72 Flint St, 67-69 & 71 MASON STREET - ZBA (2) 772 F wNk S+, 6q -G q + -11 W►us&N S4
A41 -1014 V4Y21 Ar- - 4 AME5NDMUK)TS
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 10 P 12: 51
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 FILE #
MAYOR CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS,
September 10, 2014
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals
Petition of RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC requesting a Variance from the requirements of Section 8.4.9
Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking
spaces per dwelling unit, and an Amendment to allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer
required for construction activity abutting residential property than the previously issued decision
allowed. The property is located at 72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST (NRCC
Zoning District).
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11.The
hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran
(Chair),Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins,Mr. Copelas (Alternate), and Mr. Tsitsinos (Alternate).
The Petitioner seeks a Variance from the provisions of Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance, and an Amendment to a previously issued decision to allow less of an encroachment on the 50-
foot buffer required for construction activity abutting a residential property:
Statements of fact:
1. In the petition date-stamped August 6`s, 2014, the Petitioner requested: A Variance from Section 8.4.9
Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking spaces
per dwelling unit, and an amendment to a Board of Appeals decision issued on April 22, 2014, to
allow less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting
residential property.
2. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition for the property located at 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason
Street and 71 Mason Street.
3. On April 22"d, 2014 the Zoning Board granted an amendment to existing variances to allow a
reduction in the number of parking spaces allocated to the commercial use from 37 spaces to 10
spaces, and to allow a reconfiguration of a proposed surface parking lot. These amendments were
sought by the petitioner in response to changes to the site plan necessitated by the determination that
the property is subject to M.G.L Chapter 91 and MEPA regulations.
4. The changes to the project necessitated by the Chapter 91 and MEPA regulations also require
approval by the Salem Planning Board and the Salem Design Review Board.
5. At the meeting of the Design Review Board to review the proposed project changes, members of the
Design Review Board suggested that the applicant pursue the possibility of reducing the number of
parking spaces to less than 2 spaces per unit.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
September 10,2014
Project:72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST Page 2 of 3
6. Mr. Feinstein, Symes Associates stated that parking demand could be controlled by restricting parking
in their lease agreements, to ensure adequate parking for residents.
7. The proposed reduction of required parking spaces would eliminate a previously proposed parking
garage and utilize surface parking. Additionally, the reduction in parking spaces would allow the
southwest parking area to be pulled further back from the abutting residential properties from the
previously approved.7 feet from the property line.
8. The requested relief, if anted, would allow the Petitioner to have fewer than the required 2 parking
9 gr 9 P g
spaces per dwelling unit, and to have less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for
construction activity abutting residential property.
9. Chair Curran read into the record two letters submitted to the Board stating opposition to the
petition, citing a lack of parking in the neighborhood, an increase in the surface parking, and a lack of
evidence and public input, as well as a third letter requesting additional information and
documentation to justify the requested relief.
10. At the Public Hearing, ten (10) members of the public, including Councilors Beth Gerard and Arthur
Sargent, spoke regarding the petition, with questions and concerns including: the existing limited
parking available in the neighborhood, the negative impact on the neighborhood of any additional on-
street parking demand, the reality of the residential units only utilizing 1.5 parking spaces per unit,
parking accommodations for visitors, the adequacy of the petitioner's stated hardship, and an
obligation to provide additional space for on-site public amenities if there is a reduction in on-site
parking spaces.
11. The Board requested that the petitioner supply additional information to substantiate the petitioner's
statements that 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit would adequately meet the parking demands of
the future residents of the development.
12. The Petitioner stated that the project is on a tight timeline, and that they did not wish to extend the
public hearing to the next Board of Appeals meeting.
The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and
after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's
presentation and public testimony,makes the following findings:
Findings
1. The Board requested additional information and data which was deemed necessary in order to
understand the effects of reducing on-site parking.
2. The application did not articulate a hardship as required by M.G.L. chapter 40A
On the basis of the above statements of facts and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted none (0) in
favor, and five (5) opposed (Mr. Watkins,Ms. Curran, Mr. Tsitsinos, Mr. Copelas and Mr. Duffy), to grant the
requested Variance from the requirements of Section 8.4.9 Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance to allow fewer than the required 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and an Amendment to allow
less of an encroachment on the 50 foot buffer required for construction activity abutting residential property
than the previously issued decision allowed. The petition is denied.
