162 FEDERAL STREET - ZBA (2) TINTI, QUINN, GROVER & FREY, P.C.
27 CONGRESS STREET,SUITE 414
WILLIAM J.TINTI SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970.
tinti@tintilaw.com WILLIAM B.ARDIFF(1965-1995)
WILLIAM F.QUINN _ TELEPHONE -
(978)745.8065 •(978)7442948 MARCIA MULFORD CINI
WilliamPQuinnAdgLcom OF COUNSEL -
SCOTT M.GROVER TELECOPIER
JOHN D.UNSEL
amgroveds�antilaw.com
(978).7453369 !- 9F COUNSEL
MARC P.FREY www.rintilaw:com Y
JERALD A.PARISELLA
mp&e,ri�tintilaw.com
JONATHAN M.OFILOS R p.. C E�q q� r OF CoewSEi.
jofi]os/Atlntilaw.com tom• lVlf L— u e
THOMAS J.HOGAN
tjhogan@tintilaw.com MAR 14 2016
MARCY D.HAUBER _
mhaubetu@tintilaw.com DEPT. OF p
LA N.NWO
_ MM ,&
cmih sctin il w.comHOS COUNITY DEVELOPMENT
March 14, 2016
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
120Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: 162 Federal Street,Salem, MA (the "Property")
Dear Members of the Board:
This office and the undersigned represent Daniel Botwink,who has signed a Purchase
and Sale Agreement with Northeast Behavioral Health Corporation,the owner of the above
referenced Property(the "Property"). The Property is the subject of a series of Variances and
Special Permits granted by the Board in a Decision dated September 28, 2009(the"Decision").
The sale of the Property is scheduled to occur on March 28, 2016 and there are no longer any
contingencies in the Agreement.
The Decision, as previously extended,is due to expire on March 28,2016.Accordingly,
Mr. Botwink is requesting a further six (6)month extension of'the Decision:
I have enclosed for your convenience a copy of the original Decision as well as the
extension granted by the Board dated September 30,2015.
1 would appreciate it if the Board would consider this request at the meeting scheduled for March.
16, 2016.
Very
S 771trov
urs:
t r
�c6[301T
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL ,
" M1Nfi 120 WASxtNGTON STREET SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 01970
KTMBERLEY:DRiscoLL ;. TET.E:978-745-95951FAX:978-740-9846
MAYOR
September 30,2015rM
�+
r to
�T
William Wharff m p
c/o Attorney Scott Grover >3 D
Tinti,Quinn,Grover&Frey
27 Congress Street 3 W
Salem,MA 01970 G
u;
Re:CORREC'T'ED 162 Federal Street Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals P to grant a request for a six(6)
month extension for exercise of the rights granted by the September 28th,2009 Board Decision that
approved Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special Permits to change one
nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback,nonconformity,to
accommodate conversion of as office building to eight(8)residential units.
The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,September 16,2015 to discuss your request for the
approval of a second six (6)month extension to exercise rights granted by the September 28;9009 Board
Decision that that approved Variances from:minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special permits to
change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side year setback nonconfomuty,to
accommodate conversion of an office building to eight(8)residential'units.
The original Decision of September 28,2009 was appealed to the Superior.Court and anAgreement for
Judgment amending the Decision was entered on September 5,2012.The Decision qualified under the
Massachusetts Permit Extension Act and was automatically extended to September 28,2014. On October 2,
2014,the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a six(6)month extension to commence September 28,2014 and
expire on March 28,2015.
On September 9,2015,a letter was submitted by Attorney Grover on behalf of William Wharff requesting a.
third six(6)month extension to commence sZembcr28 2015 and expim March 28 2016
The Zoning Board of Appeals voted five(5)in favor(]vis.Curran,Mr.Copelas,Mr.Duffy,Mz.Tsitsinos and
Mr.Viccica) and none(0) opposed, to grant the approval of the six-month extension request to exercise the
rights granted by the September 28t,2009 Board Decision.This determination shall become part,of the
record for this project.
If you require further information,please contact Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner,in the Department of
Planning&Community Development at(978) 619-5685
Tbaannk you, l p Q
Rebecca Curran
Zoning Board of Appeal
Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk
,ONAe CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR- ..
a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
1 TELEPHONE: 978-.745-9595
FAX: 978-740-9846
MAYOR
KIMBERY L2RISGOLL. 1009 SEP 30 A. a. Oq
M
Septernber 28, 2009'
w
Decision
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances f bm minimum lot area per
dwelling unit,and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and
to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity;ao accommodate conversion of
an office building to nine(9) residential condominium units,on the property located
at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem;;MA,in the Residential Two-FamaZoning
District(R2).
Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance,§6-4,Table I:
Residential Density Regulations (recodified on September.10,2009 as §4.1.1: Table of
Dimensional Requirements), Petitioner also seeks.Special Pe
mrits Pursuant to§5-3(j);
Extension of Nonconformity(recoded on September 10,2009 as §33.31 Nonconforming
Structures),and§8-6,Board of Appeals, Granting Special permits (recodified on September.
10,2009 as §9.4,Special Permits).
Statements of fact
1. Attomey Scott Grover represented the petitioner,William Wharff,who has the
property under agreement subject to his abiliryto convert it to a residential use. The
property is owned byHealdr&-Education Services,Inc.
2: In a petition dated March 25,2009,the petitioner requested a Variance and Special
Permits to convert the existing office buik4irg to nine(9) residential units.
3: A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on April 15;2009;
pursuant to Mass General Law U. 40A,§11.
4. At the April 15,2009 meeting,Attomey Grover stated that a leaking oil tank exists-
on the property,and cleanup would be expensive;he also stated that the property is
currently being remediated.
5; In a statement submitted with the application,Attorney Grover also noted that the
building at 162 Federal Street is substantiallylarger than any other residential
structure in the area;that conversion of it from a commercial to residential use
would require a complete reconstruction of the interior of the bidding; and that such
conversion would be costly enough to require a certainlevel of density to support
costs of rehabilitation.
2
6. At the April 15, 2009 meeting,Attorney John Carr,Z River Street,representing the
Federal Street Neighborhood Association;opposedthe project,citing concerns
about density,and stating that the change in use from a mental'health center
daily business hours to a residential building would.*
ncrease the intensity of use.
7. At the April 15, 2009 meeting,other residents spoke in opposition to the project,
citing similar concerns about density,intensity of use;and the fact that the
developer's.proposal appeared to have measured the square footage of living space
differently from the City Assessor's office.
8. At the April 15,2009 meeting,Ward 2 Councillor Mchael Sosnowski, 17 Collins
Street, spoke in opposition to the project at its current density,stating that units of
the size proposed would not be in keeping with the_character with the
neighborhood.
% At the April 15,2009 meeting,Board members expressed concerns about the
density,the-amounrof space available for parking,and whether the proposed use
would be less intense than the current use.
10. The hearing was continued to August 19,2009. At the August 19,2009 meeting,
Attorney Grover stated that in response to.meetings with the neighbors,.the plans
had been revised to show a reduction from nine (9)proposed units to eight(8),an
increase in the proposed parking spaces from fifteen(15) to eighteen (18),-and.
additional green space. Approximately10,000 square feet of additional land area was
also shown on the plan,the result of an agreement with the Archdiocese of Boston
to acquire part of their property at 150 Federal Street.
11. At the August 19,2009 meeting,Attorney Grover stated that the relief now
requested was for lot area per dwelling unit of 3,200 squarefeet,rather than the
originally requested 1,166 square feet per dwelling unit,and that this was the only
dimensional relief needed,as the.previouslyproposed side entrance had been
eliminated:
12, At the August 19, 2009 meeting,Attorney John Carr, representing the Federal Street
Neighborhood Association,stated that while the project was progressing in a
favorable direction,not all of the neighbors were available to view the revised plans,
and so they could not At support the petition. He requested that,if agreeable to
Attorney Grover,the item be continued to September 16,2009, by whichtime the
neighborhood would have time to review the new plans,and they would then be
able to solidly support the project. The Board subsequently voted to continue the
matter to September 16,2009.
13. At the September 16, 2009 meeting,Attorney Grover presented.the revised plans;
At the meeting,Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street,stated his opposition to the plans
due to concerns that prospective residents would park on Federal Street. Attorney
John Carr,continuing to represent the Federal Street Neighborhood Association,
stated that he was pleased with the changes made to the plans,but wished to see the
number of units reduced further to seven (7).
3
14, The pubic hearing was closed on September 16,2009,with the following Zoning
Board of Appeals members present: Rick Dionne (chairing the meeting),Annie
Harris,Beth Debsl i Bonnie Belair(alte.mate),and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate),
15. At its meeting on September 161 2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor
and none (0) opposed to grant a Variance under.§6-4,Table I: Residential Density
Regulations,(recodified on September 10,2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional
Requirements).
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. Special.conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building,which do
not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district:
2. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the
zoning ordinance,asthe proposed project is in harmony with the residential
character of the neighborhood,particularly with the reduction of density and
addition of parking and green space to the original proposal,
3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial
hardship, financial or otherwise,to the appellant,as costs of the building's
rehabilitation in the current economic climate would be considerable.
4. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family'Zoning District to
construct the proposed addition,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of
the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:
5. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted below:.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing';
including,but not limited to,:the Plans,Documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of
Appeals concludes:
1. To allow for the redevelopment of the office building on the property located at 162
Federal Street into eight (8) residential units as per the plans submitted, including the
plan titled "Parking Sketch Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Development at
162 Federal Street, Salem,Massachusetts,"prepared byPatrowicz Land
Development Engineering and North Shore Survey Corporation,dated August 4,
2009, the requested Variance from lot area:,per dwelling unit for the Residential Two-
FamilyZone is granted..
In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five a (5) in favor(Dionne,
Belair,Harris,Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0)opposed,to grant petitioner's requests foe
a Variance subject to the following terms,conditions,and safeguards:
4
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and
regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and
approved by the Building Commissioner.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safetyshall
be strictly adhered to..
4: Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to be any construction.
5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing
structure.
6: A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any CityBoard or Cotntnission having
jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board'.
8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise,any zoning relief granted does
not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s)
located on the subject propertyto an extent of more than fiftypervent(50%) of its
floor area or more than fiftypercent(50%)of its replacementcost 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 costor more thanfifty percent(50%) of its
floor area at the time of destruction,it shall not be reconstructed except rn.
conformity with the.provisions of the Ordinance,
9, Parking shall be as per the submitted plan dated August 4,2009.
Rr�onne
Salem Zoning Board of.Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEENFILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD
AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be nude 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
1l;the Variance or Special Permit grantedlherein 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:
1