Loading...
394 HIGHLAND AVENUE - STASIONS, MICHAEL - ZBA 394 Highland Ave.B-2/R-1 /RC ------ — Michael Stasinos BPD Rk, _ I a.Y(O�TIy4i THU of 'Salem, assachusetts Poura of �Pprzl m�ry l DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL STASINOS FOR A VARIANCE FOR 394 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM. MKPe p 12 J SO AMIS A hearing on this petition was held November IFJLB%85 and continued until December 4, 1985. Hearing was again continued until February 19, 1986 and February 26, 1986. At the February, 26, 1986 hEQTYng '4+iibLEtW44§1lowing Board Members present , James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski and Strout, the petitioner was unanimously granted Leave to Withdraw Without Preiudice. VARIANCE WITHDRAWN James B. Hacker, Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK JT TO SECTION 17 CF F c•- MADE PUP,SUAI DAYS AFTER THE DATE C. IF ANY. SHALL BE YYITNIN N CHAPTER BOB, AND SHALL BE FILED - - P.PPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, OF THE CITY CLERK. cc IN THE OFFICE SEGTI_ 11 THE \t."!.AN,,L Cr FENERAL LPYi S, ._t;cP.-.... c ..n. _. DF IHIS DECISION rs CHAPTEP, 80S ^FY C, =- _ H SE—RAL L?\. rT Ui.TI� A Cop, (1 _ PFF MASS SHAM NO1 T:SE EFF°- �� CEEN C:>'.'.i��,.D uP ;.RA;i?E -HEREI'6 2D I AIS HAeE ESA H ' F11 THAT IT INDEXED UN-ER THE NA4"'` .. FICP;ION OF THE CGS CLERK\ i`•AT ANO A,N APPEAL HP,S gEEt! FiOf DEEDS r CERTIFICATE Of TITLE. JF :HAI. IF SU:.:' SEX P.EGiSTRY Of SOOFH,ES AND NOTED DN THE OYIN..R'S OF RECORD IN i S RECORDED BOARD Of APPc.AL OF RECORD OR CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT „conn�it GERARD KAVANAUGH ONE SALEM GREEN CITY PLANNER 01970 qti (617)744-4680 December 4, 1985 Mr. James Hacker Chairman Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, MA Dear Mr. Hacker: At the request of the Board of Appeals, I have initiated an analysis of a proposed residential development to be located on a 25 acre parcel of land on Highland Avenue. As you know, the development as proposed would include the construction of 184 condominium units on approximately twenty (20) acres of land, in addition to the donation of approximately five (5) acres for the construction of two (2) soccer fields. The proposed 'development would obviously have a number of impacts which must be addressed. Such impacts must be fully researched, and mitigating .measures must be thoroughly defined before any approvals should be granted. In summary fashion, the following impacts are evident: „„.;. 1 . Drainage - A major portion of the drainage of the site will utilize the City' s existing sub-surface drainage system, including culverts under both Highland Avenue and Swampscott Road. Further research is necessary to define the impact of the development upon this drainage system and its culverts, and to delineate necessary improvements which must be undertaken to eliminate these impacts. 2. Waste Water - The proposed project will generate an average waste water flow of 40,000 gallons per day, and a peak flow of 150,000 gallons. The present sewer pump station located on Ravenna Avenue will receive waste water generated by this project. This pump station now handles an average of 288,000 gallons per day. The necessity of upgrading this pump station to handle the additional flow must be fully evaluated. 3. Density - The developer proposes to construct 184 condominium units on approximately 20 acres of land, with an average density of 9 units per acre. The parcel abuts an existing single-family, low density, residential neighborhood, and the impact of the proposed density on the abutting neighborhood must be evaluated. 4. Traffic - The largest impact of this development relates to traffic generation and circulation on Highland Avenue. Substantial traffic will be generated to and from the site, and the project will necessitate a new curb cut and additional traffic signalization on Highland Avenue. A major analysis of traffic improvements required both at the point of access to the project and along Highland Avenue, at various intersections, must be undertaken to mitigate potential traffic impacts. 5. Use - The proposed use of the land is not in conformance with existing zoning. Recently, the City rezoned a portion of this site for business and light industrial use. A determination must be made regarding the appropriateness of the proposed use of the land. 6. Wetlands - There are 2 acres of existing wetlands presently on the site. It is imperative that the development be designed such that these areas are retained to the greatest extent possible. 7. Site Design - The design of the development will be a crucial factor in the long term quality of the development for its residents and City residents who will be visually impacted by the development. Landscaping, the architecture of buildings, roadway design, emergency access, parking, and site planning are all aspects of site design which must be more definitively evaluated The City must proceed cautiously through the approval process of this or any other project of this scope. The City must define the impacts, the measures necessary to eliminate them, and the costs associated with such measures. Only then can the City make a responsible judgment on such developments. As a result, I would recommend that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the land and its proposed use. Through this request, all impacts can be addressed thoroughly. I would be happy to undertake this study, the cost of which should be borne by the developer. In addition, I would respectfully request sixty (60) days to complete the study. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Sin ly Gerar Kav naugh City Ian er MURPHY, RYAN & O'KEEFE ATTORNEYS AT LAW, INC. TEN CHESTNUT STREET JOHN E. MURPHY TIMOTHY J. O'KEEFE PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960 OF COUNSEL JOHN E. MURPHY,JR. JOSEPH CURTIS RYAN JAMES F. RENNICK (617) 531-1421 LYNDA M. MURPHY JOHN R. KEILTY December`/, 1985 IN REPLY REFER TO THOMAS M. DONOVAN FILE NO. NICHOLAS P. VONTZALIDES City of Salem Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 ATTN: Scott Charnas, Secretary RE: 394 Highland Ave. Salem, MA Dear Secretary Charnas : Kindly be advised that this office represents Mr. Michael Stasinos the owner of the property at 394 Highland Avenue in Salem, Massachusetts. Please be advised that the applicant for a variance for the above captioned property hereby extends the time for the Salem Board of Appe t ct pursuant t MGL, Chapter 40A, Section 11, until 19 `1 19a6• � Kindly contact me with any questions you may have. Very truly yours, MURPHY, RYAN & O 'KEEFE JO R. KEILT �7IRE /ams � � rVv ac/ ja. *NOTES - FEBRUARY 26, 1986 page three i % 3 White St. - Continued purchased the property it did not seem as bad as it was, he started work and ran into problems. If it is, in fact, a two family, the parking is not an issue. My problem is, the Ordinance clearly states if the building is more than 50% destroyed it must be rebuilt according to todays regulations and this is-beyond the 50%, I also have a problem with expanding the building. Mr. Hacker: the Ordinance says by any means. Mr. Charnas: I am confused about the parking. I am against this because it is such a small lot, it is a very densly populated area and there is no parking. Mr. Bencal: is Mr. Ouellette a builder? Mr. Vallis: he is a carpenter. Also, there is a letter on file from the City Solicitor that says he can go from a one family to a two family by Special Permit. Mr. Bencal: when he bought this building, couldn' t he see it needed all this work? Mr. Vallis: you can look at a house and know it needs some work, but you don' t know whats underneath until you get started tearing into the walls. Mr. Hacker: he has a right to build up to 35 feet, but where he is expanding and he has no parking, I have a problem with this. This is being expanded, doesn't that call for a Variance. Mr. Vallis: no, it is already nonconforming so it is a Special Permit. Mr. Hacker: if we grant this we will be making this lot more congested. I also have a problem with the deck. Mr. Strout: I am against the deck. Mr. Vallis: we would be willing to leave out the deck. Parking is not an issue. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant this petition on condition no deck be built. Mr. Bencal seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. SPECIAL PERMIT UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 394 Highland Ave. - Michael Stasinos ' This petition was continued from the November 11 , 1985 and December 4, 1985 hearing. The hearing is already closed. Mr. Hacker made note of correspondence that has been received but as the hearing is closed said correspondence is not admissable. This petition was continued to allow petitioner time to work with the Planning Board and to give the Planning Board time to make recommendations. Mr. Charnas read the report from Mr. Kavanaugh, the Planning Director, which covered the concerns with traffic, zoning, land use, neighborhood concerns and the exact definition of the proposal. Mr. Kavanaugh concluded this report by stating he could not recommend the approval of the variances requested, and recommended petitioner be allowed to withdraw. (report on file) Attorney Jack Keilty requested a continuance stating that several of Mr. Kavanaughs concerns could be addressed in a timely manner. We have withdrawn three times in the past. I would reiterate that we are properly before this Board and I know that Councillor O' Leary does not agree. I believe this Board can put conditions on. Mr. Hacker: how long would it take to address all these issues? Mr. Keilty: I think we can to di by March 19th. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Kavanaugh if he could do it by then. Mr. Kavanaugh: the pressure is on the applicant. I do have a problem with this being continued. Mr. Charnas: I would be opposed to continuing this, I think this work should have been done before coming before this Board. Mr. Strout: I would like to see them get together with the neighbors. Mr. Hacker: it would be to your advantage to withdraw, this is a four man Board, if one votes against continuing we would have to vote. Mr. Keilty requested leave to withdraw. Mr. Charnas made a motion to allow Petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. i•;essrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski and Strout voted in favor of withdrawal. j . UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN l j Ctv of ttlem, 4Rn59i1r4U5rtt9 "? Potts Of ' uV' Pr l kFrom�.v3`� _ MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - FEBRUARY 19, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, February 19, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on February 5, 12, 1986. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and other interested persons. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Members Dore and LaBrecque Fleeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Acting Chairman, Edward Luzinski. Mr. Dore and Mr. LaBrecque were appointed voting members. 394 Highland Ave. - Michael Stasinos This petition has been continued from the December 4th meeting. Due to a death in the family Mr. Hacker was unable to attend this meeting and as the previous meeting was heard and closed it is necessary for Mr. Hacker to be present to vote. Mr. Charnas read a letter from Attorney John Keilty waiving his rights with regard to time. He then made a motion to continue this petition until the meeting of February 26, 1986. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED TILL FEBRUARY 26, 1986 3 White St. - Robert Ouellette This request for a Special Permit to reconstruct a two story building and to add a third story was continued from the January 15, 1986 hearing. Mr. Luzinski stated he would not be able to sit on this petition due to a conflict of interest. Attorney George Vallis, representing the petitioner, requested a continuance until the next meeting as they did not want to be heard by a four man board. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this petition until February 26, 1986. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, 1986 11 -13 Bryant St. - Richard 'Varney Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Fire Dept, no objection and a letter from Richard Varney. explaining the situation (on file) . It was noted by the Clerk of the Board that she had received a phone call from an Attorney Coleman requesting this petition be heard later on the agenda , the Clerk was under the impression that .the attorney was representing the petitioner, this was not the case and the petitioner informed the Board they did not want their case put on later, they wanted it heard now. The Board ruled the petitioner had the right to be heard in the order they were placed on the agenda. Mrs. Varney represented herself. We bought this house for my daughter, when we bought it we were told the owner did not make it a three family because it needed additional parking. We put 1 in the needed parking. I believe it was a three family at one time, it is a full apartment on the third floor. We have parking for eight cars, there is a four car garage and room for four more, the parking area will be hottopped. 5f�iit of `�alem, ttsstttljuse#ts z' �nttrb of �upeal ffUmti. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - DECEMBER 4, 1985 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, December 4, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on November 20, 27, 1985. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Bencal The meeting was called to order at 7:OOp.m. by the Chairman James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 26 & November 6, 1985 meetings. Mr. Bencal seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 394 Highland Ave. - Nicholas Stasinos This petition is continued from the November 6, 1985 hearing. Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow construction of residential units in this R-1 /R-C/ BPD. Mr. Bencal is not voting on this petition as he did not sit at the November 6th hearing. Mr. Hacker addressed the assemblage. There seems to be some con- fusion regarding this hearing tonight. The public hearing is closed, there will not be any testimony taken. Mr. Charnas read a letter from Gerard Kavanaugh, the Planning Director (on file) . Mr. Hacker, addressing Attorney Kielty who is representing Mr. Stasinos, I understand you are aware of the letter from the Planning Director, are you willing to have this continued to give Mr. Kavanaugh the 60 days he requested in order to do an Environmental Impact Report and will you give us, in writing, a waiver of ycur,time rights? Mr. Kielty: yes we will do that. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to continue this petition until the meeting of February 19, 1985. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL FEBRUARY 19, 1985 164 North St. - Lawrence Russo Jr. This petition is continued from the November 13, 1985 hearing. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas will not be voting on this petition as he did not sit at the November 13th hearing. Mr. Bencal was appointed Acting Secretary. Mr. Hacker asked the petitioner is they had a parking plan. Mr. Luzinski: the parking was going to be made available to you, is that right? Mr Russo: Mr. Gauthier was going to give us a letter stating he would allow us the use of one parking space on his property. Mr. Hacker: do you have the letter n Mr. Russo: no, but I trust his word. Mr. Bencal: that's not the problem, we have to have something in writing. Mr. Hacker: it seems we are no further alon than we were last month. Mr. Luzinski: perhaps we could give them another continuance. Mr. Hacker: they have had a month to get something for us, we sho not keep continuing, it causes a backlog. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the property be owner occupied, be in compliance with laws relative to smoke detectors, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained an on site parking for five cars be maintained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED aitu of Salem, �fflttssar4usetta r S f e PII2tI�1 of Appeal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - NOVEMBER 6, 1985- A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, November 6, 1985 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on October 23, 30, 1985. Abutters and other interested persons were notified py mail. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member.Bencal Meeting was called to order at 7:00 by the Chairman, James Hacker. The Board congratulated Mr. Gauthier on his election to the City Council. Mr, Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes from May 15, August 14, and October 9, 1985. Mr. Gauthier seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 57 Highland Ave. - North Shore Childrens Hospital Mr. Gauthier will not be voting on this petition, Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to construct an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas. read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no \_ objection. Mr. Dennis Ingram, Architect, represented North Shore Childrens Hospital. On April 24, 1985 we were granted permit for an addition, since then we have looked closely .at the site and the previous location of the addition proved to be too costly. This addition would be the same as the previous addition as far as use. The clinics will be in the renovated, section of the hospital. Will be a two story addition, brick and will be in compliance with all codes. This highest part will be about 22 feet. Mr. Luzinski: the only difference is the location? Mr. Ingrams, yes. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr—Charnas: I can' t see any difference. Mr. Luzinski: except for the location and doesn'.t make much difference. Mr. Hacker: if we vote for this, can we void the other decision so they will not be able to make two additions? Mr. Charnas: we can't do that, but we can make a condition that no other construction be done other that this addition. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, no construction other that the construction referred to or described in the plans submitted to the Board with this petition be done without prior approval of this Board, all applicable City and State codes and requirements regarding fire protection and safety are adhered to and plans submitted to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to issuance of building permit. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 2 Hartford St. - Daniel & Linda Richmond Petitioners are requesting a Variance from side yard setbacks in order to construct a carport in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from Cthe Fire Marshal stating the dwelling is not in compliance with laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors. Daniel & Linda Richmond represented themselves. Mrs: Richmond said she did not understand the letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Hacker explained that they would have to go to the Fire Prevention and get a Certificate of Compliance, which will show they have the required smoke detectors. They agreed they would take care of it. Mr. Richmond explained they don' t have MINUTES — NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page two 2 Hartford St. - Continued a garage and would like a carport. This is the only feasible location for it, the area is hottopped already, that's where the driveway is. It will not be closed in. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: has there been a problem with vandalism in this area. Mr. Richmond: no. Mr. Hacker: you have a large backyard, is there any ledge there? Mr. Richmond: yes, it is all rocky. Mr. Charnas: With a variance it is necessary to show a hardship, I think the ledge in the back yard is a hardship, makes it unfeasible to put the carport there. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a Variance from side yard setbacks in order to construct an open carport on condition a Certificate of Compliance relative to the installation of smoke detectors be obtained from the Fire Department. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 2 Orleans Ave. - Robert & Carol Muise Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow an existing shed in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection, also, a letter from George Amenta, 11 Marlborough Rd. , opposed. Mr. Hacker: at this point, Mr. Gauthier will be voting, Mr. Bencal no longer a voting member. Robert & Carol Muise represented themselves. They submitted a petition in favor signed by all the abutters (on file) . Mr. Muise explained they , bought the house in good faith and did not know the shed was there illegally. We have a water problem in the basement so this shed provides dry storage. The neighbor who is complaining spends six months of the year in Florida, he only has -- to look at it for six months. The shed was there when we bought the property and as far as we know Mr. Amenta was there when the shed was erected. There is a six foot stockade fence all around. Mr. Hacker: I looked at the property and it is a very small yard, anywhere he put the shed it would be a violation. Speaking in favor: Mike Dennedy, 4 Orleans Ave. , the shed was put up in September of 84, Mr. Amenta was there when the shed was built, he did not go to Florida until Nov- ember, did not complain at that time. I have no objection to it remaining. Charles Baletsa, 10 Orleans Ave. , I certainly have no objection to the shed remaining No one spoke in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I sympathize with the petitioner and would like to vote in favor, the only problem I have is hardship; I could vote for this if it were a Special Permit. The house is nonconforming, if they attached the shed to the house it would then only need a Special Permit as it would be extending a nonconformity and I could vote for that. Also, would like to see shrubs put there. Mr. Hacker: I would like to see the shed shingled. Mr. Muise: don' t mind putting in shrubs and will shingle. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT to allow shed to remain at its present location provided that it be attached in some manner to the house, it be shingled and painted to match the house and shrubs at least high enough to hide top of the' shed. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 104 Proctor St. - Dr. Michael Kantorosinski Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a doctors office in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no ( objection. Dr. Kantorosinski represented himself. He explained he had recently `- moved to Salem to help care for his ailing father. He showed pictures and of the property, there is plenty of parking, we have just hired a landscaper and I will live there. We have worked with all the City departments regarding codes. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page three 104 Proctor St. - Continued The entrance will be from Proctor St. , could fit 15 to 20 spaces. Mr. Gauthier asked him to show, on the plans, where he could fit 15 to 20 parking spaces. He indicated the area to the right of the building as you are facing it. Mr. Gauthier said there was no way that many spaces would fit there without being piggyback. Dr. Kantorosinski said there was some land towards the rear that could be cleared for additional parking, it is just sitting there vacant. Mr. Gauthier: you don`t own that land, the owners may not allow you to use it. Dr. Kantorosinski: we have, hired landscaper, we could put parking on the other side of the house, which would be on the corner of Proctor and Highland Ave. Mr. Luzinski: how many doctors will be working there? Dr. Kantorosinski: I will be the only doctor. Right now there are three families living there, one of them is moving at the end of the week, another tenant is looking to buy their own place and will be leaving. The first floor will be .my office, second floor, my parents will live on and I will .live on the third floor. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Councillor O'Leary, he submitted a petition signed by 38 neighbors in opposition to this application. He also showed the Board copies of notices to vacate that had been sent to the tenants of the building. This shows no compassion at all for people. Also, there is a traffic problem, this is a congested area. Don't see how he will park all the cars he says he can. I am adamantly opposed. Should preserve the neighborhood. Councillor Frances Grace: I have worked with Councillor O'Leary on this. I am very bothered with these notices to the tenants being evicted. I was responsible for one of them being there, I assisted her in locating. This is wrong. Also, Proctor St. is a residential ` neighborhood , that intersection is one of the most dangerous in the City. I have family members who have expressed a desire to open businesses in that area and I told them, no way. Lets keep the neighborhood residential. For them to come in and evict three families shows a total lack of concern for people. Very very much opposed. Joanne Cunningham , 60 Highland Ave. , Don Famico, 74 Proctor St. , Jean and