Loading...
3 SOUTH MASON STREET - ZBA afsse/te 74520 40% P4 a III �1 _ Le-� ' 1 CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 EXL 381 , Will hold a public hearing for all Cpersons interested in the petition I submitted by NORTH RIVER DEVEL- I OPMENT TRUST requesting a Use Variance as well as Variancefrom density,lot area,lot width,nc lot coverage,front, side,and rear setback and a Variance from Perking 1 Is requested for the two commercial units for propertylocated at 3 SOUTH I MASON STREET BPD.Said hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 6:30 P.M.,120 Washing- ton Street,3rd floor,Room 313. Nina Cohen Chairman (6/4,10) I i CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTgI ;'; 1 �qLrP9, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLrtWS OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. TELEPHONE:978-740-98468- 595 z9b NOV I MAYOR l P 3- 3b DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NORTH RIVER DEVELOPMENT TRUST REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 SOUTH MASON STREET BPD A hearing on this petition was held November 16 2005 meeting with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Nicholas Halides, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty and Richard Dionne. 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. At the request of the Petitioner's Attorney, George Atkins, the Salem Board of Appeal voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for a Variance from use as wall as Variances from density, lot area, maximum lot coverage, front, side and rear setbacks and a Variance from parking for the two commercial units for the property located at 3 South Mason Street BPD. GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOVEMBER 16, 2005 Nina Cohen, Chairmar>�5'� Y� l Board of Appeal JJ/ 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 of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal 7 TO Nina Cohen Chairperson of the Board of Appeals City of Salem. In reference to a petition filed for 3 South Mason St. on May 20,2005 We the residents and voters in Salem are opposed to the variances bei n requested. We feel the existing zoning is appropriate for that area. We °J feel there is no reason to overlook existing zoning laws. Buffer zones were written to protect our neighborhoods from being overdeveloped. We feel what is being requested is against the public, best interest. SINCERELY SALEM RESIDENTS a OL TO Nina Cohen Chairperson of the board of Appeals City of Salem. In reference to a petition riled for 3 South Mason St. on May 20,2005 We the residents and voters in Salem are opposed to the variances be requested. We feel the existing zoning is appropriate for that area. We feel there is no reason to overlook existing zoning laws. Buffer zones were written to protect our neighborhoods from being overdeveloped. We feel what is being requested is against the publics best interest. SINCERELY SALEM RESIDENTS 1� c>)d EK?jPst� S- �4,, ui)4a�57o 0ff21 /J Ij m � 90 W a ' WbAl aµ r, I 6 - d t� �' % f9�,��w � �� a f f -A TO Nina Cohen Chairperson of the Board of Appeals City of Salem. . In reference to a petition filed for 3 South Mason St. on May 20,2005 We the residents and voters in Salem are opposed to the variances be requested. We feel the existing zoning is appropriate for that area: We feel there is no reason to overlook existing zoning laws. Buffer zones were written to protect our neighborhoods from being overdeveloped. We feel what is being requested is against the publics best interest. SINCERELY SALEM RESIDENTS �'j 52� �� �? / 5' F�tea.•.�`�,r,. S� / C� @3 mauA 5T r)f� C,4 / rl G� cv, o 0-0C 2�Nd S7- IF NbSoil 54. S�t S - � /( �lrTi✓C ve 141,4 ale We Z aci•vc%/ C7` A.`tlze > Ile IV hole ' l i� � �SstiowJ�� September 7, 2005 TO : Ms. Nina Cohen, Chair, and Members of the City of Salem(MA) Board of Appeal FROM. : James Treadwell, AICP SUBJECT : REKTECH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 3 South Mason Street Salem, MA Subsequent to the meeting of your Board of August 17, 2005 , I have inspected the Building Inspector ' s Folder of the subject Project including the petition of the North River Development Trust of May 20, 2005 . Further , I have considered the applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem, the Plot Plan ( 5/3/05 ) and project plans ( 5/18/05 ) for the Rektech Project , the Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor(NRCC) dated October 2003 and the Proposed NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District (October 18 , 2004) . Accordingly, I have developed s series of observations and comments which I am transmitting here-with to your Board I will very much appreciate your consideration of the issues involved and your response to my observations. You will please note that I am a resident of Salem' s Ward Six and that I am a member of the NRCC Working Group and Implementation Committee . Thank you . f Section 9-5 (b) of the SALEM ZONING ORDINANCE states : "A variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be granted by the board of appeals unless and until : ( 1) A written application for a variance is submitted demonstrating 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 and structures in the same district; b.Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ord- inance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise ; to the appellant; 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 purposes of this ordinance. " COMMENT/OBSERVATION Nothing is found in the Petition nor the Addendum in the Building Inspector folder that demonstrates satisfaction with these provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Attachment, Treadwell, 9/7/05 page 1 Additional Comment, Section 9-5 (b) of the Salem Zoning Ord- inance relative to Rektech Residential Development . While recognizing that the appellant has failed to provide information to the Board and the Public with regard to this request for variance concerning practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and, thus, precluding any comment or observations in these regards, with respect to " . .substantially derogating from the intent of the district and the purposes of this ordinance 11 , I would submit that the residential proposal would not permit the site to be developed with"clean business and industry" , as intended by the current BPD District , or with the NRCC Neighborhood Master Plan which would "reuse and redevelop industrial uses" in the area in question. Further, with regard to the Purposes of the Ordinance and the residential proposal before the Board , it is noted that the site is in the 100 Year Floodplain and that this might affect the health and safety of the occupants of the proposed housing and that , in view of the inadequate traffic circulation system in the vicinity of the site ( ie, South Mason Street right-of-way of about nine and one-half ( 9'z) feet wide and the difficulty of accessing North Street from Commercial Street as proposed in this instance) , the proposed development could compromise the intent of the Ordinance to lessen congestion in the streets . The density of the proposed development of about thirty dwelling units per acre could also be seem as contradicting the Ordinance purpose to prevent overcrowding of land. Attachment, Treadwell , 9/7/05 page 2 Further Comment and Observation, Rektech Residential Development 1 . The Addendum to the Petition mentions a pedestrian path but such improvement is not shown on the Project Plans . In any event , should not a ped-way be dedicated as a public right-of-way. 2 . The Addendum indicates that the residential units are designed to include "artists lofts and living space" but there is no discussion of how such housing will be guaranteed permanently for artists . (Refer to 5 below) 3 . With regard to the request to vary the required parking for the proposed retail uses, it is stated in the Addendum that "there is sufficient availability of parking on Commercial Street" . There is no basis pre- sented for reaching this conclusion . . .and does this not beg the issue of providing adequate off-street parking for new development in Salem? 4. The proposal is described in the Addendum as a "mixed use" commercial-residential condominium building. According to the Plans of May 2005 , the buildings would consist of approximately 38 ,000 square feet of residen- tial use and approximately 3 ,000 square feet of retail space . 5 . For general information purposes , it is noted , on page 6-6 of the Market Summary of the NRCC Master Plan that : " . . . the rents or purchase prices that typically accompany artist live/work/retail space are not likely to support new construction . The selective and careful rehabilita- tion of existing structures may be more likely to yield competitive rental and purchase opportunities for the artist related submarket" 6. The Project Plans do not indicate any service space for off-street loading nor for trash management . 7 . The use variance requested would preclude the development of industrial/conventional business on the site, thus ' precluding the creation of employment opportunities . 8 . It is noted that , if the proposed NRCC Mixed Use District Zoning of October 18 , 2004 were adopted , that there is a requirement that the Planning Board ascertain that proposed developments be in compliance with the NRCC Neighborhood Master Plan. Attachment , Treadwell , 9/7/05 page 3