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's
requests for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
3
1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues, 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.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
6. A Certificate of Inspection 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.
S. The number of occupants shall be limited to six (6), however, the number of
occupants may be increased to eight (8) if an offsite parking space is provided for
each of the two additional occupants.
9. No medical, dental, or similar uses shall be allowed.
10. Eight (8) of the ten (10) on site parking spaces shall be dedicated to the
professional office use in this space. Of these spaces, six (6) shall be reserved for
employees, two (2) shall be reserved for visitors. Residents shall be allowed to
park in these spaces overnight.
Robin Stein, Chair
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OP MIS D17C IS ION IIAS BEEN FILED WWII"FI IE PLANNING BOARD AND"FHE 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 tiled 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.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CICLERf S OFFICER
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
STANLEY J. U90VICZ, JR. -
TELEPHONE: 978-745.9595 2�U5 AUG -2 A IIS 22
MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF PAXTON SILVA REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 317 ESSEX STREET R-2
A hearing on this petition was held on July 20, 2005 with the following Board Members
present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto, Ed Moriarty and Bonnie
Belair. 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 Special Permit to allow an existing non-conforming use to be
converted to a Hair Salon for the property located at 317 Essex Street in an R-2 zone.
When reviewing Special Permit requests the Board is guided by the rule that a Special
Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the board that the grant of the Special
Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's
inhabitants.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing
and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
I. The Petitioner, Paxton Silva requests this Board to allow an existing non-
conforming use to be converted into a hair salon.
2. There will be no change to the footprint of the structure, only interior renovations.
3. The Petitioner has satisfied the requirements relative to parking. There are two
spaces required for the size of the business and his lease arrangement provides him with
the required two spaces.
4. Mr. Chris Silva, brother of the Petitioner and Salem business owner spoke in favor
of allowing the Special Permit.
5. ,Mr. Kearney, 1 Cambridge Street an abutter spoke against the allowance of the
petition primarily due to parking concerns in the neighborhood.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing,
the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
I. The relief requested can 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.
and
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF PAXTON SILVER REQUESTING A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 315-317 ESSEX STREET R-2
page two
2. The Special Permit can be granted in harmony with the neighborhood and will
promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 with the following Board Members
voting in favor: Nina Cohen, Nicholas Helides, Steven Pinto, and Ed Moriarty. Bonnie
Belair voted in opposition to the Special Permit request.
The Special Permit was granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and
regulations.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety
shall be strictly adhered to.
3. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
5. All conditions imposed upon this property by the Licensing Board or any other
Board shall be brought into compliance prior to the issuance of the Special Permit.
6. The Special Permit is granted to this applicant is for this business only; any future
use would be subject to another Special Permit.
Special Permit Granted
July 20, 2005 Bonnie Belair
Board of Appeal
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
PETITION FORM
IUSFIMS
412 11 ZONING BOARD 01" APPF'.Al.
0 120%XASI I I NGT()N S'l I.FT, Intl(E) FL(
1 4 l['Sl;'I'I'S it I 97i) Z009 FEB -3 A110: 08
2
P,� 7 Lash,Ani% Stiff Planner 'Phomas St. Picrrc,BuildimG Inspecu.
8-619-5685/f.9-8 '40 0404 1.9-8 619-3041/f.978--40-9846
TO THE BOARD OF APPEAL:
The Undersigned represent that he/she is/are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at:
Address: �3/6 - 317 E6%56X SX- Zoning District: z1z -2
An application Is being submitted to the Board of Appeal for the following reason(s): Thissiatenientinust
describe it hat you propose to build, the dimensions, the zone property,is in,and the zoningrequirentents. Evainple:
I ant proposing to construct a 10'.v 10'one stort,addition to on,home luxated tit 3 Salem Lane. in the R-2 Zoning
District. The Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum depth q1the reariardto be 30 Peet. The current depih ot/III,
reur Yard is 32ftet: the proposed addition would reduce the depth q/the reuryurd to 22fiet.
eAl
For this reason I am requesting:
( ) Variance(s) from provisions of Section of the Zoning Ordinance,specifically from
(i.e. inininnon depth ot rearyard).
