234 ESSEX STREET - ZBA �l 234 Essex St. B-5
—UDAG_ ��--
J
-/ 1
t_
,�•`°x°'4 /� t OR 30 2 ss Ph '8i
t e 1C to of MlPllt� ttQi$�jt jl$Q $ FILE#
3
Pour 1 o{ � p CITY CL[f;K. S . t.f.SS.
'�aanxa�
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP, INC.
FOR A VARIANCE AT 234 ESSEX ST. (B-5)
A hearing on this petition was held December 2, 1987 with the following Board
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and
Strout. 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.
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances from density
requirements established by Table III, Section VI as follows:
1 . As to an existing building located at Washington St. and 234
Essex St. in a B-5 zone and known as the "Kerr Building";
a. maximum lot coverage;
b. minimum width of side yard;
c. floor area ratio
2. As to the proposed new building; located at 90 Washington St.
and also in a B-5 zone;
a. minimum lot area per dwelling unit;
b. maximum lot coverage;
c. minimum width of side yard
d. maximum height of building (feet) ;
e. maximum height of building (number of stories)
f. floor area ratio
3. Petitioners are also requesting a Variance from minimum parking
requirements for sixty nine (69) residential units.
The Variance which has 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 and 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;
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.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP, INC.
FOR A VARIANCE AT 234 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page two
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The building is located in the B-5 area;
2. Petitioners plans provide for sixty-nine (69) parking spaces in
surface and underground parking;
3. It is impractical to maintain the entire existing structure and
provide on site parking due to the close proximity at the train
tunnel which runs under Washington Street;
4. Construction as shown on the plans will retain and add to the
current retail activity and stimulate small businessess;
5. This project will provide for new business to locate in Salem and
therefore create jobs;
6. This project will substantially increase the tax revenue on the
property; and
7. There was community support and petitions presented in favor.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at
the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect this building but
do not affect the district generally;
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship to the petitioner;
3. The relief reqeusted 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.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variance requested under the following terms and conditions:
1 . Petitioner must include in the Condominium Documents the provisions
for the Condominium Association to purchase from the City of Salem
a minimum of thirty-five (35) parking spaces at any municipal facility;
2. Petitioners are to work closely with the Salem City Planner so that
he will approve the final plans for the street scape at the rear and
the side of the building other than Washington and Essex Sts. side;
3. Mall area as indicated by plans are to be opened to the public so as
to assure access from Washington St. to the public parking lot;
4. The City will not, now or ever, be responsible for rubbish and
trash removal;
f
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP, INC.
FOR VARIANCES AT 234 ESSEX ST. , SALEM
page three
5. If the City chooses to put a second tier for parking on the
Sewall Street parking lot, the developer will work with the City
Planner to arrange an agreement for the developer to help defray
the cost to the City of Salem;
6. Petitioner will provide sixty-nine (69) on site parking spaces
in accordance with the plans submitted to the Board;
7. Petitioner will provide in the Condominium Documents for the parking
spaces to be non-severable from residential unit ownership;
8. Petitioner will comply with requirements of the Salem Fire Department;
9. Petitioner will obtain and comply with the requirements of all
building permits;
10. Construction shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to
the Board; and
11 . The building shall be numbered in accordance with regulations.
VARIANCES GRANTED
/James M. Fleming, Esq.
Vice Chairman
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 MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO N°ASS. CENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FERki IT
GRAiITED HEREIN, SHALL NOi TA'!E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISIC9. BEAR,NG THE ,:ERT
FILATION OF THE GIIY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FLED
OR THAT, IF SULH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS CEEN DISMISSED JR DENIED IS
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RECISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NANiE OF THE OYP'r;,
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
The Petitioner is presently the owner of the land and
buildings known as the "Kerr-Foodland" buildings at the corner of
Essex and Washington Streets . Prior to ownership of the parcel ,
Petitioner requested and obtained from the Board of Appeal
(decision filed July 8 , 1986 and extended for six (6) months in
July, 1987) a variance from the minimum parking requirements in a
B-5 district.
For reasons beyond the control of Petitioner , the prior
owners of the parcel were unable to convey title until December ,
1986. Due to the delay, resulting changes in financing, and
updated construction cost estimates , Petitioner determined that
rehabilitation of the "Foodland Building" was not feasible , such
that a new structure had to be designed for that portion of the
site. The previous plan submitted to the Board was based upon
maintenance of the existing structure and as a result provision
of on-site parking under the existing structure was not possible
due to design problems and cost. The proposed plan, on the other
hand, is based upon renovation of the Kerr Building (with new
construction of two additional floors) , and demolition and
construction of a new building on the "Foodland" site.
Demolition of the "Foodland" portion of the existing structure
and construction of a new building reduces the design problems
and costs of on-site parking so that the new building can provide
for on-site parking.
Since the new plan results in two buildings and financing
and condominium plans are based upon two buildings , the parcel is
divided into two lots and density and parking variances are
requested for each building as follows :
1
A. KERR BUILDING VARIANCES
1. Maximum Lot Coveraae (Table III . Item 4 )
The proposed building plan is a combination of renovation
and new construction of two additional stories . The building
covers 91% of the lot (10 , 624 SF building footprint on 11 , 613 SF
lot) .
The ordinance allows 100% lot coverage for existing
buildings but only 50% lot coverage for new construction of
non-residential uses . Since the ordinance is silent as to which
is applicable in the instance of renovation of an existing
building with new construction of two additional floors , a
variance is required.
2. Minimum Width of Side Yard (Table III . Item 5)
The existing building abuts the lot lines and thus a
variance from the five (5) foot side yard regulation is required.
(Although no side yard is required for existing building, since
the ordinance is silent as to new construction of additional
floors , a variance is requested) .
3. Floor Area Ratio (Table III . Item 10)
The floor area of the building is 45, 688 SF and the lot area
is 11 , 613 SF resulting in a ratio of 4 to 1 . Since a ratio of 3
to 1 is called for by the ordinance a variance is required.
(Again, although a ratio of 6 to 1 is provided for existing
buildings , this variance is requested because of new construction
of two additional floors .
The Kerr Building will not contain residential dwelling
units so that parking spaces are not required.
2
B. NEW BUILDING VARIANCES
1. Minimum Lot Area per Dwellina Unit (Table III , Item 2)
The new structure will contain 69 residential dwelling units
and thus require a lot containing 34 , 500 SF. (500 SF per
dwelling unit) . Since the lot contains 17 , 580 SF, a variance is
necessary.
(Note: The ground floor of the proposed structure will cover
5, 974 SF on the 17 , 580 SF lot which meets the 50% lot coverage
requirement of Table III , Item 4) .
2. Minimum Width of Side Yard (Table III , Item 5)
The new structure will abut side lines and thus a variance
is required, from the 5 ' requirement for new construction.
3 . Maximum Heiaht of Buildina (Table III , Items 6 & 7)
The new structure will be 81 feet high and consist of 8
stories and th
us variances are necessary for each of these height
regulations.
