Loading...
394 HIGHLAND AVENUE - STASIONS, MICHAEL - ZBA (3) 394 Highland Ave. Michael Stasinos I I .- - - - -• - - \ Imo_ _ - - -- •- M� l i L f ;x (fitu ofttlempeal , � ttssttcltu$etts MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JULY 10, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Thursday, July 10, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said meeting was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of the meeting were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 26, July 3, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Fleming Strout and Associate Memhers Dore and LaBrecque. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Dore and Mr. LaBrecque were appointed voting members and Mr. Fleming was appointed Acting Secretary. 394 Highland Ave. - Michael Stasinos Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow a portion of the property to be developed as cluster residential units in this R-1 /RC/BPD district. Mr. Hacker: because this is a sensitive petition, we would appreciate a little quiet so we can hear. Please address you comments to the Board Members. Everyone will have the opportunity to speak. Each speaker will have a maximum of twenty minutes to speak. This is a very important issue, we have been here many times and hopefully we will resolve this tonight. Is the petitioner here? Mr. Stasinos, Attorney Keilty is not here yet. Mr. Hacker: we will take a short recess to allow petitioners Attorney to get here. Recessed at 7:10 p.m. Hearing reconvened at 7:40 p.m. Attorney Jack Keilty, Chestnut St. , Peabody, represented the petitioner. There is a substantial difference from the last petition. We now show 193 units and some office space. Last petition has less units and office space. This has been before the Board several times and was denied about a month ago. As a result of that denial we started a shopping center. Will have some warehouse area and the front will be entirely business and retail uses. Mr. Fleming: I am concerned with M.G.L. 40A s16, how can you ask us to reconsider this when the procedure requires not only that we vote that there is substantial change but there also be the consent of the Planning Board, 8 of the 9 Members of that Board must consent. Have you got that consent? Mr. Hacker: before Mr. Keilty answers, I asked the City Solicitor for his opinion and I have a written opinion. I would like to read that into the record. "Absent a directive from a court of competent jurisdiction the Board of Appeal may so act; but only after the following occur: 1 ) that by a vote of at least four members the Baord finds that specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based have occurred and describe such changes in the record of its proceedings; and 2) Eight of the nine members of the Planning Board consent thereto after notice is given to parties in interest of the time and place of the proceedings when the question of such consent will be considered." (On File) I read that to say they need both, but does not say which one should come first. Mr. Fleming: I very rarely disagree with the City Solicitor but this time I do disagree. Mr. Fleming read M.G.L. 40A s16, this reads, to me, that prior consent of the Planning Board is necessary. Even if we wanted, all we could do tonight is decide if there is a substantial change. Mr. O'Brien, City Solicitor: I first came into contact with this Tuesday, I responded to a request from Councillor O'Leary. I just gave him the two things they must do, the order of procedure did not come into it and was not mentioned until today. The better practice would be to go to the Planning Board first but as it has been MINUSES = JULY 10, 1986 page two 394 Highland Ave.- Continued advertised, I see no reason not to hear this and condition it on the approval of the Planning Board. Mr. Fleming: don' t you think we might prejudice the Planning Board if we made a decision tonight. Mr. O'Brien: You have a point but again, they could possibly influence this Board. Mr. Hacker: then it is your opinion it would be all right to hear this tonight? Mr—O'Brien: yes. Mr. Fleming: I am still concerned that the proper procedure was not followed, after a discussion I would make a motion to send this to the Planning Board. We could table it. I think it is the duty of the developer to have gone to the Planning Board before submitting application to us. Mr. LaBrecque: can' t we let them withdraw? Mr. Hacker: I don' t think that would be appropriate, I think we should take the advise of our City Solicitor. It is the system that anyone has the right to file an appeal, we should hear it. Mr. Strout: would just as soon go ahead with the meeting. Mr. Dore: I would rather the Planning Board advise us first. Mr. Hacker: we need a motion as to whether we are going to hear this. Mr. Fleming: very shortly I am going to make a motion to table this as proper procedure was not followed and it should not be heard tonight, if that motion fails then I may make a motion regarding substantial change. Councillor O'Leary: in doing my job as i Councillor, nothing has take as much of my time as this has, no one issue. It has been very difficult. People have been pushed and shoved. This was denied, now, using threats of a shopping center, they are back. Should start with the Planning Board, they should not try to get this passed by force, is seems it is the developer who is calling the shots. I got opinion from City Solicitor and called the Attorney General, the intent of the law is to have them go to the Planning Board first and E then come to this Board. Mr. Fleming made a motion to table this petition until the developer has followed the proper procedure and obtain the approval of 8 of the 9 