What is allowed is (10sq,ft. stories? %?). and what I
am proposing is (fi.'sq.10stories?
(X)A Special Permit under Section 5. 5,) of the Zoning Ordinance in order to r,1&1J415;e 42;F-1 A-
VOA/ 4Age—�
I )Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below):
The Current Use of the Property Is. Are the lot dimensions included on the plan'!
(cVaniple: Two Faint&Home) Yes I )No n/a because
-241 "51f;>0747 IA-(— - -
Thr Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeal to vary the lemis of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and allow
the project to be constructed as per the plans submined,as the enforcement ot'said Zoning By-Laws would involve
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted t%ithool SE111stantialk,
derogating front the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
r
PETITION FORM
The following written statement has been submitted with this application:
( ) For all Variance requests a written Statement of I lardship demonstrating the following must be attached:
a) Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building,or structure imolved,
generally not affecting other lands,buildings,and structures in the same district;
b) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involved substantial hardship to the
applicant;and
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.
pQ For all Special Permit requests a Statement of Grounds must be attached. An application fora special permit for
a nonconforming use or structure shall include a statement demonstrating how the proposed change shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood in accordance with Art. V,
§ 5-3. Such a statement should include reference to the following criteria:
a) Social,economic,or community needs served by the proposal;
b) Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading;
c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
d) Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage;
e) Neighborhood character;and
0 Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment.
Previous applications to the Board of Appeals involving this property have been submitted with this petition
form. The Building Cunnni.c.cinner can provide docamenlmiorh ojpreviuu.c applirutiuns m the petitioner ur lri.c
representative.
/jeiljerew dean pelilioner: -
Petitioner: 5r' 17. M0/40V5 Property Owner:
Address: Address:
M4 0 /
Te Ione: Telephone:
Signature Signature(Attached consent letter is also acceptable)
2 1 2
Date Date
//dt jjerem than pelilioner:
A TRUE Representative:
ATTEST
Address:
Telephone:
Signature
Date
DATE SUBMITTED TO
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CITY CLERK
(hi,r ru'a:m,d upph'irPo.n Buret he lihvl villi dw ( ire Clerk.
11--May
rJ License CN7 No. 14-08 —
I
r
City
of Salem
a
Licensing Board
HEREBY GRANTS A
a Lodging House License
TO Stephen and Linda Moms
3 At No. 315-315 Essex Street
J'
E I
and expires December 31,2008 unless sootier suspended or revoked for violation of the laws of the Com
to the licensing of Lodging Houses. mornveatth of Massachusetts, relating
Forty, of the;General Law
This license is issued conformityWiththe authority granted to the licensing authorities under section twenty-three of Chapter one hundres, and is subject to Mie provisions of sections twenty-two to thirty-one inclusive of said chapter. d and
ExTRACTS FROM GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 140
Section 22. Definition
.tod9 ng house.as used in sectgns twenty4m to thN�,one,Yndusive.shall mean a home SECTION 24.
wnwe l dgm- arc lel ro lour a mora Persons rnd within the Mcond Whoever conducts a bdging house without a license shall be
the person rnnducti it.and shall i degree of kindred n than aM hundred nor more roan five punched by r fine of not less
r5 include fraternity houses and dormitories d educational hundred dollars or by innpnsorxnem for not more Man
mcfitutans,but shay not include dorrnitarip_s d chadlable p PrnllarrUfropic IrlShsrnorng a tree nnonMs or t10M.
convalescent a nursing homes licensed under SECTION 25. INSPECTION OF PREMISES
hundred and eleven in rest homes 50 licensed.O�� of chapter one Premises
occupied,used or controlled
hu agencies d the ,or resth owes so am group lesidli noes licensed or regulated inclusive.or under an imholders licenby a see shallbesu subject
t sections twenty-two ro thiM.ene.