4. Floor Area Ratio (Table III , Item 10)
The structure will contain 94 , 685 SF of floor area
(excluding 21 , 500 SF of subsurface automobile parking) on a lot
area of 17 , 580 SF resulting in a ratio of 5. 4 to 1 and thus
exceeding the 3 to 1 ratio required by the ordinance so that a
variance is necessary.
5. Parkina (Section VII C)
The building will contain 69 on-site parking spaces (surface
and subsurface) to accomodate 69 residential units . Since the
ordinance requires 1 . 5 spaces per unit (103 . 5 spaces) a variance
is required.
I 3
__ I
Due to the configuration of the multiple lots of this
parcel, the proximity of buildings to the lot lines , the nature
of the existing buildings and proximity to the B & M train
tunnel , special conditions and circumstances exist which affect
the land and buildings so that literal enforcement of the
ordinance provisions would involve substantial financial hardship
to the Petitioner. The relief requested may be granted without
detriment to the public good and in keeping with the intent and
purpose of the ordinance and the City Master Plan in that the
development provides housing and commercial space which will
promote economic vitality and activity in the B-5 downtown
district.
4
i"iA�l11L i tP IY Lfi
N
lK,1!;^>
Hw
LOT
W
,
pp
_ \ •a. 1 Z
t.iM IT' aF �. 13
� m
3 c
o = 1 e
� � d
r �
i
-TOPS F�vz,
- - ESSEX STREET
i
Ctu of Salpm, ttssttcljuse##s
Poarb of 4kiwal
BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JUNE 18, 1986
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, June 18, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. ,
second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and
other interested persons. Notices of said hearing were duly advertised in the
Salem Evening News on June 4, 11 , 1986.
Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker, Luzinski and Strout
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the Chairman, James Hacker.
Mr. Hacker: if there is anyone present interested in number ten on the agenda,
Paulette Gebauer's petition for 357 Lafayette st. , that will not be heard tonight.
It has been withdrawn.
234 Essex St. - Urban Development Action Group
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from minimum parking requirements to allow
thirty four (34) dwelling units in this B-5 district. This petition has been
continued from the May 28, 1986 hearing. Petition was continued because there was
only a four man Board. Mr. Bencal read the application. Letters from: Diane
Pabich, 7 Summer St. , in favor; Richard Golick, 185-89 Essex St. ; Joan Gormalley,
236 Lafayette St. , Mary Roberts, My Florist, 99 North St. ; Robert Monroe, Derby
Square Book Store, 215 Essex St. ; Mr. & Mrs. Frank Gormalley, 13 Surry Road; John
Flarerty,27 Northey St. ; Donald Gerolamo, Empires, 133 Essex St. ; Roger L'Heureux,
313 Essex St. ; Fred Harney Jr. , 474 Lafayette St. ; Mayor Salvo; Richard Daly,
Chairman, Salem Parking Dept. Board; all in favor of the project. Attorney Jacob
Segal represented the petitioners. We have with us this evening, members of the
development team, particularly Donald Burnham from UDAG as well as John Cirvaster
from the Architectural Firm. Mr. Burnham is a native of Salem and has done a
considerable amount of work in the City, Mr. Cirvaster and architect with the
largest architectural firm on the North Shore has done extensive work in the City.
With Mr. Cervaster is Greg Warren from the firm. What I intend to do is to outline
and highlight certain aspects of our application and Mr. Burnham and Mr. Cirvaster
will briefly address some of the more specific items. We hope that in making this
presentation we will sustain the burden of showing you that our application meets
the requirements of Section 9 of the Ordinance. This property is located in the
B-5 zone, the purpose of the B-5 is Central Development District, which is intended
to be a composite of major businesses and residential. We believe this will be the
first structure that utilizes this zoning as was intended. There will be commercial
space on the first floor, general business uses and will be capped off by 34 dwelling
units on the top. With respect to the zoning this will be the first project down-
town that does untiiize the B-5 zoning district. The building is very large and
prominent. T.R. Kerr's is going out of business and that building will be vacant.
Encompassed in the building is what is referred to as the Foodland building, this
has been vacant for at least 12 or 13 years. I don' t this this section lends any-
thing, architecturally to the City. We will be using Riley Plaza or the Garage
for parking, which, as the Parking Board has indicated, there is plenty of room.
The garage in particular is underutilized, especially in the evening. We know it
would be preferable to have on site parking, no one would benefit from on site
parking than the developers.
MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986
page two
234 Essex St. - Continued
Could on site parking be done at any cost it could be passed on to the consumer, the
architect is prepared and in December of 1985 he did a study which concludes it
is impractical to build underground parking at that site because of the proximatey
of the railroad tunnel. We have been working with the city and hopefully part of
the problem with be alleviate by putting in a deck of parking behind this site.
These developers will be most eager to assist in bringing this to fruition. We met
with the parking commission as far back as March of 86. Mr. Burnham, UDAG, Would
like to introduce John Cirvaster and ask him to explain the research that's been done.
Mr. Cirvaster: we were introduced to this project in the summer of 85 and we are
very familiar with the T.R.Kerr Building and the Foodland Building. We've done work
in Salem. We did the Beef and Oyster, we did the Lyceum, we've been involved with
this historical sense of the City. We went to the Essex Institute and researched
the building. We are going to receate the 1910 facade that was originally the Kerr
building. The foodland building is a 1950 vintage, an infill building that we felt
would not be compatible. We will bring it back to 1910 facade. We will be adding
two story mansard which would cap the building off. We' re very proud of the way
the building came out and we feel it's going to be a very attractive building, the
materials are going to consistent with downtown Salem. Don Burnham, UDAG: the
reason we are here tonight is, basically we have a hardship, that hardship is one,
we have a 1954 building which we have to redo and to do it right will cost a lot of
money and by adding two floors and expanding the project will make this feasible,
2nd is parking, no on site parking. We have made arrangements with the City to have
parking but it will not be on site and that is the main reason and the only reason
we are before the Board. We comply with everything else. The area from the Masonic
Temple all the way down is going to be retail. He displayed plans to the Board and
the assemblage. We are not dislocating any businesses that are there now. Finkles
will stay, Beneficial will stay and the Bootery will stay. Of course, by there own
choosing T.R. Kerrs is going. If they weren't we wouldn' t be buying anyway. The
other space will be available for commercial, retail uses. We wanted to add space
and this was a challenge. How do you add two floors without having the building
look like you added two floors. I think we have been successful. We haven't added
two floors, we've added a roof, that's what it looks like on this particular building.
We've tied the Foodland building in with the Kerrs building and a mall area in the
middle. This mall area will be public and will shoot through to the parking area.