members of the Planning Board. Mr. Dore seconded. The Board voted four to one in favor of the motion. Mr. Hacker voted to hear the petition. r TABLED 4-1 Hearing adjourned at 8:05 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday, July 16, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. , 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk v' 'i 1 2 Ii r 1' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT GERARD KAVANAUGH \ ONE SALEM GREEN CITY PLANNER (' Al 01970 _ (617)744-4680 July 21, 1986 Mr. James Hacker, Chairman Board of Appeal OneSalemSalem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Hacker: Over the past several years, the City, through its Board of Appeal and Planning Board, has entertained proposals for the development of the 26 acre parcel of land located at 394 Highland Avenue. You will recall that the City attempted to rezone this and other land parcels in 1984 to promote office and light industrial development. The owner of this parcel, though, prior to the rezoning taking place, was able to "freeze" the existing commercial and single family residential zoning, avoid the requirements of our new proposed zoning, and avoid a public hearing and public review process, as is now required. Since then, the developer has proposed various uses for the site. I have reviewed each of them, as has the Board. In any future deliberations regarding the proposed developmentf I would recommend to the Board that a residential use be allowed. If potential uses are analyzed from the perspectives of traffic generation, density of use, visual impact, and site design, a commercial use would certainly have a much greater impact upon the neighborhood and the City at large. A commercial use could be constructed without any public review process, of a scale detrimental to the neighborhood and the City, and would generate a much higher traffic demand. In contrast, a residential development would entail a substantial review process, would have a minimal neighborhood impact, and would generate substantially less traffic. As a result, I would recommend that a residential use be allowed, but only if the following conditions are also approved: 1. A maximum of 126 units shall be constructed, with such construction taking place on the northernmost portion of the parcel, as defined by the .f i City Planner. Such a density on the entire 26 acre parcel represents approximately 6 units per acre, or 7,000 square feet per unit, which is not dissimilar to the density of the abutting neighborhood. . 2. A neighborhood review process shall be initiated between the developer, neighborhood residents, and the City Planning Department, through which a neighborhood meeting, at the convenience of the neighbors, shall be held to review the project and its components; and necessary changes and alterations to such plans shall be made as requested, within the parameters of the approved variance. 3. The developer shall be required to contribute to any and all proposed traffic improvements in the Highland Avenue/Swampscott Road area, as defined by the City through its Comprehensive Traffic Study now being undertaken. Such a contribution shall be made according to a formula designed such that all developments within the surrounding geographical area shall fairly share such costs. 4. The developer shall be required to reserve a strip of land to be defined by the City, along Highland Avenue, for the future widening of the roadway if deemed necessary by the Comprehensive Traffic Study now being undertaken. 5. No commercial development shall be developed on the land parcel at any time in the future. 6. Three (3) acres, or a greater amount to be defined by the City Planner, shall be deeded to the City of Salem and be developed, by and at the cost of the developer, for outdoor recreational use and ancillary parking for such use, as defined by the City. The developer shall also provide screening, landscaping, and fencing for these facilities as required by the City Planner. 7. All exterior building designs, building locations, lighting, landscaping, infrastructure, and site planning and design elements of the proposed development shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Board. 8. A buffer zone of 200 feet, along the eastern boundary of the property, shall be created so that residential abutters of Pyburn Avenue and Madeline Avenue shall_ not be adversely impacted. 9. Landscaping to screen buildings from the Pyburn Avenue and Madeline Avenue residences shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and abutting residents. Such landscaping shall eliminate any visual impact of the development upon the abutting neighborhood. 10. No access shall be provided to the parcel other than from Highland Avenue. Any access to the land parcel from Appleby Road, Madeline Avenue, Pyburn Avenue, Ravenna Avenue, or Sophia Road is strictly prohibited. 11.No closure of the median way on Highland Avenue,.at the entrance of Ravenna Avenue, shall take place. 12. The developer shall relinquish his foundation and building permits which currently exist for commercial uses on the parcel. ;l 13. All water, sewer, and drainage improvements on the site shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planner and the Director of Public Services. 14. An assessment of impacts of the proposed project on existing infrastructure services, including water, sewer and drainage, shall be made by the City Planner and the Director of Public Services. Following such assessment, the City Planner and the Director of Public Services shall request any necessary improvements be implemented by the developer at his cost. Particular concern shall be paid to the potential need to upgrade the existing wastewater pump station on Ravenna Avenue, which, if improvements are necessary, shall be implemented by and at the cost of the developer. 15. All issues and concerns regarding drainage and wetlands shall be reviewed and. approved by the Conservation Commission. 15.The developer shall contribute funds required by the State Department of Public Works for drainage improvements planned in the vicinity of Rich's Department Store to eliminate drainage problems in this geographical area. 17. A written.statement of satisfaction of all such conditions shall be provided by the City Planner to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building permit. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this matter. Sincerely, Gerard Kavanaugh �S� City Planner ,r �0ARD o, aP P^HLS JUL 1 Z PH `35 We, the undersigned, believe that the so-called Stasinos propznty,3 CITY OF SGLFi 1,P�dSS. located at 394 Highland Avenue, should not be developed for commercial use, as the developer proposes, but for residential condominium development. NAME ADDRESS 7 0 A� u�� .ter-e1-�''�c-r�.o /-�' ✓i9 G_�.�2 . . vgrLit. ,l Vr r) Ave-- to 2 . � J i ..l We, the undersigned, ,believe that the so-called St-asinos property, located at 394 Highland Avenue, should net be developed for commercial use, as the developer proposes, but for a residential condominium development. NAME ADDRESS , r �771�.f 1 7 v- i r y 3 fa VennA 4Vel)4C4(- i - � - r.pr Ct.�iD C= tat'. _t,L Ju! 7 2 42 PH `85 We, the undersigned, believe that the so-called Stasinos p�ojerty:,3 CITY OF ii, 'a5S. located at 394 Highland Avenue, should not be developed for commercial use, as the developer proposes, but for a residential condominium development. NAME ADDRESS At y/1 . v f We, the undersigned, believe that the so-called St-asinos property,' located at 394 Highland Avenue, should not be developed for commercial use, as the developer proposes, but for a residential condominium development. NAME ADDRESS ����-c-amu. .w�zu,�, t �f -�-�-1 r,� 1 c'-L� • 3 faven oa %dei�uc .A� o: BOARD c APD74LS JUL 7 2 42 Phi 186 We, the undersigned, believe that the so—called Stasinos pro.perlCry:O CITY OF SALE11k MIASS. located at 394 Highland Avenue, should not be developed for commercial use, as the developer proposes, but for a residential condominium development. NAME ADDRESS ov 7 G9 L �Ur A v(f� y L � i0_� -A tr- We, the undersigned, 'believe that the so—called St-asinos property,' located at 394 Highland Avenue, should not be developed for commercial use, as the developer proposes, but for a residential condominium r development. NAME ADDRESS 7 -- ���-�/ate_, ��c:�--�—��� �/ G�-.•-2� -�_ ; 7 /"./1�-��\✓'rte � �" j%�''i"Lc1.3� ��.1� b.1e2 `YJZC L�t�i� ! S rn a,,ZdA-�' cz-� Mf�J ����'�, 3 ry avenn� �f✓er�� OQ S 6 MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN LEONARD F. FEMINO CITY SOLICITOR 'a q ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON LSTREET °'a°�y° 93 WASHINGTON STREET and and 81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915 745-4311 745-4311 744.3383 921.1990 Please Reply to 81 Wash ington'Street Please Reply to One Broadway July 9 , 1986 Leonard F. O'Leary ,iiBarcelona Avenue Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Councillor O'Leary: You have requested my opinion whether or not the Board of Appeal may act upon a subsequent application for a variance and/ or special permit within two ( 2 ) years of an unfavorable deci- sion on a previous application for a variance and/or special per- mit. Absent a directive from a court of competent jurisdiction The Board of Appeal may so act; but only after the following occur: 1. That by a vote of at least four members The Board of Appeal finds that specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based have occurred and describe such changes in the re- cord of its proceedings; and 2 . Eight ( 8 ) of the nine members of the Planning Board consent thereto after notice is given to parties in in- terest of the time and place of the proceedings when the question of such consent will be considered. The authority for this opinion is the first paragraph of G.L.c40A, s16. I am enclosing a copy of the same which is self- explanatory. /- Very rul "your 1 chael E. O Brie __ MEO/jp Enclosure cc: City Clerk Board of Appeal f 16. Final unfavorable decisions by permit granting authorities; reconsideration; withdrawal of petitions for variance or applications for special permit No appeal, application or petition which has been unfavorably and finally acted upon by the special permit granting..cr._permit granting authority shall be acted favorably' upon within two years after-the-date of-final-unfavorable action-unless WT-11pecra7 'per- mit-granting° authority- or permit granting authority finds, by a unanimous-vote-of-a-board'of-three members or by a vote of four m6nibers of a board-of ftw'members or two-thirds vote of a board of more than five members;sla3clflc and material changes in the condi- +S,)ns upon which the previous unfavorable action was based, and de- scribes such changes In the record of Its proceedings, and unless all but one of the members of the planning board consents thereto and after notice is given to parties in interest of the time and place of the proceedings when the question of such consent will be considered. Any petition for a variance or application for a special permit which has been transmitted to the permit granting authority or spe- clal permit granting authority may be withdrawn, without prejudice by the petitioner prior to the publication of the notice of a public hearing thereon, but thereafter be withdrawn without prejudice only pp with the approval of the special permit granting authority or permit granting authority. l/ 13u�� �n5 7,nsP•