Sr 1973.lX c.4A1 ended St. 1960,c. 740;St 1965,c. 171; aWprities and Mew authorized �t roinspection
req a request
from
m the licensing
- ! ign afire. agents, by ore polite on rerwest lrpm M
17i�`1�SII9tfO9y74VJFEg r�OrF;the undersigned has hereunto affixed his signature. y\('`
TRIS 31" day of December 2W?
t, ll
No. Rooms I 13�_
;R
81 RAILROAD AVENUE ROWLEY, MA 01969
TEL 978-948-2005 FAx 978-948.7002 EMAIL JAOUITHARCHITECTSOMAC.COM
DAVID F. JAQUITH , AIA
2 Feburary 2009
Board of Appeals Petition for 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts
The building contains thirteen (13) licensed rooming house rooms on the second and
third floors(See Exhibit 1, License) and the framing for the proposed five (5) office areas
with common area(See Exhibit 2, ZBA Decision). Both uses are non-conforming uses in
the R-2 zoning district.The petitioner is requesting a change of the use as five(5)offices
to residential apartments.
The residential use of the first floor is a low impact use which is similar to
uses to the west on Essex Street.
Sufficient parking consisting of ten (10) spaces is located in the rear of the
building to serve the needs of the first floor apartments which require 1.5
parking spaces per unit.8 cars total. The rooming house uses requires few,
if any, parking spaces.
Improvements to the exterior appearance of the building have been
approved by the Salem Historic Commission, and any further window
changes would be presented to the Salem Historic Commission.
Continued use by a low-impact, nonconforming uses allows for continuance
of the high tax basis of the building and a additional housing.
The new use does does not increase noise, traffic, and may have less of an
effect on the neighborhood.
`t ;�NT,ro CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
g
I .!0 'N4`+rll^h,I'()N S mi 1. r. JAO FI :�il7
. '\•��I �� , i'� Sal..f-- .t. `da55a�.rc�',t. ti; gi970 •
Ti I.LvHO'AF 978 7-15 95•d5
Fa• )78.740 9H46
KIMBERLEY DRISCOI_L ?00a APR
fl 2 A II 42
MAYOR
April _, 2008
CITY CLERK SALEM, MASS.
Decision
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of Stephen :Morris requesting a Special Permit for a change in
nonconforming use to allow the photography studio on the first floor to
be converted to five (5) professional offices at 315-317 ESSEX STREET
IR-11.
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2008 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, $§ 11. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2008 with the
following Zoning Board members present! Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran,
Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair (Alternate).
Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance! Sec. 5-30) Extension of nonconformity.
Statements of fact:
I. The petitioner, Stephen Morris, owns 3 15-3 17 Essex Street, a property located in
the Residential Two Family [R-2] Zoning District.
2. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Plans accompanying the petition include a plan entitled "Plot Plan 3 15-3 17 Essex
Street, Salem, MA", dated February 13, 2008, prepared by LeBlanc Survey
Associates, Inc. as well as, a plan entitled "Proposed Renovations to 315 Essex
Street", dated December 19, 2007, prepared by David F. Jaquith Architects &
Planners.
-t. The proposed renovations to the property do not im olvc exterior dimensional
changes.
i, 'file petitioner is seeking a Special Pennit to chane the nonconforming use of a
portion of the first Iloor, which is approximately 2,700 square lect, and had been
- --- previously occupied by-a-photography studio. The new proposed-use-is_lisc (5)____ -- --
prolcssional oflices, with shared reception, conference, lounge. and lavatory
facilities. Both the photography studio use and the professional of lice use are
nonconfilrming uses in the R-2 Zoning District.