Joseph Donoghue, 83g Proctor St. , Robert Cunningham, 60 Highland Ave. , all spoke adamantly opposed to this petition. In Rebuttal: . Dr. Kantorosinski: as far as the eviction notices are concerned, the reason we bought this house was for us to live there, not just for the office, the important thing is, I would live there. The parking is ample. Yes, it is a highly congested area but this won' t make any difference. I will have office of first floor, this will not create a hazard to _anyone. The property was bought to have an office and to live in, it would fit in with the neighborhood. I am a Chiropractor, no hospital affiliation. We bought the house in June. Mr. Gauthier: shouldn' you .have bought the property on condition that this was granted .and waited to send eviction notices. Dr. Kanoroskinski: did not buy- this just for office, bought it to live there also. Mr. Hacker: I don't think we can .be concerned about the evictions. Mr. Gauthier: I he is throwing people out with malice, I want to know, it would certainly influence my decision. Dr. Kantorosinski: we have offered them help moving, no just throwing them out, if they don't want help we can' t do anything about that. Hearing closed. I do have a problem with the eviction notices, I would not do it, but he did and its certainly his right, the decision we must make is do we want a doctors office there. It is a bad intersection as it is. I am C concerned we might set a precedent. Doctors coming in and setting up offices and changing the character of -the neighborhood. I think there are plenty of places in Salem for this type use, he could set up. his practice elsewhere and make a good J MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page four C104 Proctor St. - Continued living. There is plenty of office space available in Salem. Also, he does not have a good parking plan. Mr. Strout: I feel the same, we could be setting a precedent. Mr. Charnas: I agree as well and I agree as far as the evictions but that is personal and should not enter into the decision, it does not effect my decision. Mr. Gauthier: this is badly congested area and this would make it worse. Mr. Luzinski: people are buying property and thinking they can do anything they want to do, I am against encroachment of business in the area. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition they be in compliance with all applicable fire codes. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 25 Wisteria St. - W. Burdett Godfrey Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing three family into a four family dwelling by adding a basement apartment inthis R-2 district. Mr. Hacker appointed Mr. Bencal a voting member. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. Godfrey represented himself. He displayed plans of the proposed basement apartment. Mr. Bencal asked him how long he has owned this property. He said since August. He showed on the plot plan where the parking would be for the needed six cars. Mr. Hacker asked him if there was anyway he could change the parking, the Board, as a rule, does not grant petition where you would have to back out on to a street. Mr. Godfrey: No, I can' t change it, it is already existing and this is not a main street anyway. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Dawn Moynihan, 18 Wisteria St. , there is a problem with parking in the neighborhood. I don' t know how many people are living there now, but there are an awful lot of cars there. Mr. Hacker invited her to look, over the plans that were submitted regarding the parking. Tom Moynihan, 18 Wisteria St. , I am also concerned about the parking. There are no other four family homes in this area, most of the houses are two family. Councillor Nutting: I am not here because I was tailed, I saw this on the agenda. This will certainly not help the area. It is close to the college and this will add to problems they already have. This is a well kept street, but very narrow with parking on one side only. I just don' t think we should increase the density in that area. In rebuttal: Mr. Godfrey: all the parking would be in the yard, would not park on the street. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I think this would be another case of opening Pandora.'s' Box, I am familiar with the area and I think this would be derogating from the intent of the neighborhood. I would be inclined to vote no. Mr. Luzinski: I agree, if I did vote on this I would want to see parking change. I can' t see increasing the density. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 58 Proctor St. - Robert A. Cohn Mr. Gauthier will be voting on this petition. Petition requests a Variance from density, lot size and frontage in order to construct a two car garage with an apartment above in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, dwelling not in compliance with smoke detector law. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page five 58 Proctor St. - Continued Mr. Cohn represented himself. I live at number 58 Proctor St. , it is a 7 room house, I lost my wife awhile ago and the house is too big, I would like to put up a garage and live upstairs with my son. My daughter is interested in living in the house. Mr. Hacker: do you realize you probably do not have two lots now, after so long a time, the lot line disappears and it becomes one lot. We may have to grant variance on the house too. Mr. Luzinski: are you planning on selling the house to your daughter? Mr. Cohn: no, I will continue to own it. Speaking in favor: Councillor O'Leary: Mr. Cohn has done a good job with this house, I have talked to theneighbors on either side and they have no opposition. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Hacker: I don' t have any problem with granting this, out he would have an undersized lot where the house is. Asked Mr. Cohn how long he has owned property. Mr. Cohn: about thirty years. Mr. Hacker: Don't think we can vote on this, we should allow him to withdraw and reapply so we can advertise properly. Mr. Charnas explained to Mr. Cohn that as the petition stands now, the Board cannot grant it, he suggested that .perhaps he could deed the property to his daughter and she could apply. Mr. Luzinski: couldn' t we vote for two structures on one lot? Mr. Charnas: was not advertised that way, don' t think we could. Mr. Hacker told Mr. Cohn he would be better off withdrawing, if the Board voted on this as it is we would problably vote against it. Mr. Cohn requested leave to withdraw. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED- LEAVE TO WITHDRAW 394 Highland Ave. - Michael Stasinos C` Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow construction of residential units in this R-1/R-C/BPD district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Attorney John Keilty, 10 Chestnut St. , Peabody, represented the petitioner. He displayed plans to the Board and to the assemblage. Submitted copies to the Board and displayed renderings of the proposed project. He explained, this is not a request for condominiums or cluster, it is a use variance. We will be putting in 184 units. He submitted plan reflecting the current zoning. Mr. Stasinos purchased the property from Mr. Fiore this summer, there are twenty plus acres, actually 25 acres. The density, going by the 20+ would be about 9 units per acre, 7 using the 25• Also, two soccer fields. We have met with the neighbors who are concerned about the utilities, density and a buffer zone. The soccer fields arise from the concerns for a recreation area, the utilities will be done in accordance with the City Engineer. The soccer fields will be deeded to the City. The water pumping will have to be retooled and that will be up to the City Engineer and Planning Departments. Each building will be minimum of 100 feet from property line and well over 200 feet from any dwellings, the only encroachment on the R-C area will be the tennis courts, etc. We will have to file with the Conservation Commission. The hardship is the zoning pattern, the intense traffice, not economically. feasible for single family. We will provide a recreational facility for the City. The plan makes sense, is compatible with area. The project would attract about 110 to 150 thousand dollars per unit, depending on the unit. Mr. Gauthier: will the surface water runoff drain back to Highland Ave. Mr. Keilty: yes it will. We thought about retail for this area but feel retail were be detrimental to the downtown area. There vZ11 not be any lights on the soccer fields. Mr. Hacker: there are a lot of C neighbors here tonight, they probably have some questions they would like to ask. Bruce McCrae, you are talking 184 units, how many cars? Mr. Keilty: probably MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page six 394 Highland Ave. - Continued be a little under 400 cars. Mr. McCrae: You people come in and build, but after you leave, who controls the security. What about traffic on Ravenna Ave. Mr. Keilty: the security would be the responsibility of the Condominium Association. There will be no cars on Ravenna Ave. Mr. Hacker: we could make a condition that the only entrance and exit be on Highland Ave. Barbara Noble, 1 Savonna St. Why are you giving the soccer fields to the city? Mr. Keilty: at the neighborhood meetings one of the concerns of the neighbors was the lack of recreational facili- ties. We had this land so why not give it to the City for these fields. It would also take care of any concerns about our coming back later and expanding. Ms. Noble: I am concerned about water, we have no pressure as it is, also traffic, security and snow removal. Mr. Keilty: as we said, the Condominium Association would be responsible for security, also snow removal. The traffic would be from Highland Ave. , the pumping station would have to be retooled in conjunction with the City Engineer. Mike Francullo, 19 Barcelonal Ave. , I think you are throwing a bone to the City, that land is probably not buildable. Where is the surface water going? Mr. Keilty: it is allowed to flow its natural route, some will flow forward. Mr. Hacker: this is a decision the developer will not make, the City Planners will make it, they have still got to file with many other City Departments and Boards, also will have to file with the Peabody Conservation Commission. June Veroit, Sophia Rd. , what about the water pressure? It is very bad now and this is going to take away from us. Mr. Keilty: we will retool where needed, some of the systems are deadenders. If the city gives permission we are more than willing to loop it, will be a better system. Ms. Veroit: what will be the access to the fields? Mr. Keilty: Highland Ave. Bill Antoniades, Barcelona Ave. , I just don' t get this, why can' t they build single families. Mr. Keilty: not economically feasible. Mr. Antoniades: Will there be blasting? Mr. Keilty: " - yes, this is controlled through the Fire Dept. Mr. Hacker: we can require a pre-blast survey be done. Councillor Nutting: How close are the homes to the development? Mr. Keilty: about 180 to 190 feet. Mr. Nutting: I would like to see them limited to five days instead of the usual six days for blasting. Also, have them utilize water saving devices. Councillor O'Leary: I received seven calls on this project and they had a lot of unanswered questions. Concerned about City services, they do prefer the fields over businesses in that area. They say they get different answers each time they ask about different things like lights on Ravenna Ave. Mr. Keilty: I don' t think I ever said thee would be lights on Ravenna Ave. , the traffic on Highland may warrant a light, possibility of a trip light, up to the state. I don't think the traffic count at Ravenna would warrant one. Councillor O'Leary: the 180 feet buffer sounds good, is this from the wetlands or what? Mr. Keilty: will be at least 180 feet from any homes. Councillor O'Leary: has the Board of Appeal ever handled a project of this size? Mr. Hacker: I don't think so, not in my time. Councillor O'Leary: I would like to see them withdraw this and come back at a later date when the questions have all been answered. Mr. Andoniades: gentlemen, at one point you said the lights had been approved, now you say no, I was there, it was stated we have approval for lights. Mr. Hacker: Councillor O'Leary, would a trip light be acceptable? Councillor O'Leary: I don' t know. Mr. Hacker: seems to me it would be a better situation if there was a trip light. Rich Crisco, 8 Ravenna Ave. , we all saw in the papter there would be a light on Ravenna, I am not in favor of the fields, when they are deeded to the City, the City