There will be office condominiums, many of the businessmen in Salem have already
reserved spaces. The upper levels will be residential. They are small in size,
they range from 600 sq.ft. to 1 ,000 sq.ft. That was by design, in this area we did
not want three bedrooms, or to have small children playing in the parking lot. This
is geared more to the professional singles and couples. Architecturally this is
going to blend in nicely with the Masonic Temple. Submitted letter from the Assessor,
Peter Caron, which basically states the estimated revenue this project would provide
for the City. (on file) Speaking in favor. Phil Mason, I am not a resident of the
City of Salem, I live in Peabody but I do represent quite a few residents of Salem
and businessmen from Salem. I am also a member of the North Shore Building and
Construction Trade and I would like to speak in favor. Our local union particularly
is very much aware of the situation in that section of town and we know the real
need for the revitalization of the downtown. This project is more than appropriate.
I think the developers have done everything to minimize the impact of the parking.
Paul L'Heureux, Lafayette Place, the increase in population will increase revenue,
will increase business, the parking issue is a small price to pay for the benefits.
MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986
page three
234 Essex St. - Continued
Pamela Gauthier, Vice President of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, our Executive
Director, Joan Gormalley regretfully could not attend this meeting, therefore I
would like to submit this petition in support of the project. Richard Denis,
10 Leval Rd. , in favor but I think it would expedite the matter if there was a
show of hands of who was in favor here tonight rather than having everyone speak.
Would that be acceptable? Mr. Hacker: no Councillor O'Leary, Ward IV Councillor:
I remember when this building was Webbers, I would like to see continued of this
building. I don't think the City can afford another empty building, I also would
like to point out that this building does blend in with the Heritage Plaza West
and also with the Masonic Temple. I understand there is a problem with parking,
well this Board here has granted off site parking to the Norman St. project, they
also granted another petition of the Peabody Block, which gave 90 parking spots,
it didn't give enough for the building. I believe the thirty four spaces for
this project isn' t too many to grant for off street parking. I would like to may
be put something in there that they have about 80 spaces of off street parking.
I also understand they are going to pay prevailing wages which I am concerned with.
I think thats great. I am in favor of this project. Robert E. Gauthier, Councillorl
at Large, I'd like to commend the Board and I think all this that is going on in
Salem is because they did give the old telephone building the Variance on the
parking. It should the people in the Commonwealth that we want to work with them,
that we want to support them and the City wants to build and they want new citizens
in here. I think we are very fortunate at this point to have two young people from
Salem who put their future again in Salem. they are going to spend 10 million
dollars. Let's hope they make a million. They have taken all the necessary steps,
they have gone to the City Boards, Design Review, Planning Board. As far as the
esthetics, we need it. You all know how I feel about having vacant buildings in
the City and how the City Council feels. I think, probably the ugliest building
in the City is the Foodland Building. This will bring people in here, people
bring stores. With enough people in the City, the retail stores will come back
so I'm strongly in support. Roger Pelletier, 7 Central Rd. , in favor. George
Gafney, 36 Lafayette Place, in favor. Dave Sultzbach, Story Rd. , in favor of
this project, anything that enhances the tax base is desirable. Jerry Kavanaugh,
City Planner, would like to reiterate some of the concerns already gone over on
previous hearings held. The Administration has been working two goals in mind,
one is to try to retain the retail core, second is to try to promote office
development which will bring people in here, finally residential development which
will bring people on a twenty four hour basis. Unlike some projects, this project
tries to meet all three goals with one project. Going to have some vital commercial
space on the first floor, 78,000 total sq. at. of commercial space which will be
very important, plus office space, plus 34 condominiums. It is also important to
note that if Salem has one thing to offer, its history and archetecture. This
building, the architectural team has put together, the development team has put
together, have done a first class job architecturally. They could have cut corners
financially, but they haven' t done so. This building will generate in the first
year close to 250 thousand dollars worth of tax revenue. There is no question
that this is going to be vital to the expanison and enhancement of munipal services.
This building will give us much more than it will cost. We have been working with
this team for about 6 months now, we have had nothing but the utmost cooperation
from them. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: I am
curious, on the dark side, the inverted L, does any of that property belong to the
organization, whats in the back of my mind either loading or unloading zone.
Attorney Segal: there is a small part of that land that is available and there is
access guarantee for the very purpose. That's why we're asking for the variance
for 51 spaces because that's the very purpose of the small amount of space thats
in back that will be owned by the developers for that purpose.
i
MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986
page four
234 Essex St. - Continued
Mr. Fleming: I would first like to commend the development team, especially Mr.
Harrington who has worked diligently to resolve the parking situation. I applaud
the development team for trying to cooperate with the City. Would like to clarify
a few things. The preliminary report seems to indicate that a tiering is possible
in the School St. lot which would give the City an additional 85 spaces in that
location and my understanding is that there is state or federal money available
in the amount of either 70% or 90%. When you told us you would be willing to
participate in the tiering process did that mean financially? Mr. Segal:
that meant yes, financially. Mr. Fleming: Would you mind, if it were the
concensus of this Board that a condition of granting this variance be the tiering
of that lot? Mr. Segal: I would seriously resist that since we do not have
control of the lot and you would be putting a condition that would be something
beyond our control. Would deem it unfair as we don' t own the lot and we can' t
do anything to live up to the commitment. I would not accept that condition.
Mr. Fleming: when you approached the parking commission what number of spaces did
you ask for? Mr. Segal: 51 spaces. Mr. Fleming: that meets the one and half.
You heard Mr. O'Leary, he had a number in terms of 80 spaces, is that a problem?
Mr. Segal: that would not be a problem. Mr. Fleming: do you have any provision
in terms of covenants in terms of the ownership in the condo association that
would require ongoing, that it would be left in place. Mr. Segal: we do not,
we have not drafted our condo documents, I would also accept that that be a
requirement in the documents that those 80 spaces be maintained so long as there
are no other available spaces. In other words, if the tiering comes into effect
and we have a chance to acquire any of those I would want the condition worded so
we are not required to buy 80 spaces in garage or Riley 'Plaza. Mr. Fleming: at
least initially you would be willing to have that included in the condo documents.
Mr. Segal: no problem at all. Mr. Fleming: I don' t understand the term
sympatically impossible because of the railway tunnel. Does it mean that because
its there you couldn' t dig down? Mr. Segal: that was the new word I learned
tonight. John Cirvaster: that is the first word you learn in architecture
school, it is how you would build the building, what it means is, we would have
to take a good deal of the building down in order to do this, in our study we
recommended heavily against doing this. Mr. Fleming: in terms of financial aid,
would you mind that a condition? Mr. Segal: that again, I don' t like openended
conditions, it might never exist, it might be something so impractical for every-
bodies sake. Without knowing the figures I can' t make that kind of commitment.
Mr. Fleming: With the two story addition, I am concerned with Essex st. becoming
a Government Center situation, I use that term only because is you walk through
Government Center with a five mile an hour wind blowing it becomes like a
40 mile an hour wind tunnel, have you considered this aspect. Mr. Cirvaster: yes
we have, it has been prover, that wind velocity increases with buildings over ten
stories high in lower rise buildings you don' t get the same velocity. Mr. Fleming:
Will there be any work done in the rear of the building? Mr. Cirvaster: yes
there would. Mr. Fleming: you don' t have any renderings of this? Mr. Cirvaster:
we have some suggestions how that would look. Our attitude is to maintain the
classical building detail on the rear of the building that we have done in the
front of the building the building would then have no "this is the park of the
building they haven' t done". We feel there are going to be a lot of pedestrians
in the back of our building we are very sensitive to the treatment on that side.
There will be no exterior egresses, all will be within. Mr. Bencal: I think
the developers are working with the City and have shown a genuine commitment. The
fact that there is no opposition shows how far the developers have worked to take
care any problems that may have arisen. It is very good project and I would be
S
MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986
page five
234 Essex St. - Continued
very much in favor of the proposal as it stands. Mr. Fleming: initially I did not
favor this project because of the parking situation. I would like to clear up some
misconceptions, I would not have voted for the Norman St. project down there and I
don' t think that the mere running out for spaces in Riley Plaza or the garage is an
alternative that I favor, also, when Councillor O'Leary refers to the Peabody Building
I believe they are only required 75 or 80 spaces because they come under old con-
struction law and that would have been one per unit. I think I have been consistent
and I intend to be consistent. I would not vote for this variance tonight but for
the effort the developers made. I applaud the efforts of the developers. Mr. Hacker:
I think it would be inappropriate to compare this to any other buildings that we voted
on in the past. Each building has had its own unique problems and I think we should
conscentrate of this building. I am also impressed with the work the developer has
put into trying to work this out with the City. I think the building could be the
cornerstone of downtown Salem. I would be in favor of this if we could have a few
conditions. Should have developer pay for 80 parking spaces either in Riley Plaza or
the garage, if at a later date he's able to come up with the required parking they
could come back and have that condition removed. Would like condition that if partial
funds are obtained for the second tier parking lot that the cost be borne by the
developer rather than the City of Salem. Mr. Segal: I think thats too open .ended.
Mr. Hacker: perhaps you could help me work it, the problem I have is coming in and
finding its going to cost half a million dollars and we can get funding for say
four hundred thousand and the city gets stuck with the remaining. I'd rather have
you pay for it. Mr. Kavanaugh: the funding available mould be about 70% in which
case the Commonwealth would pick up 70% of the cost and City would pick up 30%. I
think what we might do in lieu of just stating that the developer will pay that type
of cost is some language that would suggest that if funds are made available an
agreement shall be made between the City and the developer in a fashion that is
mutually agreeable to both parties. That would necessitate a negotiation process
which the city would then have to agree to. Mr. Segal: thats fine. Mr. Fleming
made a motion to grant the variance from minimum parking requirements on condition,
the developers arrange for and pay for 80 spaces with the Salem Parking Commission at
either Riley Plaza or the Central garage; the City will not, now or ever, be respons-
ible for rubbish or trash removal; the mall area as indicated by plans are to be
opened to the public so as to assure access from Washington St. to the parking lot;
the rear facade be granted preliminary approval by the City Planner; if funding
becomes available for the tiering of the Sewall St. lot the developer and the City
hereby agree to meet and to arrange for financing of said tiering, building meet
requirements of building code and fire code. Mr. Bencal seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
23 Arbella St. - Robert B. Bowman
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a
three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a
letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney William Donaldson represented
the petitioner. They have owned the property for about ten years. This is a very
large house and at the present time it is occupied by two different families all in
the front part of the house and the back is not occupied. The house is very large
and it would lend itself to a division so you would have a first floor front apartment
a second floor front apartment and an apartment at the rear of the second and third
floors. Displayed plans to the Board.
I
231, 969 1•
[7 4,060 _
_ — gALEM p
ro a `" I DISTRICT 19-r CP 24
42 --=—�'I COURT 255T 49
4 s?o 42g 43l 432 50
1e
et so -Q:SB28 43Q 91
:7.95 3,4?. 4 1 2 �I D �` 34
D '4 — a8-D 4 -g . 3131 20
ZI 3504� �1 N 7' 276
C Z es 4490
ER^ 21 S 1°T ro 14, s, ,1 NI
R E E T 10-I2 ° 4-8 s.r I = 198 601 to 390
1 �-- N
0 J I 1"►.' I ' L 1' N E E 2 T . I _ +021 458 5- ' -jr
pq R ► N G Qe-e � t s I �/ 11,240
39 434 , ,9G-S z • 199 D e'-s
23/9 'iBB9 r,l u � S/5,870 19 I 9946 m 614
Gl
y � 1r W Nib N
T A N
j AR o
` PARKING
' v
435 15 Z T13M 3520 5 2� D
X 33
Y ' ALL r 2� 20
/903 37000 29430 -1 119165 105�
� LEM 13Y 1 itz 6O5 yc
e
62/3 z �`�IVD4
439 a. 12Y L 2609 - 2Z44 646 56 F9 _ I4 ,2027 a O 12 jje130• 3/572863 d1960 42 �zzo9-z,z e4 IM' s2 I sS JJJ -� so E
ja-2g8
2?0-279 266-268 �.- S9-256 2J0-2 '- 71e-zI6 =2
1
ze0 ♦� 54 244-249 242 240 234 I z3� 22< rl�
2„- 24'E X S TR F� E T� 23, zz - m
zez z,e-zei 8,.2, 2es•2ee 259-261 253-237 247 / tz P� �-
// 11 ✓h 937
11 , ez 1 1 e4 1 1 s ti I\ �1 Ss 1 s, 39 a 1 / , _tiy l Im 3 82 25� m
A
DATE:......... ...... _. .,_. .
APPEAL CASE NO. _. ...._ .. ..
t
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Undersigned represent that theY XX are the Owners of a certain parcel of land located
at NcV3 FEssex, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,Street; Zoning$, District.
-5? . . ; and said Parcel is affected by Section(s)YI Table
ICI, and OII C , _ , , , , , , of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 4Mb$bXXSgLXUKXO. . . .
w£xxkRx?xassaahmsBEzsxx:nrmxlnei u,a3,e�xrc�,axX
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
TO BE SUBMITTED
4
S_b r,
o
C"
_�
v U
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons:
DIRECT APPEAL
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance .and Building Code for the
following reasons:
SEE ATTACHED
Owner. Urban Develooment. Action Group
Address.5, Pirates .Lane , Gloucester, MA
Telephone, ( 617) 531-4147_ . . . .
Petitioner , Same . .
Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date p.5.
Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By Do q ham, ra partner
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of $ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News.
e
a
'�JA�N11M6�x'Y
CITY OF SALEM
MASSACHUSETTS
ANTHONY V.SALVO
MAYOR
December 2, 1987
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Salem Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
I am writing to endorse the petition for a variance at 234 Essex Street to
allow the development of a mixed use development within the T.R. Kerr Building
and on the site of the former Foodland Building.
Over the past several years, my Administration has attempted to initiate and
assist mixed use revitalization projects which will enhance our downtown economy.
As you know, several projects are now proceeding through the design, planning, or
construction processes. All of these projects will greatly improve our central
business district.
The proposed project involving the T.R. Kerr and Foodland properties is
vitally important to our efforts. This project will bring substantial activity into
the downtown area at a key location. Its completed exterior facade will contribute
substantially to the architecural quality of the downtown, and its commitment to
on-site parking is a very positive element. This proposal will also result in an
extensive number of construction and permanent jobs for our community, in
addition to increased tax revenues which can be utilized to improve City services.
This proposed project is a high priority of the City, and can hopefully proceed
as proposed. I strongly recommend that the requested variance be approved.
Thank you very much for your cooperation and assistance.
Sincerely,
Anthony V. Salvo
Mayor
M31WP
��t•.caw�gb�
CITi#V oftt1em, a� ttrhuett
.rs�' •.•- Aire Peparlr erd �Labquarfera
��LgNE
48 3�ar geffe ,'�;fred
Joseph F. Sullivan *Iem, ${tt. 01970
Chief
TO: Board of Appeal
FROM: Captain Turner, Fire Prevention Bureau
RE : Comments relative to December 2 , 1987 meeting.
The Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of Variances to
allow commercial and residential development at #234 Essex Street subject
to the following conditions :
1 . Plans for the proposed construction are presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
2 . The proposed construction shall conform to all applicable
provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 527 Code of
Massachusetts Regulations , the Salem Fire Prevention Code, the
Salem City Ordinances, and Massachusetts General Laws relative to
fire safety.
3 . The applicant shall arrange for an inspection by the Fire
Prevention Bureau upon completion of the work.
+ Offirt of the CtV if ouucil
a CHU all
4oq,,,y yD* WARD COUNCILLORS
LEONARD F.O'LEARY 1987
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT GEORGEA NOWAK
1987
JOSEPHINE R.FUSCO KEVIN R HARVEV
ROBERTE GAUTHIER VINCENTJ FURFARO
FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK
LEONARD F O'LEARV
NEIL J.HARRINGTON
JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU
RICHARD E SWINIUCH GEORGE P McCABE
JOHN R.NUTTING
December 2, 1987
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeals
City of Salem
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
I vigorously support the change in the variance for the Kerr
Block Development proposed by Mr. Michael Harrington and Mr. Donald
Burnham.
The sensitivity of the developers towards our downtown parking problem
is greatly appreciated. I urge the Board to unaminously support
this change.
Very ruly yours
KEVIN R. HARVEY
WARD 2 COUNCILLOR
.crnv,i4b
T. Ctg of Salem, � n55nr4U5PttS
%;�:�� Poarb of ( }ypral
NO�oms�Q''�
BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JUNE 18, 1986
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, June 18, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. ,
second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and
other interested persons. Notices of said hearing were duly advertised in the
Salem Evening News on June 4, 11 , 1986.
Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker, Luzinski and Strout
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the Chairman, James Hacker.
Mr. Hacker: if there is anyone present interested in number ten on the agenda,
Paulette Gebauer's petition for '357 Lafayette st. , that will not be heard tonight.
It has been withdrawn.
234 Essex St. - Urban Development Action Group
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from minimum parking requirements to allow
thirty four (34) dwelling units in this B-5 district. This petition has been
continued from the May 28, 1986 hearing. Petition was continued because there was
only a four man Board. Mr. Bencal read the application. Letters from: Diane
Pabich, 7 Summer St. , in favor; Richard Golick, 185-89 Essex St. ; Joan Gormalley,
236 Lafayette St. , Mary Roberts, My Florist, 99 North St. ; Robert Monroe, Derby
Square Book Store, 215 Essex St. ; Mr. & Mrs. Frank Gormalley, 13 Surry Road; John
Flarerty,27 Northey St. ; Donald Gerolamo, Empires, 133 Essex St. ; Roger L'Heureux,
313 Essex St. ; Fred Harney Jr. , 474 Lafayette St. ; Mayor Salvo; Richard Daly,
Chairman, Salem Parking Dept, Board; all in favor of the project. Attorney Jacob
Segal represented the petitioners. We have with us this evening, members of the
development team, particularly Donald Burnham from UDAG as well as John Cirvaster
from the Architectural Firm. Mr. Burnham is a native of Salem and has done a
considerable amount of work in the City, Mr. Cirvaster and architect with the
largest architectural firm on the North Shore has done extensive work in the City.
With Mr. Cervaster is Greg Warren from the firm. What I intend to do is to outline
and highlight certain aspects of our application and Mr. Burnham and Mr. Cirvaster
will briefly address some of the more specific items. We hope that in making this
presentation we will sustain the burden of showing you that our application meets
the requirements of Section 9 of the Ordinance. This property is located in the
B-5 zone, the purpose of the B-5 is Central Development District, which is intended
to be a composite of major businesses and residential. We believe this will be the
first structure that utilizes this zoning as was intended. There will be commercial
space on the first floor, general business uses and will be capped off by 34 dwelling
units on the top. With respect to the zoning this will be the first project down-
town that does untilize the B-5 zoning district. The building is very large and
prominent. T.R. Kerr' s is going out of business and that building will be vacant.
Encompassed in the building is what is referred to as the Foodland building, this
has been vacant for at least 12 or 13 years. I don' t this this section lends any-
thing, architecturally to the City. We will be using Riley Plaza or the Garage
for parking, which, as the Parking Board has indicated, there is plenty of room.
The garage in particular is underutilized, especially in the evening. We know it
would be preferable to have on site parking, no one would benefit from on site
parking than the developers.
Y
MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986
page two
234 Essex St. - Continued
Could on site parking be done at any cost it could be passed on to the consumer, the
architect is prepared and in December of 1985 he did a study which concludes it
is impractical to build underground parking at that site because of the proximatey
of the railroad tunnel. We have been working with the city and hopefully part of
the problem with be alleviate by putting in a deck of parking behind this site.
These developers will be most eager to assist in bringing this to fruition. We met
with the parking commission as far back as March of 86. Mr. Burnham, UDAG, Would
like to introduce John Cirvaster and ask him to explain the research that's been done.
Mr. Cirvaster: we were introduced to this project in the summer of 85 and we are
very familiar with the T.R.Kerr Building and the Foodland Building. We've done work
in Salem. We did the Beef and Oyster, we did the Lyceum, we've been involved with
this historical sense of the City. We went to the Essex Institute and researched
the building. We are going to receate the 1910 facade that was originally the Kerr
building. The foodland building is a 1950 vintage, an infill building that we felt
would not be compatible. We will bring it back to 1910 facade. We will be adding
two story mansard which would cap the building off. We're very proud of the way
the building came out and we feel it's going to be a very attractive building, the
materials are going to consistent with downtown Salem. Don Burnham, UDAG: the
reason we are here tonight is, basically we have a hardship, that hardship is one,
we have a 1954 building which we have to redo and to do it right will cost a lot of
money and by adding two floors and expanding the project will make this feasible,
2nd is parking, no on site parking. We have made arrangements with the City to have
parking but it will not be on site and that is the main reason and the only reason
we are before the Board. We comply with everything else. The area from the Masonic
Temple all the way down is going to be retail. He displayed plans to the Board and
the assemblage. .We are not dislocating any businesses that are there now. Finkles
will stay, Beneficial will stay and the Bootery will stay. Of course, by there own
choosing T.R. Kerrs is going. _ If they weren' t we wouldn't be buying anyway. The
other space will be available for commercial, retail uses. We wanted to add space
and this was a challenge. How do you add two floors without having the building
look like you added two floors. I think we have been successful. We haven't added
two floors, we've added a roof, that's what it looks like on this particular building.
We've tied the foodland building in with the Kerrs building and a mall area in the
middle. This mall area will be public and will shoot through to the parking area.
There will be office condominiums, many of the businessmen in Salem have already
reserved spaces. The upper levels will be residential. They are small in size,
they range from 600 sq.ft. to 1 ,000 sq.ft. That was by design, in this area we did
not want three bedrooms, or to have small children playing in the parking lot. This
is geared more to the professional singles and couples. Architecturally this is
going to blend in nicely with the Masonic Temple. Submitted letter from the Assessor,
Peter Caron, which basically states the estimated revenue this project would provide
for the City. (on file) Speaking in favor. Phil Mason, I am not a resident of the
City of Salem, I live in Peabody but I do represent quite a few residents of Salem
and businessmen from Salem. I am also a member of the North Shore Building and
Construction Trade and I would like to speak in favor. Our local union particularly
is very much aware of the situation in that section of town and we know the real
need for the revitalization of the downtown. This project is more than appropriate.
I think the developers have done everything to minimize the impact of the parking.
Paul L'Heureux, Lafayette Place, the increase in population will increase revenue,
will increase business, the parking issue is a small price to pay for the benefits.
MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986
page three
234 Essex St. - Continued
Pamela Gauthier, Vice President of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, our Executive
Director, Joan Gormalley regretfully could not attend this meeting, therefore I
would like to submit this petition in support of the project. Richard Denis,
10 Leval Rd. , in favor but I think it would expedite the matter if there was a
show of hands of who was in favor here tonight rather than having everyone speak.
Would that be acceptable? Mr. Hacker: no Councillor O'Leary, Ward IV Councillor:
I remember when this building was Webbers, I would like to see continued of this
building. I don' t think the City can afford another empty building, I also would
like to point out that this building does blend in with the Heritage Plaza West
and also with the Masonic Temple. I understand there is a problem with; parking,
well this Board here has granted off site parking to the Norman St. project, they
also granted another petition of the Peabody Block, which gave 90 parking spots,
it didn' t give enough for the building. I believe the thirty four spaces for
this project isn' t too many to grant for off street parking. I would like to may
be put something in there that they have about 80 spaces of off street parking.
I also understand they are going to pay prevailing wages which I am concerned with.
I think thats great. I am in favor of this project. Robert E. Gauthier, Councillc
at Large, I 'd like to commend the Board and I think all this that is going on in
Salem is because they did give the old telephone building the Variance on the
parking. It should the people in the Commonwealth that we want to work with them,
that we want to support them and the City wants to build and they want new citizen,
in here. I think we are very fortunate at this point to have two young people fror
Salem who put their future again in Salem. they are going to spend 10 million
dollars. Let' s hope they make a million. They have taken all the necessary steps,
they have gone to the City Boards, Design Review, Planning Board. As far as the
esthetics, we need it. You all know how I feel about having vacant buildings in
the City and how the City Council feels. I think, probably the ugliest building
in the City is the Foodland Building. This will bring people in here, people
bring stores. With enough people in the City, the retail stores will come back
so I'm strongly in support. Roger Pelletier, 7 Central Rd. , in favor. George
Gafney, 36 Lafayette Place, in favor. Dave Sultzbach, Story Rd. , in favor of
this project, anything that enhances the tax base is desirable. Jerry Kavanaugh,
City Planner, would like to reiterate some of the concerns already gone over on
previous hearings held. The Administration has been working two goals in mind,
one is to try to retain the retail core, second is to try to promote office
development which will bring people in here, finally residential development which
will bring people on a twenty four hour basis. Unlike some projects, this project
tries to meet all three goals with one project. Going to have some vital commerci
space on the first floor, 78,000 total sq. st. of commercial space which will be
very important, plus office space, plus 34 condominiums. It is also important to
note that if Salem has one thing to offer, its history and archetecture. This
building, the architectural team has put together, the development team has put
together, have done a first class job architecturally. They could have cut corner
financially, but they haven' t done so. This building will generate in the first
year close to 250 thousand dollars worth of tax revenue. There is no question
that this is going to be vital to the expanison and enhancement of munipal service
This building will give us much more than it will cost. We have been working witt
this team for about 6 months now, we have had nothing but the utmost cooperation
from them. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: I am
curious, on the dark side, the inverted L, does any of that property belong to the
organization, whats in the back of my mind either loading or unloading zone.
Attorney Segal: there is a small part of that land that is available and there i,
access guarantee for the very purpose. That's why we're asking for the variance
for 51 spaces because that's the very purpose of the small amount of space thats
in back that will be owned by the developers for that purpose.
MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986
page four
234 Essex St. - Continued
Mr. Fleming: I would first like to commend the development team, especially Mr.
Harrington who has worked diligently to resolve the parking situation. I applaud
the development team for trying to cooperate with the City. Would like to clarify
a few things. The preliminary report seems to indicate that a tiering is possible
in the School St. lot which would give the City an additional 85 spaces in that
location and my understanding is that there is state or federal money available
in the amount of either 70% or 90%. When you told us you would be willing to
participate in the tiering process did that mean financially? Mr. Segal:
that meant yes, financially. Mr. Fleming: Would you mind, if it were the
concensus of this Board that a condition of granting this variance be the tiering
of that lot? Mr. Segal: I would seriously resist that since we do not have
control of the lot and you would be putting a condition that would be something
beyond our control. Would deem it unfair as we don' t own the lot and we can' t
do anything to live up to the commitment. I would not accept that condition.
Mr. Fleming: when you approached the parking commission what number of spaces did
you ask for? Mr. Segal: 51 spaces. Mr. Fleming: that meets the one and half.
You heard Mr. O'Leary, he had a number in terms of 80 spaces, is that a problem?
Mr. Segal: that would not be a problem. Mr. Fleming: do you have any provision
in terms of covenants in terms of the ownership in the condo association that
would require ongoing, that it would be left in place. Mr. Segal: we do not,
we have not drafted our condo documents, I would also accept that that be a
requirement in the documents that those 80 spaces be maintained so long as there
are no other available spaces. In other words, if the tiering comes into effect
and we have a chance to acquire any of those I would want the condition worded so
we are not required to buy 80 spaces in garage or Riley Plaza. Mr. Fleming: at
least initially you would be willing to have that included in the condo documents.
Mr. Segal: no problem at all. Mr. Fleming: I don' t understand the term
sympatically impossible because of the railway tunnel. Does it mean that because
its there you couldn' t dig.down? Mr. Segal: that was the new word I learned
tonight. John Cirvaster: that is the first word you learn in architecture
school, it is how you would build the building, what it means is, we would have
to take a good deal of the building down in order to do this, in our study we
recommended heavily against doing this. Mr. Fleming: in terms of financial aid,
would you mind that a condition? Mr. Segal: that again, I don' t like openended
conditions, it might never exist, it might be something so impractical for every-
bodies sake. Without knowing the figures I can' t make that kind of commitment.
Mr. Fleming: With the two story addition, I am concerned with Essex at. becoming
a Government Center situation, I use that term only because is you walk through
Government Center with a five mile an hour wind blowing it becomes like a
40 mile an hour wind tunnel, have you considered this aspect. Mr. Cirvaster: yes
we have, it has been proven that wind velocity increases with buildings over ten
stories high in lower rise buildings you don' t get the same velocity. Mr. Fleming:
Will there be any work done in the rear of the building? Mr. Cirvaster: yes
there would. Mr. Fleming: you don' t have any renderings of this? Mr. Cirvaster:
we have some suggestions how that would look. Our attitude is to maintain the
classical building detail on the rear of the building that we have done in the
front of the building the building would then have no "this is the park of the
building they haven' t done" . We feel there are going to be a lot of pedestrians
in the back of our building we are very sensitive to the treatment on that side.
There will be no exterior egresses, all will be within. Mr. Bencal: I think
the developers. are working with the City and have shown a genuine commitment. The
fact that there is no opposition shows how far the developers have worked to take
care any problems that may have arisen. It is very good project and I would be
MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986
page five
234 Essex St. - Continued
very much in favor of the proposal as it stands. Mr. Fleming: initially I did not
favor this project because of the parking situation. I would like to clear up some
misconceptions, I would not have voted for the Norman St. project down there and I
don' t think that the mere running out for spaces in Riley Plaza or the garage is an
alternative that I favor, also, when Councillor O' Leary refers to the Peabody Building
I believe they are only required 75 or 80 spaces because they come under old con-
struction law and that would have been one per unit. I think I have been consistent
and I intend to be consistent. I would not vote for this variance tonight but for
the effort the developers made. I applaud the efforts of the developers. Mr. Hacker:
I think it would be inappropriate to compare this to any other buildings that we voted
on in the past. Each building has had its own unique problems and I think we should
conscentrate of this building. I am also impressed with the work the developer has
put into trying to work this out with the City. I think the building could be the
cornerstone of downtown Salem. I would be in favor of this if we could have a few
conditions. Should have developer pay for 80 parking spaces either in Riley Plaza or
the garage, if at a later date he's able to come up with the required parking they
could come back and have that condition removed. Would like condition that if partial
funds are obtained for the second tier parking lot that the cost be borne by the
developer rather than the City of Salem. Mr. Segal: I think thats too open ended.
Mr. Hacker: perhaps you could help me work it, the problem I have is coming in and
finding its going to cost half a million dollars and we can get funding for say
four hundred thousand and the city gets stuck with the remaining. I'd rather have
you pay for it. Mr. Kavanaugh: the funding available would be about 70% in which
case the Commonwealth would pick up 70% of the cost and City would pick up 30%. I
think what we might do in lieu of just stating that the developer will pay that type
of cost is some language that would suggest that if funds are made available an
agreement shall be made between the City and the developer in a fashion that is
mutually agreeable to both parties. That would necessitate a negotiation process
which the city would then have to agree to. Mr. Segal: thats fine. Mr. Fleming
made a motion to grant the variance from minimum parking requirements on condition,
the developers arrange for and pay for 80 spaces with the Salem Parking Commission at
either Riley Plaza or the Central garage; the City will not, now or ever, be respons-
ible for rubbish or trash removal; the mall area as indicated by plans are to be
opened to the public so as to assure access from Washington St. to the parking lot;
the rear facade be granted preliminary approval by the City Planner; if funding
becomes available for the tiering of the Sewall St. lot the developer and the City
hereby agree to meet and to arrange for financing of said tiering, building meet
requirements of building code and fire code. Mr. Bencal seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
23 Arbella St. - Robert B. Bowman
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a
three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a
letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney William Donaldson represented
the petitioner. They have owned the property for about ten years. This is a very
large house and at the present time it is occupied by two different families all in
the front part of the house and the back is not occupied. The house is very large
and it would lend itself to a division so you would have a first floor, front apartment
a second floor front apartment and an apartment at the rear of the second and third
floors. Displayed plans to the Board.
i
1 I
sous
SQUARE
PLACE _-
7 Salem, MA
9'40` E
?s.... .; �......................::.:
�•i:%tt': l pry; .F::i:4i:;'ri:;4:i:;
......•.::;:,
I 4Z
t 11 i
{
.4'. ...........
X
. - ., • :[ {:'.}:is ............................. ..............................
ia':i:v:::.?:. Oiiii: 'C'''i''i
�",�c.,���' :;}:;:{:;:J:i:':': >i'ii:.XPi}ii':4:•isL: : isisi>:>::?'C:?::S:i}<:i:C;:<::;.yt:;i.::}:!.:::''C:}:'>iii}:iL: iLiY}Y ii}ii?iii?i
\, ::. :::. ::::. ::::::::::::. r. .. F
x
6 4
�.
, z
--
�.
U Ta
i
-� Revisions
J ) 4R
N � . �
40 3 W
- - - - - - - - M `' y
CD 52
/X
I �, :�; 111 No. Date Description By
i I
1
1n x
- ` < >< < > >
- N
i
n
r
I (U MF
o %
4'
0`
ia:S . . S :i:ri:::. is. is......S:>;;:Y:i:;aii:;5: >i :::: r
v - --- -- -
+�— — --
�' l
a '
` ..... V
3/4' �Ci
to <>:>:>: < <:> .<:....:<:> : ::>:::> ::::
— -- :........................ --,—
i
�1
c;
a
v: 1
y CSS ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED
--- 59 -fit
— -
5 � > ✓�i + ' Cap�rate Place 128
' Audubon Road Bulldlny Two
P.O. Box 1460
I e Wakefield, MA 01880
Telephone (617) 245.8400
I
-': F
y
. I
I
I
93'-4
ESSEX STREET
I
i
I
Title
I
SITE PLAN
i
ale Sheet
Date
14, 918"J
7V
Drawn
Checked
g `
■
c
r
00 �j¢`OBE Ffy . 'gyp
6/, Y N A o
' I S 7. O B s 7B a 7� N s 3 3 ID E / I.YN 06 is v a orx 5y 5 t.
,y6 79, so
v .......... N
1 G Z
IN
ON Sco/s /' c 2000'
EV F_ NT Y WA SH ) NGTON w
Ib ; ? ✓ REALTY CONDOPAImiuM TRUST N E
7j 3 r
See plCin 30 io Flan l3k /i7:
h x u �
. aJ
} \-
n+ 3 uU
4 " M �
I S 8�- 2
y'16 /cce! r 9 P/
y
— iE
} / �sI SJ //.70 ' _ _ 'C' / :-'�� f\yQ 4- `r B - /.� E `r l9 Plon £� •A�"
/ s 69 v3 yo �•, p eb
tr J rrd/c ASS► \ E - -._i- - r .. /✓ �8 - -.ZfE�-' co'' h
3
area T � 0.80'Je.d - -- - - ---\ _- ( 1p _ 58, p'�'
7 C. ,1'e(4 _ � � $�c/e welt 8�
rr�, " r• ` r I^ Il - -/�rcrJ ► C P/cn A ♦ 1
� � p Pcl c • I P,I'q \
\ ., \C• \ _ . READ• Lo r
r'') see pra., by A pPPle/.,
17UA11C1,0.4 � \ l 5>`y - �3�;ck ria Aso .f 19ti2 ak ?�doPSo3 VJ
.s�
6 .�JB PA CI Ri<lAl LOT
S d 7• '17- /S,E
Arta F "— E k 3 4 o S P !4 3x , `.� • - - \ Y o T,c ► A 2 F a = 2 9 `f 3 0 t s t � y �°_ LL
�� •.
LYBB yD 35W 6.23' YL'H;4P[� COT \
� " dk 3yos P . y9 1 \ (' at n I HEREBY CERTIFY .
1 ASE P Y. o
B E •
! ° 3 .�1 � F� osu "D " �n \ /.floclz9. 3' o h, z 1. THAT THE PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ON THIS P141J ARE THE
I act /S O \ THEES REIEn DIVING TS AND WAYSOSHOWNNIAREATD THE LINES HOSE OP
? V) . 1 S +nFlAccefS o � o CbR PRIVATE STREETS OR WAYS /ALREADY ESTABLISHED, I
AND THAT NO NEW LINES FOR DIVISION OF EXISTING
e p R - - - - - - -- -- - - - -0 - - -- � - - - - - - \ " / --, GVNERSHIP OR FOR NEW V4YS ARE SHODUN HEREON.
ti I � J7 ' N" 86 . 3 / W55. 70 S//
5r;ck f- rs
C. 21 523� `
56.ye, 1Hcccrs - - 7 \ � �►/ 3reF/ Acceu O
R r1 , � f rEErc '////////� i7/ � ? 2 THAT THIS PROPERTY IS NOT 1N A FLOOD HAZARD
a 4' \�if1 G. Fr Acct ► / zF� Orcefs f- F/. * 26.75� j1 ZONE AS DEPICTED ON THE NUD FLOOD 1NSURA/vCE
�r `�Con> �Fto 2. �J J / ------ y Z QILO CITY FALL
P=_ Err,oie / -- \ 1 � 3/nt M ,; k� ;,. we 'l A44,05 FOR THE C/TY OF SALEIP7. CDM,Y7UN/tY "ZS0102A
V) one/ S
� I �� � � � otd dot t •nr 1 � oiJ �o+ �.... _ _-- ----- --- ' \r �" nln.th s%dc cn1•�once �Eff.`. C"T 1 VE /j`�<f?['A1 1.5. /577. .
-4 N� 6'"ofl` h.,dy 3'.,f !.'dy. ror ` f. C:/,,_ NN1/ j
Q M A N � � _10a E/te. 33. lS 3. TugT TNIS SURVEY WA3 Aczt//glty MADE ON THE GROUub
OETWEE11 Nou. 151 1985 AND Nov. ZDr 1166 • 4S )IFR RECORD
o /00 _ °� woo DESCRIPTIONS AND 15 iC TRUE RECORD Of CoND/r/o vl Fovvv
0 a `\ ^�., 0 3 '12 54 8 r ; c k
w y �. � ,� ,� � I o I, T 9T 7/MF Of SOR4FYj 7A0YSRf jgeENOENCRO/7CNMENTJ� IP/ GNrS Of• Wq)Y
M) Q O h R Q v S -- - - -- _-- cR FAS � M/`N7J of rPFCo2D frcEPr qt SYO[uN /yL/2EOAL
rV O r✓ow Pa F Ler t, eQe-e w
II b
l9 Yz
� tt � � >� h � ,C � 0. � � � � . ,_� •. .� --rram-� /�{j�,,
1 f` 0. �� 59. 8 ' .Ore ed_ «_ _ _ — la LOC. / /98(0 � � LJ�, � IP ID,4S
o r r1 Y ��77
Q h W W Q 1 < S (59 - 12 - 52 W
C m w tl w m DNA v vv v v v� x`� y �°
ac
k . -- -- — -- Q ti �, ,_. q t o f Il'6
r r a (I
NO, V rr�-- V
t�
3 `1oS P/v7 ;\��� I i ° C i h R� I)A v I D To Diz EA5 3 •O 3 Si BjC;Ck O
r3
// - , v im. ° •: n. ? 13 5395 r- 6z5 '(D
E ',ck , Ju141011790
.4 �1
6151 9226
\ ^ ` \o ` r . e .b•�50 ' `2c/6 r?yyt 4U �2/>'2 �136 ♦
`t260 ` co hi \ si d.r.'
2 56 1
�. . .. �. � ,'- ce 0.t2• C5o.71, _�_. - - - - - �,• _ - SSO d:rd , - � , , 53. 32 'rnJc+ .. �. .lC S.O -,-r - ,. .- , IiS :- . \ . 73. 8s`^ \ �. . \ . \ . �7-,_ /v 8�r-
7// Y TA,,AT 7N� P,4A,V COWF0RWS93. 35 ' £i
B9 - 3y w10 �. 7/ ' hcld 57. 7 'mre 588 - 35 . q,5 12790) t S 88 - 53 - 05 (elz7gs
f 6---Z-- bA, c��. o..a. �ol f; welt ro 'rs/E /juc E5 4AIP 1?E60k 4Ti ONS OF 7Wf
a geed 5 Cr .� conc
y,. N66 1ST"J A&F .DEEDS,
Na✓. zz. 1986
S T P L A N of L A N D AND BUILDINGS
�'AR 10TN IN
o- S A L E M , MASS . E SS E X CO .
-
-T , ` OWNED BY : CARE HARRIS , Trustee of
TOWN HOUSE SO . REALTY TRUST "�` 'QF-
5' F a
ti' �Srerl�/3 +b tom+
• �aa
Scale I-- -- S C ALE 1 = 2 0 � N OV. 20 , 1986CQI �.�
—__ -�__ [, .rr,,. of iJs!,Went
O 1 z Al..' N , >
y /Y P'" Q
/0000 ' SURVEYOR - DAVID E . BEEDE R PLS., PE 'L
_ , IN G M ASS .
� s R E AD x..
- '•--gyp•--- ..-. -