0. In addition to the space for which the petitioner is seeking a Special Permit, file
building currently contains thirteen (13) licensed rooming house rooms on the
second and third floors, and a space on the first floor %%hich recently became
vacant. The recently vacated space housed a beauty salon at the time the
application was submitted to the Board of Appeals. If the nonconf anning use of
this space was to change, a special permit would be needed from the Board of
Appeals.
7. There are ten (10) on-site parking spaces.
8. Attorney William Quinn, representing the First Church In Salem, Unitarian, spoke
against the petition. Attorney Quinn submitted an Opposition Memorandum,
which cites "inadequate on-site parking and traffic congestion"as grounds to
deny the request. A letter of opposition was submitted by the Standing
Committee of the First Church In Salem, Unitarian. Peter Copelas and William
Henning, who are both affiliated with the First Church also spoke in opposition to
the request.
9. Councilor Al Large, Steven Pinto, spoke in favor of the request.
10. David Williams (342 Essex Street) requested that if the Board chooses to grant
the petitioner's request, that they place limitations on the special permit.
It. Ward 3 Councilor, Jean Pelletier, spoke in favor of the request saying the church
is exempt from the parking regulations and is a much larger use that the use
proposed.
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. The proposed change in nonconforming use would not be substantially more
detrimental than 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:
I. A special permit for a change in nonconforming use is granted to allow the
first floor space which formerly housed a photography studio to house
professional offices.
?. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted belomc.
In consideration of the abomr, the Salem Board of Appals muted, five (5) in tam or
(Dionne, Sicin, Curran, Harris, and Debski) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's
rcyucsts for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
N'
1009 FEB =3 A 10: 08
FILE r
CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS,
SSEX STREET
w a
Curb tie
j,
\ _ wv,
I �Q1';
Gia "" Map 26 Lot 472
L r; N/F
�»; O `; George Heller
j 1711 , „ cin Nl 313 Essex St.
a Deed Bk. 13414 Pg. 587
nit, i \h Ri
l
4
V, #315-317 � '1 S72'59'41"W
n 5.00'
Map 26 Lot 474 �':• _
N/FCN
Jerome Schuerger �, 1 r ;I' `,°)
319 Essex St.
Deed Bk. 14919 Pg. 498
W
✓; ': :' .1 Map 26 Lot 469
' z
}
:� of HP Frederick Richard
LO
I 1' ;I..%;<
0 `t jzy/ 5 10 Summer St.
z Deed Bk. 11247 Pg. 227
Map 26 Lot 473
9,673 sq.ft. 6
1
N85'33'09"W f Space w
0.30' 1 (Typical) 8 1
IM µ
Li -
2i:3V) 00 Map 26 Lot 468
n� 9 c No N/F
I— 00 0r George Heller
N "a 3 12-14 Summer St.
Map 26 Lot 476 0 ° Bit. Conc.
N/F z L` Parking 10 Deed Bk. 11897 Pg. 80
Judith Kearney �'� 4
1A Cambridge St.
Deed Bk. 19063 Pg.
291 1
o ° ka=Fence
N83'29'39"W
10.61' N83'43 39"W —
52.71'
Map 26 Lot 477
N/F
Walter Cato Ido
3 Cambridge St.
Deed Bk. 15512 Pg. 602
PLOT PLAN
REFERENCES: 315-317 ESSEX STREET
1) Land Court Doc. #426273 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
2) Land Court Plan #5244A
3) Plan in Deed Book 3419 Page 5 Prepared By
LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc.
161 Holten Street
Danvers, MA 01923
H10\\ °F w r, (978) 774-6012
VERNON �
LeBLANC N February 13, 2008 Scale: 1 "=20'
NO. 33600
HOR. SCALE IN FEET
T 0 20 50 100
Z•r3�g
1
,; c F�ss�x S�— 7
April 15, 2009
Zoning Board of Appeals
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Sir or Madam:
As nearby residents we are writing to request that you deny the petition of
STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently
nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use (multifamily
residential) to allow conversion of the existing office space on the first floor to
four residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET.
Increasing the residential units in this building is inappropriate for a
neighborhood of predominantly one and 2- family homes. Approximately one
year ago Morris' Attorney was quoted in the Salem News dated Mar. 24, 2oo8
"We're not trying to ruin a neighborhood," he said. "We're trying to use a building
the way it has been used for half a century." So far in the 3 1/2 months of 2009,
the building has had 5 Police calls including "Loud Group" and "Threatened by
Landlord".
This inordinate drain on City services and ongoing disturbance of the peace in
our neighborhood should be sufficient reason to deny the modification from
office space to residential.
Sincerely,
Mary Whitney&Nicholas Nowak
RECEIVED
APR 1 5 2009
CIEPT. OF PLAN=G d
COAIL t"TY QErR0PMEAJT
356 ESSEX STREET, NO. 2 - SALEM, MA • 01970
978.744.1210
Page 1 of 1
Danielle McKnight
From: Jim Uldkearney@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:41 AM
To: Danielle McKnight; Harris Annie
Cc: John Bedell; Schopf Sue; Schopf Morris; Cataldo Walter; Kearney Judy@gmail
Subject: BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING April 15, 2009: letter concerning 315-317 Essex St
4. Continued petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the
currently nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use
(multifamily
residential) to allow conversion of the existing office space on the first floor to
five
residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA
(R2
zoning district). Attorney George Atkins.
It appears to me that the requested change is one that would significantly extend an already unfortunate
incursion into our R-2 neighborhood.
The neighborhood has long been a residential one (R-2) and my understanding is that, 30-40 years ago,
some judge forced the city to allow a previous owner of this property to put a rooming house in the R-2
area. The change requested now extends that significantly. I think there are 13 rooms on the upper
floors and now there would be 5 more (allowing 2 people per room?). If this request were to be granted,
we would have 18-23 residents and their cars in our R-2 neighborhood - at least 18 cars.
As it is, the abutters are frequently subjected to loud and abusive/obscene language from the
current tenants. Adding 10 more would not be a positive change for our neighborhood.
Regards,
Jim Kearney
IA Cambridge St
Salem, MA
4/15/2009
Jon T. Skerry
348 Essex Street
Salem, MA 01970
April 15, 2009
Board of Appeal
City of Salem
RE: Stephen P. Morris
315-317 Essex Street
Dear Chairman and Members of the Board:
As a neighbor of 315-317 Essex Street, I am in favor of Mr. Morris's request to
change the use on the first floor from office space to four (4) residential units.
4ery tru
nl�yo
T. Ske
Derby Square Tours
86 Federal Street
Salem MA 01970
April 12, 2009 RELDEI ED
Ms. Sally Murtagh APR 1 5 2009
Chairperson Dc PT. OF PLANUNG $
Zoning Board of Appeals
Washington Street 0G"f''tUNITyDEVEL0FWENT
Salem MA 01970
Dear Ms. Murtagh:
This letter is in support of the application of Stephen Morris, 84 Ipswich Road, Boxford to convert
the building at 315-317 Essex Street into four(4) one-bedroom residential units.
The continued commercial use of this property makes little sense, sitting as it does in one of
America's most architecturally significant residential neighborhoods and surrounded by non-
commercial buildings. Over the years I and others have hoped that someone would come along
to make the building more visually worthy of the McIntire Historic District, and to bring a merciful
end to the revolving door of business openings and closings at this address.
One only has to look at the attractive building to the west at 319 Essex Street—once a book store
-for proof that a commercial to residential conversion can be a win for all sides. It is attractive,
occupied, and on the tax rolls-and a residential use property in a district zoned for that purpose.
The creation of rental units will also provide the public with an added benefit in this period of
devastated mortgage and banking industries. Fewer prospective first time home buyers are able
to access mortgages and need to continue renting, while more foreclosure victims are looking for
rental units in which to live.