will have the full responsibility for maintaining them, will there be a fence? Mr. Hacker: we could make a condition asked Mr. Kavanaugh the ,City Planner if that there is a fence. Mr. Gauthier: C there had been a study done regarding lights. Mr. Kavanaugh: not right now, it is up to the State and the City to sit down and plan for Highland Ave. to improve MINUTES - .NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page seven 394 Highland Ave. - Continued the light situation. Bruce McCrae, 4 Sophia Rd. , as it is now, we have to use Rich's to make a U-turn and there is the possibility that Rich's could stop us from doing that. Mr. Hacker: yes, that could happen. Mr. Antoniades: I am also concerned about the sewerage. Mr. Hacker: let's see if_ anyone here would like to be recorded in favor. No one spoke. Mr. Hacker: anyone wishing to go on record as opposed, give your name and address for the record. In opposition: Barbara Noble, 1 Savona St. , Mike Francullo, 19 Barcelona Ave. , Bill Antoniades, Barcelona Ave. ,_ Councillor O' Leary, Bruce McCrae, 4 Sophia Rd. , Vince Amanti, I am representing my father who lives as 392 Highland Ave. , right next to the project. Likes the idea of donating the land to the City but is opposed to this, this is a bad highway now and with the added houses it will be worse. I would like to see this project go, something is going to be built there someday and it could be something worse, we just think there are too many units, I understand he wants to get the most for his money but this is just too much. There are still too many unanswered questions. They still have a long way to go. Marjorie Holland, 22 Barcelona Ave. , yes they have a long way to go, when they go to all these other departments will we be given a chance to speak. Mr. Hacker: yes, at the Plannin€ Board, Conservation Commission, I don't know, but it is advertised. I would like to suggest to the Board that we continue this if the petitioner is willing to sign a statement waiving rights with regard to time, would like it continued for thirty days so the city planner can scrutinize it. Mr. Charnas: I would be in favor of that. Mr. Gauthier: if I voted tonight, I would have to vote against it. Mr. Hacker: the hearing is closed. The Board discussed the date of the December meeting and it was decided they would meet December 4th. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to continue this petition until December 4, 1985. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL DECEMBER 4, 1985 Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that the Board has continued this petition until the meeting of December 4th,,,_.. , It will be closed, which means no testimony will be taken. It will not be advertised. Hearing adjourned at 10:00 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held November 13, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, / Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk . B I , C_- CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT GERARD KAVANAUGH ?- ONE SALEM GREEN CITY PLANNER (' T _1 - 01970 `� 4f (617( 744-4560 December 4, 1985 Mr. James Hacker Chairman Board of Appeals One Salem Green i Salem, MA Dear Mr. Hacker: i At the request of the Board of Appeals, I have initiated an analysis of a proposed residential development to be located on a 25 acre parcel of land on Highland Avenue. As you know, the development as proposed would include the construction of 184 condominium units on approximately twenty (20) acres of land, in addition to the donation of approximately five (5) acres for the construction of two (2) soccer fields. The proposed development would obviously have a number of impacts which must be addressed. Such impacts must be fully researched, and mitigating measures must be thoroughly defined before any approvals should be granted. 'In summary fashion, the following impacts are evident: 1. Drainage - A major portion of the drainage of the site will utilize the City' s existing sub-surface drainage system, including culverts under both Highland Avenue and Swampscott Road. Further research is necessary to define the impact of the development upon this drainage system and its culverts, and to delineate necessary improvements which must be undertaken to eliminate these impacts. 2. Waste Water - The proposed project will generate an average waste water flow of 40,000 gallons per day, and a peak flow of 150,000 gallons. The present sewer pump station located on Ravenna Avenue will p � receive waste water generated by this project. This pump station now a handles an average of 288,000 gallons per day. The necessity of upgrading this pump station to handle the additional flow must be fully evaluated. 0 3. Density - The developer proposes to construct 184 condominium units on approximately 20 acres of land, with an average density of 9 units per acre. The parcel abuts an existing single-family, low density, �3J residential neighborhood, and the impact of the proposed density on the d� abutting neighborhood must be evaluated. 4. Traffic - The largest impact of this development relates to traffic generation and circulation on Highland Avenue. Substantial traffic will be generated to and from the site, and the project will necessitate a new curb cut and additional traffic signalization on Highland Avenue. A major analysis of traffic improvements required both at the point of access to the project and along Highland Avenue, at various intersections, must be undertaken to mitigate potential traffic impacts. 5. Use - The proposed use of the land is not in conformance with existing zoning. Recently, the City rezoned a portion of this site for business and light industrial use. A determination must be made regarding the appropriateness of the proposed use of the land. 6. Wetlands - There are 2 acres of existing wetlands presently on the site. It is imperative that the development be designed such that these areas are retained to .the greatest extent possible. 