City of Salem Board of Appeals
September 10,2014
Project: 72 FLINT ST,67-69 MASON ST,AND 71 MASON ST Page 3 of 3
Rebecca Curran, Chair
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 fihng of this decision in the office of the City Clffk. 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: -9 • Z 914 Rebecca Curran (Chair)
e
Petitioner: &Qf1)r`E< OA6r- U.0 Mike Duffy
'e 's
Address: Tom Watkins
"�� ` Peter Co elas (Alt.)
Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alt.)
Total: —.G —
Conditions:
❑Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations.
❑All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building
Commissioner.
❑All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
❑Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
❑Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
❑A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained.
❑A 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.
❑Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not
limited to,the Planning Board.
❑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.
1_
w
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS
conmrr��., PETITION FORM
<.
��6 CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
A BOARD OF APPEALS 1014 AUG _b P 1: 29
Av, „
M/ 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3�FLOOR
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 CITY CLERRK. SALEM, MA,35.
9.... Thomas St.Pierre,Director of Inspectional Services
Phone:978-619-5641 Fax:978-740-9846 9"y1 "i "
KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL Dana Menon,Staff Planner m u kE 1 �' '"
MAYOR Phone:978-619-5685/Fax:978-740-0404
hUG 0 ; 217;4
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: DEPT.OF PLANMNIG g
The Undersigned represent that he/she is/are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'
72 Flint Street and
Address: 67-69 and 71 Mason Street Zoning District: NRCC
An application is being submitted to the Board of Appeal for the following reason(s): This statement must
describe what you propose to build,the dimensions,the zone property is in,and the zoning requirements.(Fxample:
I am proposing to construct a 10'x 10'one story addition to my home located at 3 Salem Lane, in the R-2 Zoning
District. The Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum depth of the rear yard to be 30 feet. The current depth ofmy
rear yard is 32 feet;the proposed addition would reduce the depth of the rear yard to 22 feet.)
See Statement of Gounds attached
For this reason I am requesting:
Amendment of Existing Variances
(10 Variance(s)from provisions of-Section of the Zoning Ordinance,specifically from
(i.e. minimum depth of rear yard).
What is allowed is (ft?sq ft?stories? %?), and what I
am proposing is (ft?sq ft?stories?%?).
( )A Special Permit under Section of the Zoning Ordinance in order to
( )Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below):
( )Comprehensive Permit for construction of low or moderate income housing(describe below):
Current Property Use: vacant land Are Lot Dimensions Included?( )Yes (x)No Why? Plans are. schematic
(Example:Two Family Home) as to parking only
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and allow
the project to be constructed as per the plans submitted,as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws would involve
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially
derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS
PETITION FORM
The following written statement has been submitted with this application:
(36 For all Variance requests a written Statement of Hardship demonstrating the following must be attached:
a) Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land,building,or structure involved,
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.
( ) For all Special Permit requests a Statement of Grounds must be attached.An application for a 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
Section 9.4 Special Permits. 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
f) Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment.
( ) For all Comprehensive Permits for construction of low or moderate income applicants should refer to M.G.L.
Ch.40B §20-23.
Previous applications to the Board of Appeals involving this property have been submitted with this petition
form. The Building Commissioner can provide documentation ofprevious applications to the petitioner or his
representative.
If different from petitioner.
Petitioner: Riverview ew P1 ar LLC Property Owner:
Address: 6 Broadmoor Road Address:
Peabody, MA 01960
Telephone: Telephone:
Email: Email:
Signature: Signature:
`� (Attached consen!/ester is also acceptable)
Date: August 6, 201 PP77��QQ Date:
If different from petitioner:
Representative: Scott M. Grover,Esquire
Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey, P.C.
A TRUE Address: 27 Congress Street, Suite 414
Sale
ATTEST Telephone: _019 0
Signature: - ���
Date: Au st 2014
CITY CLERK DATE DPCD DATE
This original application must be filed with the City Clerk
STATEMENT OF FACTS
72 Flint Street, 67-69 and 71 Mason Street
Salem, Massachusetts
On November 2, 2007,the Board of Appeals issued a decision granting variances to Riverview
Place LLC relating to the redevelopment of the Property at 72 Flint Street and 67-69 and 71
Mason Street (the `Property") as a mixed use complex of 130 residential apartments and
approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial space. The specific variances were from (1) the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement (3,500 s.£) 2.) the requirement that the units on
Mason Street have firsts floor entrances and 3.) the requirement that no construction activity
occur in a 50 foot buffer area where the site abuts residential property. There were no parking
variances requested as the project provided the required 260 spaces for the residential units (2
per unit) and 37 spaces for the commercial space. In addition, the Decision required the
petitioner to provide twelve spaces for the use of Flint Street residents to alleviate congestion on
that street. The Decision of the Board was appealed to the Land Court which rendered a
Judgment upholding the Board's Decision.
Subsequent to the Decision of the Zoning Board,the project was determined to be partially
comprised of formerly filled tidelands which makes the Property subject to the State Chapter 91
and MEPA regulations. As part of the project review for compliance with the Chapter 91
regulations, it was determined that the building closest to the North River would have to be
reduced in size to create a 100 foot offset from the mean high water mark. In addition, agency
comments provided as part of an initial MEPA filing requested the petitioner to elevate the
lowest habitable space of the proposed structures above the 100 year flood elevation as
delineated in 2013 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and to also
accommodate projected increases in sea level rise. To achieve these requirements, the petitioner
filed an application with this Board earlier this year to amend the existing variances to allow a
reduction in the number of parking allocated to the commercial use from 37 spaces to 10 spaces
and to allow a minor reconfiguration of the surface parking. In an Amended Decision dated
April 22, 2014, the Board granted the requested variances.
Since appearing before the Zoning Board, the Petitioner has submitted the amended plans to both
the Planning Board and the Design Review Board. At the public hearings before both of these
Boards, the petitioner received a number of requests from both Board members and members of
the public in attendance to consider a further reduction in parking. The general opinion was that
two parking spaces per unit were not necessary given the size of the units and the proximity of
the project to the commuter railroad station. Further, it was suggested that a reduction in parking
would improve the project by allowing the developer to reduce the mass of the parking garage
and the amount of surface parking. In addition to the local desire to consider a reduction in
parking, the initial review of the project under MEPA resulted in comments by the Department
of Environmental Protection that consideration should be given to a reduction in parking. After
considering the comments from various sectors, the petitioner has itself concluded that the
proposed number of spaces will not be necessary to support the project and that indeed a
reduction in parking would have significant design benefits. Accordingly, the petitioner has
submitted herewith a revised parking plan which provides for 195 spaces allocated to the
residential units,which represents one and one-half spaces per unit. The new parking layout
allows the petitioner to eliminate the structured parking garage entirely and to significantly
reduce the size of the surface parking area which abuts the residential neighbors on Flint Street.
1
J
The only other change required to the Decision as amended is to acknowledge less of an
encroachment into the 50 foot buffer along the Flint Street side of the Property as a result of the
reduction in surface parking spaces. The following condition is proposed as a substitute for the
condition added by the Amended Decision:
"Construction of parking area and portions of the buildings within the 50 foot residential
buffer required by Section 8.4.13 of the Ordinance shall be permitted in accordance with
the submitted plans entitled"Riverview Place Parking Level" dated August 4, 2014 by
O'Sullivan Architect's Inc.
The changes in the Flood Plain standards are special conditions that affect this property. In
addition, the petitioner is faced with mounting requests from the governmental authorities and
concerned citizens which have reviewed the project to reduce impervious surfaces, particularly
parking. At the same time,the petitioner has acceded to request to provide off-street parking for
the abutting neighborhood. As a result of these conditions and to accommodate the competing
demands of various stakeholders, the Property cannot practically be redeveloped as originally
permitted which creates a substantial hardship for the petitioner. The changes proposed can be
allowed without detriment to the public good and without nullifying the intent of the Ordinance.
2
--------------
W w w
w I
ourpooR-UFPER SITE ae SPACES
w w w
OUTDOOR-LOWER SITE BI SPACES
'41UNDER SLIDING 1 50 SPACES
I n x[ T 75 WpB2 BUILDIW2 33 SPACES
•p^°`0 1 UNDER BUILDING 3 5 SPACES
2D SPACES
}��1 to .�. d b / /n 1>s-Pa t/z s 5 /93 4 C I et
N` Parking Calculation
Og I 39 MI Po* i �m�'. 1 5.000 SF COMM. 5
m�S, '1 SPACE
, /
16' IaAgs IN 0.T. — --�— PARKING ALLOCATION
= 69-), NS Rldlvd til Tr. I - 130 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 195 SPACES
/ IC .z>: xen
/7� �•J —r7I/7 _ ABUTTING R3CPERTIES 12 SPACES
❑ I L DEP coM+nERc1AL SPACE 10 sPAces
A9t6ML-J 18' {STO
16.pRIC TOTAL SPACES 217 SPACES
!ai �� ° Dellg�pPQ�QIy . . c'�cc.a> I HIGH
1
Jae z>sxu,�. i.Po .2 �— — — — — :: WATER
� �1 Parking Allocation Chart
rr'' Eg5
!{ MW B C""W to q _ - /Sd-SB wIT TrPE AwRovEp Rev15ED
1 g K 9EDROOM 512-919 SF 653-875 SF
lei g =' 2 eEDRooM roto-1332 sF 993-I2To sF
!m Tn ure
�1 Ra la --
!94 �dQ A, m°pN"^ 2 ��Unit Size Comparison
�m1vyyu BLDG tt2 ~
liITEM goFRpVEp REVISED DIFFERENCE
34 TOTAL PARKING 309 SPACES 217 SPACES -92 SPACES
l~
fay /ffi G yF APPROX.BLDFP.AREA 12.111 SF 46.063 SF -25248 SF
l� s g a e � � I5 � APPROX RD/FRKG.AREA 51.544 SF 58.131 SF •6.725 SF
- , d 1O' T a , EUILDING v I RESIDENTIAL AREA 90301 SF 84.628 SF -5567 SF
o Y
23 � 33 1{ � � BUILDING=z REslpanlAL AREA 53.316 sF 42645 SF -I0.670 SF
!ea ' K BUILDING v 3 RESIDENTIAL AREA 29195 EF 28.203 g -1.725 SF
: 7777�( �-- APPDX.TOTAL RESIDHJTIAL SF 172.812$F 155A76 SP -D.336 SF,
u,$a0 I 1 FPA (100 FOOT
® d` y OFFSET FROM THE BUILDING 1-E1Gur-a-DG=I so'-o a9-r -Io
x� rT ` moo BLDG ttl 50 EXISTING MHw
BUILDING 1-EIGHT-EIDG•2 40'-O' 44-10' a'-10'
S
BUILDING HEIGHT-0.CG e3 40'-0' 46IIOR(36 6l- 16 1 CQ(3 6),
- UNITS IN 9DG v1 64 70 6
X 9 I UNITS IN E DG^2 42 36 -6
0 • 1 v _— WDUZ (88.5 FOOT WITS IN SUDG v3 24 24 N/C
5 OFFSET FROM THE RK
�� v OF PARKING SPACES FACING 27 19 -8
EXISTING MHW)
/ —_ � RUNT STREET
—24 / ONE A (FEMA
/ �� MAP FIMA25009 C-0419 / •GOING ON WHICH FACADE 15 CONSIDERED TFE FROM
x/ p•A y / LINE OF BUDG
1 DATED JULY 3, 2012)
/ sil s /1 I 0 Comparison Chart
1 & FEMA 100 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL 1
1 3
(EL-103 NGVD) FEMA MAP
250102 00018 DATED
I LIMBER BULKHEAD AUGUST 5, 1985
E IS. IGH
R (MH
/ i 'µ g\RRPR WA R MHW) (E(EL=4.4
w commmw / ygttS 000 V
7 NGVD) O 50
SoU TpAll EBB 25 100
for EA r l�0 .< O�
s
4Po.
Riverview Place
Site Plan OISULLIVAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
Salem, M/1//fi� ARCHITECTURE • OESIGN • PLANNING
AUUstT27, 2014 aso nna- 66 Fax: ( s� zoo. Rea yLIVA MA o9 .COM
g ` Tel pet)439-6T66•Faz: pet)439-6170• WWW.08ULLIVANAftCHITECTS.COM
fi m2014 aswn.•na ha�uInc.
L
x N
s
-sec@ d1xkF x� ,
zp,
ak
v i
tf •k}as ', fl fls "; ¢ �\£fie ��� aF`'s r�$ .Ftp '?x3 ks+;k '��)�.
�u�k 'h' Ye 3 it ��Sqv M s \NPv Nov t pH Hv� d r
mill
C� ,s A ")sr � Y, r\2:":, ( .� sr S A„„�??s sy3 ,'42 .xi x �4 , r� ! �es,�iKi �s`”: i., v ,>; �aF C+3 F3.:... �'�•ICs � a '5 .t
BUILDING 1 NORTH ELEVATION
xa 'y
4P
' r Wm
4E '.rN. ,yam
n3i�vt`�i-MW
by kL P' R
? Irks $a
£ y
`YNf J1 ik $€ teritY�i�£5 Y5ft
1 4 +Ls"N Rv3 dC ig5�..
x eu`l1� r e : •. ,ra 9"'a"S su�'SN 3`,�'rf;. j
i N
5v
BUILDING 1 EAST ELEVATION
Riverview Place
Building 1 Elevations
.Salem, MA O ' SULLIVAN ARCHITECTS, INC.
August 271 2014 ARCHITECT RE OES31 I” • PLANNING
580 Main Street, Suite 204• Reading, MA O'I S67
Tel: (781)439-6166•Fax: (781)439-6170• WWW.CSULLIVANARCHITECTS.COM
V2014 dSUllivan Ai Nte tSl—
n
1
FederaCStreet NeighborhoodAssociation, Inc.
P.O.Box 863
SaCeM MA 01970-o863
25 August 2014 '' r
,
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Department of Planning and Community Development
City Hall Annex, 3rd Floor
120 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: Federal Street Neighborhood Association's Opposition to a Second Reduction in Parking at the:Proposed,
Riverview Place Apartment Complex
Dear Members of the Zoning Board:
r j'. n • �. L 1i I4
The Federal Street Neighborhood Association is strongly opposed to a second request to reduce parking spaces
at the 130 apartment Riverview Place Complex proposed.for the small 4.14 acre parcel of land at'72 Flint
Street, 67-69 Mason Street and 71 Mason Street. Our opposition to reducing the off-street parking is based"on a
number of valid concerns as'an abutting neighborhood. }
Reducing off=street parking in any of the neighborhoods within walking distance to Salem's busy,Downtown
would be an egregious mistake, especially when it is totally unnecessary and motivated by financial gain.
Historic Neighborhoods like Federal Street and Mack Park already have a shortage of on and off street parking.
This shortage is partly a result of the 18th and 19th pre=automobile design of these neighborhoods with their
closely spaced homes, narrow streets and lack of driveways. However, in recent years,the shortage has been
worsened by an increase in motor vehicle ownership, conversion of single family homes to condominiums with
inadequate parking and, the competition for FREE on street parking with visitors who seek the services of
Salem's expanding judicial, transportation,tourist, educational, medical and business districts.
By granting an NRCC zoning variance to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces at Riverview Place, we
provide the Developers the opportunity to eliminate the 3:level, 252-car parking garage that was the cornerstone
of the original Site Plan specially permitted on April 17, 2009. Following a lengthy Design Review, the Board .
recommended the construction of an on-site garage to offset the high residential density and it's anticipated
parking needs. The proposed garage must not be eliminated! This garage will serve three purposes. First, it
will provide ample off street parking in a neighborhood that is plagued by insufficient parking. Secondly, the
garage will significantly reduce the unsightly surface parking associated with such a dense residential complex.
Finally, use o&rage will increase the amount of green and recreational space for the enjoyment of the
apartment residents as well as the general public wishing to access the North River.
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals - 25 August 2014 - Page.2
The Federal Street Neighborhood Association has a serious concern about the validity of the assertion made by
the Riverview Place Developers that smaller residential units reduce the need for parking. Making a zoning
decision based upon this assumption could set a destructive precedent affecting future development along the
North River. We believe that the Riverview Place Petitioners must support their claim with evidence based on
Salem's demographics and job opportunities. For example, this assertion may be correct in a place like
Cambridge, Massachusetts. In Cambridge, youthful, well-paid residents can walk to work to nearby high tech
companies. However, for most communities, households:with two working parents, multiple college
roommates, or elderly and their caregivers require additional parking no matter what the dimensional size of
the dwelling unit.
In conclusion,there are 13 properties within the Federal Street Neighborhood that are listed as legal abutters to
the proposed Riverview Place Development. Many more of our homes look out on the Site along the North
River. The Federal Street Neighborhood Association has actively participated in the public permitting process
of the Project since it began in 2007. Our primary objective in doing so has always been to gei the best
development possible. That being stated, we firmly oppose the granting of a variance that allows for a -
reduction in residential parking at Riverview Place without a legitimate hardship. Furthermore, we:have serious
concerns about the piecemeal approach used by Riverview Place LLC to undermine the zoning laws specific to
the North River Canal Corridor.Masterplan. Just several months ago, these Developers went before this very
Board to reduce the number of commercial parking spaces, originally permitted for 37, to only 10 spaces. The
small commercial space that was 'added to the original Site Plan was"done gratuitously to meet the "mixed use"
requirement of the NRCC zoning laws. Where is the hardship? Also, at the current time; Riverview Place is
before the Salem Planning and Design Review Boards seeking "insignificant changes" to their Site Plan
permitted in April 2009. The Federal Street Neighborhood Association does not feel that changing the location
and size of a building footprint, reducing the size of the apartments, eliminating the parking garage, adding
more surface parking, changing the design of a building, using different building materials, eliminating the
residential units from the ground floors of two of the proposed buildings•and allowing parking on the ground
floor of the aforementioned buildings constitute "insignificant'changes". This indeed is a NEW PROJECT !
There is a'civic obligation to treat it,as such.
Most Sincerely;
Jan itis Arlander
oard and Developmerit Co`mmittee:Member, "
Federal Street Neighborhood Association
6P�m
Cynthia M.`Johnson "
Co-Chair, Federal Street Neighborhood Association `
August 27, 2014
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
City Hall Annex
120 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: Riverview Place
To: The Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Barbara A. Cleary
104 Federal Street
Salem, MA
I am writing to express my opposition to the granting of a variance with
respect to required parking sp=es to the Riverview Place LLC. The
project already benefits from a significant variance with respect to number
of units. This variance, which I believe was not consistent with the North
River Canal Corridor Zoning Ordinance, was somewhat mitigated by the
design requirements of the Design Review Board.
The proponent has now proposed major changes which significantly
reduce the quality of materials and design, and has asked for further relief
from zoning requirements which will result in lesser parking overall but
more surface parking.
I urge the ZBA to deny this request or to continue the matter to a later
hearing. This is a development of great importance to the surrounding
historic neighborhoods. It has been taken up at a meeting in the last
week of August, with no prior notification or discussion with the affected
neighborhood associations. Many individuals, including myself, are
unable to attend this meeting tonight, and at a minimum, I believe the
board should provide the public with reasonable opportunity to provide
input and take no action this evening.
1
_l
C- rv�v�nev�_ o_
were-te_w,-_�arY�n�
nc e"
--_ -- - --
Al
l
3
l
li
I
ti
��
_ _ _ _ pi
., r
i
- - - - ---
: fit . -, _ - _ -_... - - -- -
e._e �l�-....�
,. � �
__. �. seL .t_Ls__ s y'^l_ __ c _. __.
4,
August 27,2014
To:Rebecca Curran,Chair,and Members of the the Zoning Board of Appeals,City of Salem
From:James Treadwell,AICD
Subject:Petition for Variance to Residential Parking Requirement in North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District
(NRCC)
Riverview place LLC,72 flint Street and 67-69 and 71 Mason Street
I will appreciate your consideration of my comments and observations, set forth below,regarding the subject request for
variance. Thank you.
Jim Treadwell
Comments and Observatioine
"Review Status, Amendment to Site plan
As you are aware,Riverview Place represents the proposed development of a 130 unit apartment complex with 5,000 sq ft
of"commercial"space on the site near the intersection of Flint Street and Mason Street that was previously occupied the Salem
Suede and Bonfanti Leather factories..
An Amendment to the Plan--primarily dealing with floodplain,wetland,building and layout design issues- is in the process of
being evaluated by the Design Review Board and the Planning Board,with initial public hearings of July 23,2014 and July 17,
2014 respectively.Meanwhile your Board has granted a variance to the amount of parking to be required for the project's
commercial use.
With the Petition signed by the Applicant on August 6,2014,and subsequent to the submission of the Amendment to the
Plan,the subject variance was submitted that requests that the amount of parking required for the 130 residential units be
reduced from two parking spaces for each dwelling unit to I.5 spaces per unit. The variance would result in a project with 195
parking spaces or 65 fewer spaces than the 260 spaces that would be required if the current zoning prevails.
" The Issue of an Adequate Amount of parking:A"good zoning practice'.
I understand that copy of my email message of August 14,2014 to our Director of Planning and Community Development
(DPCD),Lynn Duncan,AICD, has been provided to the Board.In that message,with regard to the 260 spaces currently
required, I point out that the Application states"..the petitioner i+self concluded that the proposed number of spaces will not be
necessary to support the project". 1 also requested that copy of the parking assessment that served as the basis for the request
for variance and the finding that 192 spaces would support the 130 units,be provided to the neighborhood and the greater
community.An assessment has not been provided and,in fact, I DAVE BEEN UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY INFORMATION OR
ANY PARD DATA IN TPE APPLICATION PACKAGE THAT PRESENTS TPE BASIS FOR TPE CONCLUSION OF
TPE PETITIONER OR WOULD SERVE AS A BASIS FOR TPE PROPOSAL TO VARY TWE NRCC PARKING
REQUIREMENT
On the other hand,in the"Statement of Fact"the Application indicates that the genesis of the proposed reduction in the amount
of parking is,attributed in part, to the opinions of members of the Design Review Board.As we would trust,these opinions
recorded in the DRB minutes of July 23,2014,in large measure,relate to the benefds associated with matters of design.Some
members voiced opinions that the parking is excessive based on the size of the proposed apartments.(See Note at end of
comments)The minutes of July 17,2014,of the planning Board(PB),do not indicate that the Board addressed the parking
issue.I have not seen the referenced comments from the Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)but understand that its
position is"that consideration sound be given to a reduction in parking"
ee that as it may,opinions exist that this issue of parking should be explored. I would expect that most,if not all,stakeholders
including the host neighborhoods,along with other interested parties,would support a thorough independent analysis to consider
the parking needed to adequately support Riverview Place,while providing data regarding the variance of the NRCC parking
requirement.
[I would note that others have suggested that such an analysis should investigate"in place'projects similar to Riverview with
regard to type,character,location,etc]
'The issue of Adequate Documentation
The ZBA's"NOTICE TO APPLICANTT indicates that"...all information requested on the[petition]form must be supplied by
the Applicant"
and,for Variance requests the written"Statement of Pardshipe must be attached to the application "DEMONSTRATING" that:
'DESIRABLE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED WITPOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO TPE PUBIC GOOD,AND
WITPOUT NULLIFYING OR SUBSTANTIALLY DEROGATING FROM TPE INTENT OF TWE 019PICT OR TPE
PURPOSE OF TPE ORDINANCE"
I would note that the written"Statement of Facts;as its last sentence and following the issue of hardship,reiterates the
required finding, but does not provide its explanation,or otherwise demonstrate, that the variance,the desired 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.
[For my own edification,I would note here that the duties of the ZBA are at Section 9.323.of our Ordinance,and that the
Purpose provision,relative to Site plan Review,is located at Seetion9.5.1.
The Sufficiency of 195 parking Spaces to Support Riverview place
The Applicant has found that 195 parking spaces is adequate to support the demand of the 130 dwelling(housing units)at
Riverview Place, thus concluding that 260 spaces required by the NRCC are not needed to support of the parking needs of the
I v
apartment complex Again although hard data relative to this conclusion has not been provided,we can assume that,ae ie typical,
the parking needs of of residents,guests,employees and service providers at the apartment complex were calculated in this
instance.
I'm sure that we all know that another approach for estimating demand for parking for reeiderdial uses ie to CONSIDER THE
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS INSTEAD OF NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS.
The information provided on the Riverview place floor Plans shows:
51 One Bedroom apartment units containing 51 bedrooms
77 Two Bedroom apartment units containing 154 bedrooms
2 Three Bedroom apartment units containing 6 bedrooms .... FOR A TOTAL OF 211 BEDROOMS.
The Project's Environmental Impact Statement of 2007, reported by the Applicant to DPCD ae still valid,indicates that
only 7 residents of the complex will be school aged children
So, using a base population of one person per bedroom who possesses one motor vehicle and driving privileges,211 parking
spaces would be needed to support just the residents of Riverview Place. If we were to calculate and add in the off street
parking spaces to accommodate visitors,service providers and apartment employees,a projected adequate supply would almost
certainly exceed the 195 parking spaces that would to be provided in accordance with the proposed variance.(Note that a
resident population of I.5 people per bedroom,with wheels and privileges,would require 310 parking spaces to meet demand.)
I am not a Traffic/Transportation Planner and there may be errors in the calculation Therefore THIS CALCULATION IS
INTENDED ONLY TO REPRESENT AN"OPINION"THAT REDUCING TWE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR
RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE NRCC DISTRICT COULD RESULT IN AN INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF OFF-STREET PARKING
AT RIUERUIEW PLACE AND THAT SITUATION COULD NAVE A DELETERIOUS CONSEQUENCES ON TWE
ADJACENT NEIGWBORWOODS.
I look forward to the preparation of an in-depth and independent assessment of this NRCC parking issue by a professional eo
that all interested parties,including me,will have the basis to reach a conclusion regarding the adequacy of parking proposed in
Salem's North River Canal Corridor.
NOTE:COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PREVIOUS AND CURRENT APARTMENT AREA,BASED ON RIUERUIEW
PLACE LLC DATA.
Previous Area 760 of to 900 sf
One Bedroom Apartment Current 653 of 653 sf
Difference -107 of -247 sf
Two Bedroom Apartment Previous Area 1040 sf to 1280 sf
Current 967 sf 967 sf
Difference -73 sf -313 sf
Three Bedroom Apartment Previous None proposed
Current 1257sf
Dana Menon
From: James R Treadwell <jrtreads4@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 1:55 PM
To: Lynn Duncan
Cc: RoseMary O'Connor; Dana Menon;Andrew Shapiro; Beth Gerard
Subject: Riverview Place, Variance, Required Parking
Good day Lynn.
In connection with its petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals to provide fewer off-street parking spaces at its
proposed apartment complex, Riverview Place LLC indicates that:
. .the petitioner has itself concluded that the proposed number
of spaces will not be necessary to support the project . . ."
In this case, the Petitioner concludes that the number of proposed parking (195 spaces)will be sufficient to
adequately meet the need of the 130 residential units.
I would trust that a comprehensive and well documented professionally conducted assessment has served as the
basis for the Petitioner's own conclusion regarding the adequacy of parking. Therefore I would request that said
documentation be provided to the neighborhood and the greater community as soon as possible so that such a basis
may serve to assure all interested parties that sufficient off-street parking will be provided for Riverview Place.
Thank you Lynn and best regards,
Jim
Post Script. While recognizing the devastating effect that the failure to provide ample off-street parking could have on
this congested neighborhood, could DPCD support the creation of a colliery"fail-safe" procedure that would insure
that the parking demand will always be satisfied by on-site parking at Riverview Place?
Note: In addition to the spaces required to serve the residential
units, the Developer is to provide 12 spaces to neighbors and
10 spaces for the project's commercial use.
1
Salem
LU.W- Redevelopment
- Authority
August 12, 2014
Rebecca Curran, Chair
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
City Hall Annex
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Parking Requirements for Riverview Place
Dear Ms. Curran:
It is my understanding that the applicants proposing a mixed-use development at 72 Flint
Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place) are seeking a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals in order to reduce required parking on-site from two (2) spaces
per unit to one and a half(1.5) spaces per unit. Although the Design Review Board does
not oversee parking requirements for projects it reviews, this topic came up with respect to
this project at our last regular meeting on July 23, 2014. Below are some of the comments
made by Members of the Design Review Board (taken from the minutes) at that meeting.
J. Michael Sullivan: "Is there a chance you (the applicant) could get a variance for
the parking requirement to be 1.5 spaces per unit?"
Sullivan continued by commentating that the presence of one-
bedroom units are a "good thing." He commented that these
sized units and fewer parking spaces are a "wave of the future"
—the size of the units and less parking "go hand-in-hand."
Glenn Kennedy: "There seems to be so much parking here, considering building
size." Kennedy agreed with Sullivan's comments about smaller
unit sizes being the wave of the future, and expanded further by
noting that other developments with these unit sizes consider
who lives in them and do not accommodate for two spaces per
unit. There is more consideration given in those cases to foot
traffic, bicyclists, e-bikes, and how they are used. The units
shown here with the number of parking spaces provided almost
seems contradictory to what one might find in similar
developments, found for instance in Cambridge.
David Jaquith: Jaquith commented that if"we could fight to get you less
parking we certainly would because I do not think the parking
demand is going to be there."
Christopher Dynia: Dynia commented that the size of units in the buildings does
not necessitate 2 parking spaces per unit. "It seems overkill for
this site."
Please note that providing you with the above comments is only meant to show how
Design Review Board Members reacted to the required amount of parking as presented at
the July 23rd meeting. I must emphasize that the Design Review Board has not yet
reviewed any plans with a reduced parking count and will withhold any judgment of such
plans until it has had an opportunity to review them: My hope is that any potential
reduction in the amount of parking that is required for this site would not result in a
deterioration of quality for the proposed design 'and ultimate development.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions, please
do not hesistate 'to contact Andrew Shapiro in the Department of Planning of Community
Development at 978-619-5685 or ashapiro(a)salem.com.
SinciDund
l
Pa
Chair, City of Salem Design Review Board
CC:, All Members of the Zoning Board of.Appeals
All Members of the Design Review Board