I have the utmost confidence that the collaboration of Mr. Morris his architect, with the oversight
of the City of Salem Historic District Commission, would result in a final product that will be
architecturally pleasing and appropriate and a benefit to the area renter population. I sincerely
hope that the Zoning Board of Appeals will approve this application quickly and let this conversion
move forward without any delay.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jim McAllister A
Page 1 of 2
RECEIVED
Danielle McKnight FEB 18 2009
From: Morris Schopf[schopf@verizon.net] 1 `,UFLANftiNG&
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:07 PM Wl1°AAR"W DEVELQR,k51TT
To: Danielle McKnight
Subject: Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit
Please read this at tonight's meeting I am in the Berkshires and Unable to attend.Thanks
AGENDA
BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
February 18,2009-6:30 P.M.
To the Salem Massachusetts Zoning Board of Appeals
I am writing in opposition to the Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS,seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently nonconforming use(office
space)to another nonconforming use(multifamily residential)to allow conversion of the existing structure to five residential units on the
property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET,Salem,MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins.
y name is Morris Schopf and I live at 1 Cambridge. All of my rear windows and my
summer garden face and share a boundary with the property owned by Mr. Morris. I
am an immediate abutter.
For all the summers we have lived at this address we have put up with the noise and
chaos of Mr. Morris' rooming house tenants and the traffic, automobile fumes and
noise from his parking lot.
There is a commercial dumpster in the rear which I can smell from my yard when it
is hot.
My neighbor Jerry Schuerger has windows literally 10' from that flapping Tyvek.
About a year ago Mr. Morris emptied out the first floor commercial space and began
construction of offices. The work included the addition of windows and various other
alterations to the existing building.
He abandoned the Project in early fall and we have been looking at his unpainted
wood trim and Tyvek flapping in the wind every since.
All Special Permits require a substantial proven hardship as a condition clearly
established in law.
Whatever George may tell you tonight; there is no hardship here. Steve Morris
purchased a rooming house with 2 commercial units on the ground floor.
This Property has been operated as a rooming house and 2 Commercial Units for at
least 25 years. It is my understanding that these uses were proven in Court by a
previous owner.
I was at the licensing board when Mr Morris successfully argued that he was entitled
to keep the rooming house against neighborhood opposition. He argued for its
importance as "affordable housing" for the community.
2/18/2009
y Page 2 of 2
The existing use has been non-conforming from the time the Salem Zoning Law was
adopted.
One non-conforming does not imply license to allow another such use. Steve Morris
does not reside in the neighborhood nor, in face is he'even a resident of Salem. This
is not the only problem property which he owns.
There is no hardship here only a desire for for possible material gain after a series of
bad business decisions.
Mr. Morris made a bad business decision by charging too much for his Rooms and as
a result not finding Tenants for all of them. ,
Mr. Morris made a bad business decision by removing his existing Commercial
Tenants in an attempt to rent or sell the ground floor to a single Office Tenant.
The deal went south and he didn't even have the courtesy to finish the construction
on the exterior of his building.
6
What Steve must do is either convert the building into a two-family dwelling in
keeping with the current zoning or accept his existing non-conforming uses. If it is a
bad business venture then perhaps he should sell the property.
Again we stress that there is no hardship of any kind here which would support the
granting of this request.
We would ask the board to deny Mr. Morris' various requests and
require him to finish the office renovation project which now sits abandonded.
Respectively submitted
Morris and Sue Schopf
1 Cambridge Street
Salem, Massachusetts
s
2/18/2009
From: William F. Quinn, Esq.
Tinti, Quinn, Grover& Frey, P.C.
27 Congress Street, Suite 414
Salem, MA 01970
OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM AS TO
315-317 ESSEX STREET SPECIAL PERMIT
SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST CHURCH IN SALEM, UNITARIAN
A PARTY IN INTEREST UNDER CH. 40A
SUMMARY ARGUMENT
Inadequate On-Site Parking and Traffic Congestion Are Grounds to Deny Application:
The basic grounds for objection are that the combination of inadequate on-site
parking and the greatly increased traffic congestion that the proposed new use will cause
make the proposed use substantially more detrimental to neighborhood than the existing
non-conforming uses.
FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES:
This neighborhood area is densely populated, serves high volumes of motor
vehicle traffic, is visited by great numbers of tourists most of the year, suffers from heavy
traffic congestion at the nearby intersection of Essex, North and Summer Streets, and has
very limited on-street parking to meet the needs of residents, owners and visitors to the
neighborhood.
Existing On-Street Parking Near Locus Is Very Limited
No parking on locus side of Essex St. approaching Summer St. right tum
Across street, no parking in front of Ropes Mansion or Witch House
Resident sticker parking along nearby Essex St.
Only two (2)parking spaces on Essex St. in front of locus
Existing Uses at Locus:
a. Rooming House (Licensed for 13 rooms) on Second and Third Floors
No information submitted on number of cars used/owned by roomers or
whether any of them presently park on-site
Roomers can have visitors, deliveries, taxi pick-ups, that cause traffic
congestion at the site
b. First floor is presently divided into two (2) existing commercial spaces
(1) a Hair Salon by SP—now vacant—unless another hair salon found,
will need another SP to alter that use(See
Condition#6 in Salon's Special Permit)
- question what parking new use will require
(2) Former Gainsboro Studio—query: what parking impact that
business had on neighborhood in recent years
# owners/employees ?
# customers/visitors to that business ?
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
1. If Use Change Approved, Ordinance Requires Parking to Meet Current
Parking Requirements
Sec. 7-3 requires conforming off-street parking to be provided for"each building
or use which ... is altered or enlarged."
This is an alteration of the building and it's use, so current parking
requires:
20 off-street spaces for roomers (dwelling units 1.5 x 13 — 19.5)
2 for Salon per Special Permit, unknown for new use in that space
8 for law offices per applicant (5 attorneys @ 1 and 6 employees
@ 1.5 per)
30 Total required by ordinance
ONLY ten (10) spaces shown on plan and all allocated to
commercial users per application
2. Proposed Use Will Be More Detrimental to Neighborhood
To approve change to a new non-conforming use, Sec. 5-36) of Ordinance
requires that the Board find such change of use
"shall not be more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to
the neighborhood."
Applicant's Plot Plan shows ten (10) off-street parking spaces with no
turn-around or visitor parking, and application allocates all ten spaces to first floor
tenants (2 Salon and 8 to lawyer offices)
2
Board should take notice that Hair Salons and Attorneys often work late
and on weekends.
Therefore, all 13 roomers and any visitors during business hours will have
to park their vehicles cars on Essex or other public streets near the locus
Applicant presumes that up to 6 staff will work for the attorneys but
provides on-site parking for only three of these staff. It is very likely that all staff
will have cars, so at least 3 staff employees will have to park off-site adding to
parking the shortage.
No provision has been made on-site for client parking or deliveries to the
attorneys, so it is likely that
—all clients and visitors to law offices will park have to on the street
—five (5) active attorneys could easily generate 10-20 or more clients and
visitors to the offices each day, all looking for on-street parking as close to the
offices as they can find it
The Board should also take notice that attorneys make active use of
FedEX and UPS delivery services— such delivery trucks are likely visit the
offices several times per day, and to park illegally or double-park along Essex
Street to make pick-ups and deliveries in this very congested area; if the delivery
trucks are able to pull into locus driveway to get off of the street, they will not be
able to turn around, and will have to back out onto busy Essex St causing a traffic
hazard and more traffic congestion.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed change of use is very likely to cause a substantial increase in
traffic and traffic congestion in the area, and the lack of sufficient on-site parking
to serve the existing and proposed new use will greatly aggravate the already
existing shortage of on-street parking in the neighborhood. This change of use, if
allowed, will therefore be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than
the existing uses.
3