7. Site Design - The design of the development will be a crucial factor in the long term quality of the development for its residents and City residents who will be visually impacted by the development. Landscaping, the architecture of buildings, roadway design, emergency access, parking, and site planning are all aspects of site design which must be more definitively evaluated The City must proceed cautiously through the approval process of this or any other project of this scope. The City must define the impacts, the measures necessary to eliminate them, and the costs associated with such measures. Only then can the City make a responsible judgment on such developments. As a result, I would recommend that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the land and its proposed use. Through this request, all impacts can be addressed thoroughly. I would be happy to undertake this study, the cdst of which should be borne by the developer. In addition, I would respectfully request sixty (60) days to complete the study. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. J lyKav naugan er 'CON C#v1 of �llelll, rfflaSSar4 .1sP#is (office of tot Ctu (lloumil 7 ctu Pau6A�WMe�FyY' WARD COUNCILLORS JOHN R. NUTTING 1985 COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT _ 1885 GEORGE A. NOWAK JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO STANLEY J. USOVICz, JR. JOSEPH M. CENTORINO CITY CLERK STEPHEN P. LOVELY t FRANCES J. GRACE _ LEONARD F. O'LEARY JEAN MARIE ROCHNA JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU GEORGE P. MCCABE RICHARD E. SWINIUCH JOHN R. NUTTING December 4 , 1985 Attorney Jack Kielty Chestnut Street Peabody, MA 01960 Dear Attorney Kielty: a On Wednesday, November 6, I attended the Board of Appeals meeting for an advertised hearing on the petition of developer Michael Stasinos. Prior to the meeting I was told by yourself, Councillor O' Leary, and the proposed developer that a continuance of the variance would be requested that evening and the petition would j not be heard. i I stayed for an earlier hearing and after being advised by you and the others the petition for the Stasinos property would not be heard that evening, I left the meeting. I was totally exhausted and felt my presence would not be needed after being told the petition would be held over. I was quite surprised to read in the following day' s edition of the Salem News that the petition had indeed been discussed. Now, to further add to my disillusionment, I was told by Mr. Hacker, the Chairman of the Board of Appeals, that the public hearing on the matter has been held and I am now not allowed to give my comments on the proposed project. As you are well aware, I was the Ward Four Councillor when it was first mentioned to develop this parcel. I held several open meetings with the residents and the developer, and at no time did I get the sense of the neighborhood that they favored such a project of this magnitude. Due to the fact that my due process as an elected official has been denied me - and I cannot let my position on the matter be stated in public - I shall have to resort to a written statement. (OVER) 2 I firmly oppose the granting of any variance for this property at .this time. The number of units proposed, although scaled down from the original plans, is still too dense for the area. Too many unanswered major questions still remain to be addressed. Specifically, the volume of available water to service the area, adequate sewerage pumping stations, the flow of traffic on an already congested route , lack of traffic lights or inclusion of additional signals, and several others. My feeling is that the initial phase would have been that the Planning Board address these and other pertinent issues of concern to the abutters and surrounding neighbors. I fully understand that your client owns the land in question and has every legal right to develop it. However, until the concerns of the citizens and its elected officials have been met, I still firmly oppose the development of this parcel. �Sinc rely, � �C-EOj Frances J. Grad Councillor At Large FJG/pmb cc: Board of Appeals Neighbors AC L) �� ''re ALS MURPHY, RYAN O'KEEFE ATTORNEYS AT LAW, INC. TEN CHESTNUTRTET` JOHN E. MURPHY � i�� TIMOTHY J. OKEEFE PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960 OF COUNSEL JOSEPH CURTIS RYAN JOHN E. MURPHY,JR. (a ;Y' 0!, /lI_�.tI� t'SS; (617) 531-1911 LYNDA M. MURPHY JAMES F. REN NICK _ JOHN R. KEILTY IN REPLY REFER TO THOMAS M. DONOVAN February 19 , 1986 FILE NO. NICHOLAS P. VONTZALIDE5 Salem Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, . MA 01970 ATTN: Brenda Sumrall! RE : 394 Highland Ave . Salem, MA Dear Ms . Sumrall : Kindly note that this office represents Mr . Michael Stasinos of Lynn, Massachusetts . This letter will serve to extend to,:the Board of Appeals the date of February 27 , 1986 to act upon the application of Michael Stasinos pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11 . Kindly contact me with any questions you may have . Very truly yours , MURPHY , RYAN & O 'KEEFE JO R. KEILtl, ES IRE /ams i (111#v ofttXem, s�ttch�z�e##� ,. �°.����.Jr �jire �epartmzrit �IeaDquar2ers - _ ROBERT J. CROWLEY 48 �!A effe Sheet Alchief - $alern, cffia. D1970 Date: November 6, 1985 City of Salem Re: 394 Highland Avenue Board of Appeal Michael Stasinos One Salem Green Hearing Date: 11/6/85 Salem, MA 01970 Sirs: As a result of the notice received concerning the Board of Appeal hearing for the above listed name and address, the Salem Fire Department requests the following items to be placed on record: The Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of Variances to construct residential units at #394 Highland Avenue on the condition that all applicable City. and State Codes, Laws; and Regulations relative to fire protection and safety are adhered to, and that plans for such construction are presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Respectfully, Robert W. Turner, Fire Marshal cc: Appellant Building Inspector File Form #105 i 1 evvvdall eiy�a �7�� � \ c„ i '' � 'l , w ..a' �'..1 'v.� ,\ �� .y.�cam\: �•.� � ( _ . a � LLL•• ��: � �_` �j��:1� . �.t.'x,,, ^a�`,t-�� t_ � - i \ I� . cam.. � �..�:,�.• `E '•�- \ �� ' � .:. .. - � j... .. - r , a'�h.n. � � ... Y a w�•,l..j'4`Sa:.,._ `1) x w, +. :� '.a.., � �.`��t�'�- a4� "ti..a:•��',.~w'.,.^.. �}-:r�. ` \ � � �� t R f � � \ e�\ ♦ a �. \ `� .� w •. .t„�Z� :::..\ =Y-j.,i�` a�: �.� c.\�. �. \,�-. :,s'h'y°:` � >~ t . �. � -, ` .'<._� -_.,. -i � _ "`tea ..�ae_.::e`l :.�., �!--�; . t� tiS.-�,.._�. .� jl *-LY�,Ti,*.-phi— .,:�` �...;a'. �.'Zugl.y<-a�J `J;FS`..* , s, i ,_ n J- -�� }�, �* ' \ ` a\ _ - a � a 1