Loading...
321-333 LAFAYETTE STREET - ZBA Ik. r �t 321-333 LAFAY9M STRM B-1 ! v Qn- ,s I Legal Notice i CITY OF SALEM j BOARD OF APPEAL 978-745-9595 Ext.391 Will hold a public hearing for all I, persons interested in the petition sub- mitted by JACKIE LEE requesting a Variance from front&side setbacks, 4 building height and parking require- ments and a Special Permit to _ expand a non-conforming structure to construct six new dwelling units, including facade improvements of i the existing building along the Entrance Corridor Overlay District J for property at 331-333 LAFAYETTE 1 STREET Bt.Said hearing to be held WEDNESDAY,MAY 19,2004 AT 6:30 P.M., 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313. Nina Cohen — Chairmj (5/5, 12) I i l CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS f BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RO FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 N ca STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Cy,41 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 Z f"7< ('t<7 O A© C x. 1 (lye q w ®r- DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JACKIE CL LEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL D PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-333 CIYI- LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 C3 e A hearing on this petition was held on October 20, 2004 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto,Bonnie Belair and Edward Moriarty. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening New in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from front and side setbacks, building height and parking requirement and a Special Permit to expand a non-conforming structure to construct 6 dwelling units for the property located at 321-333 Lafayette Street B-1. The provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to the request for a Special Permit is Section 5-3 0), which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance,the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Sections 8-6 and 94, grant Special Permit for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures,and for changes, enlargement, extent expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses,provided, however,that such change extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms,this Board is,when reviewing 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 Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: A. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. B. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner. . ly DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JACKIE CL LEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-333 cm o LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 r W page two �D D C. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public goat) y and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the disu,.,c!r n of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after reviewing the plans makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner through his attorney William Quinn, Esq.,requests dimensional variances, a parking variance and a special permit to add two stories and 6 residential units to an existing nonconforming one-story building and lot located at 321-333 Lafayette Street. 2. Petititioner's property is located in a B-1 District in an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The B-1 District or Neighborhood Business Districts are defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Neighborhood business districts are intended to be those areas containing use meeting daily shopping needs for the convenience of adjacent residential areas. Zoning Ordinance Article III Section 3-1 (5) A multifamily dwelling is a permitted use in the B-1 District Section 5-2(d)(1). 3. Petitioner's one-story building currently houses a restaurant, a convenience mart and a pizza shop. It is bordered on three sided by one-and two-family residences. Adjacent to petitioner's property is a three-story building with a hair salon on the first floor and one or more dwelling units above. Across the street lies the campus of Salem State College. 4. Petitioner seeks to add two additional stories to create a six-unit residential condominium above the existing building. Because the proposed development would exceed the district height limitation by 3 feet,petitioner seeds a variance for height. Front and side setbacks would not change; these are currently nonconforming due to the grandfathered status of the property, but the expansion of the existing nonconforming structure is by special permit. 5. There are 34 parking spaces in the lot encompassing the property. Since the total available spaces still lags the number required by 5 spaces, petitioner seeks a parking variance for the mixed-use development. Petitioner intends to set aside 9 spaces for the use of the condominium residents and dedicate the remaining places for the three existing businesses. Two spaces are currently used for dumpsters; one of these would be removed to make additional parking in the lot. Petitioner would obtain the approval of the City of Salem Planning Board with respect to issues arising from parking,traffic and site layout. .l DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JACKIE CL LEE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-333 LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 0 �, page three z rn 6. Petitioner would operate the commercial businesses on the first floor,adding` z T residential uses for the two upper stories. He met with abutting business oars and homeowners and received input from his Ward Councilor and other D Councilor's,and sought review from the City of Salem Planning Depart meakon the scale and appearance of the proposed addition. o 7. To reduce the likelihood that the dwelling units would be occupied by groups of }' college students,petitioner agreed to limit the size of the units to 2 bedrooms. He also agreed to insert a private restriction into the condominium documents to prohibit the use and occupation of the units by more than 2 unrelated adults. 8. Architect Ray Guertin presented plans for the proposed addition, showing a street scape that follows the design of the surrounding buildings and uses design elements from the neighborhood. The plan provides for HVAC and exhaust on the rear of the building,to lessen the impact of noise and cooking smells on the neighborhood. 9. The proposed development was strongly opposed by neighbors. Parking was a major issue in the university neighborhood,as were storage of rubbish and overuse of the property. Neighbors worried that the dense nature of the development and lack of amenities such as laundry facilities, landscape space and views would attract transient owners and lower the value of their homes by creating an unpleasant development. Among the neighbors who spoke in In opposition were Diane Rafferty, 7 Bristol St,Caroline Berth,26 Wisteria St. Kathleen Bartlett, 335 Lafayette St,David Goggin, 300 Lafayette St., Katrina Webster, 6 Plymouth St., Angie Cruz, 12 Clifton Ave., Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar St. Donna Woods,David Buckoff,4 Bristol St. and Rich Ostergerg, 17 West Ave. 10. City Councilors Matt Veno of Ward 5,Arthur Sargent(Councilor at Large), and Joseph O'Keef of Ward 7 opposed the development. Mr. O'Keefe voiced concern Not just about overcrowding,but also about fire vehicles' access to the new units. 11. Michael Numerovsky of 327 Lafayette St. supported the proposal for new units on the grounds that improvements to be building are badly needed, but hard to justify financially. Saying the status quo is a poor option, he noted the parking lot at this address is used for drinking parties at night when the businesses have close. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing the Zoning Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property but not the district in general. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JACKIE CL LEE REQUESTING SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-333 LAFAYETTE STREET B-1 page four 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship on the petitioner. 'Q r w vaa:CA 3. The relief requested cannot granted without substantial detriment to the pyglic good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent o e district or the purpose of the ordinance. _ © s 4. The Special Permit granted cannot 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, 0 in favor and 5 in opposition to grant the relief requested. SPECIAL PERMIT&VARIANCE DENIED OCTOBER 20, 2004 ,/Vl/n�c Cs Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that,if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal