Loading...
394 HIGHLAND AVENUE - ZBA �95� ,������� � �l �' � -� (Plit of "Mem, '4 nnar usetts ' Pnttra of �r peal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JULY 23, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, July 23, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , 1 on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notice of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on July 9 & 16, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker & Strout & Associate Labrecque Mr. Luzinski, unavoidably detained. Meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Labrecque appointed voting member. ' Mr. Bencal made a motion to accept the minutes of the May 14, 1986 meeting. Mr. Strout seconded. Messrs. , Bencal, Hacker & Strout voting to accept; Mr. Fleming voted present. MINUTES ACCEPTED Mr. Hacker read a letter from Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , requesting leave to withdraw the petition, of his client Paul Ferris for a Variance for 3 Friend St. Petition having been withdrawn prior to the hearing, no vote was taken. 3 FRIEND ST. - WITHDRAWN 394 Highland Ave. - Michael Stasinos Mr. Hacker: I believe you are all familiar with the petition, it has been on going for the past couple of years. In May of this year, we denied Mr. Stasinos his request for 163 units. Mr. Stasinos appealed that decision in Court. On July 10, 1986 Mr. Stasinos had another petition before us requesting 193 units. The Board voted not to hear his petition on the basis he did not follow the proper procedure and obtain the approval of 8 of the 9 Planning Board Members. We are here tonight to discuss the possibilty of entering into negotiations with Mr. Stasincs. Basic- ally all we want to do tonight is decide if we should instruct the City Solicitor to negotiate on our behalf. Mr. Bencal read correspondence from Walter Power, III, Chairman of the Planning Board urging the Board of Appeal to take whatever steps are at its disposal to prohibit the proposed commercial development, and approve a compromise residential development (on file) . He also read a communication from Mr. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, also urging the residential development and recommending 17 conditions to be part of the decision. (on file) Mr. Hacker: I spoke with the City Solicitor and he suggested we advertise this because of the interest by the neighbors. I am not sure if our procedure is valid, if we should open this meeting to the public or vote to allow City Solicitor to negotiate. Mr. Fleming: I think the procedure is fine. It is appropriate to hear and certainly good to advertise. We should, have some discussion, then open it to the public. I have an additional 14 conditions I would like to see in the negotiations. I would favor discussion and I would favor opening this to the public. Mr. Bencal: I agree with Mr. Fleming, we should hear what the people have to say. I appears that the feelings of the neighbors may have changed and we should hear what the neighbors have to say. Mr. Hacker: I feel we should have a motion to open this to the public. Mr. Bencal made the motion to open the hearing to the public to hear if they are in favor of opposed to negotiation. Mr. Strout seconded. MOTION UNANIMI- MOUSLY CARRIED Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that what the Board was interested in was whether of not they thought the Board should direct the City Solicitor to enter into MINUTES - JULY 23, 1986 page two 394 Highland AVe. - Continued negotiations or not. We will hear from those in favor first. Speaking in favor: Wallace Miller, 7 Pyburn Ave. ; Wilfred Dupruis, 14 Madeline Ave. , Mr. Haskell, 4 Pyburn Ave. , not sure what we are doing. Mr. Hacker explained that all we are deciding tonight is whether or not to go along with the recommendations of the Planning Board and have the City Solicitor negotiate. Mr. Haskell, should negotiate. Terry Rillovick, 25 Appleby Rd. , Eva Miller, 7 Pyburn Ave. , Ms. Newton, 13 Pyburn Ave. , Vincent Amanti, 392 Highland Ave. , my mother and father own the property at 392 Highland Ave. and I would like to explain our feelings. We moved there in 1950 and there was nothing there, not very many people and it was beautiful. Then it was developed and that gave you people a nice place to live. I would like to see it as it was or at least stay as it is, but that's not possible. Something is going to go there and I would to see the best use and the best for the area. I e don' t think commercial is the best this for that area. I really think a nice development would be better compared with commercial. We have to deal with what we have. I think 125 units and with the conditions they have mentioned and with the conditions they will add, I think this is the best way to go. I have lived there all my life and I love it there. Barbara Nobel, 1 Savonna St. , Why isn' t Stasinos here? Mr. Hacker explained that the Board is hear to talk with the City Solicitor regarding negotiations. We could meet in executive session but because this is sensitive issue we put notice in the paper and notified the Councillors. Mr. Stasinos was not notified, no formal notice went to anyone. Barbara Nobel: why { not have single family homes. Mr. Fleming: Mr. Stasinos has said it is not conducive to single family homes, part of this is zoned RC, would not be financially feasible. Jim Nestor, Barnes Ave. , I am opposed to anything unless he starts to cooperate with the people. It is about time he starts giving something back to the neighborhood. He runs his equipment all hours of the day. Mr. Hacker: if we do nothing this evening he would be allowed to continue what he is doing. We have the opportunity to put conditions on hime. He has won in Court the right to build the shopping center, we cannot decide tonight he can't build the shopping center. Mr. Nestor: another thing is the blasting. Mr. Hacker: blasting comes under the ` Fire Dept. Mr. Nestor: I would like to see the blasting being supervised and the _ stone crusher not be started till 8 a.m. and be done by 5 p.m. I do not want the shopping center, no commercial uses. Joyce Nelson, 401 Highland Ave. , If it is commercial, I am concerned about not being able to get out of my establishment, would like you to negotiate. Ray Sawyer, 5 Pyburn Ave. , Theresas Nicgerski, 21 Mooney Rd. , would like you to negotiate and put more restrictions. Councillor Furfaro, you are talking about directing the City Solicitor to negotiate, how will these people know what happens, what if some of the conditions are deleted. Mr. Hacker: It would have to come back to us. Councillor O'Leary: some of the . residents think I sold them down the river, I simply want this done the right way. Since when does the City Planner speak for the Planning Board, when was this posted, who posted it, how could you post a meeting July 15th when the letter was not .- dated till July 21st. Mr. Hacker: we wanted to give the people the most notice we could. Mr. O'Leary: should you have been at the Planning Board meeting. When Mr. Powers says he is speaking for the Planning Board he is not telling the truth, only four members were present and only three of the four voted. I don' t think this is legal. I have questions about the City Planners letter. He displayed the Assessors Map, the only abutter to the commercial venture is the Amanti's. I think e you are trying to scare the people. What you are doing here is opening the door to other developers. You are saying come and get variances and not bother going to the Planning Board. Mr. Hacker: that is not what we are saying, we sent him to the Planning and one of the conditions is to go to Planning. Jim Crosby, owned and operated Crosby's Market, basically in favor of your Board working with the �' Planning Board and negotiate. It makes no sense to have a shopping center there. I Y L MINUTES - JULY 23, 1986 page three 394 Highland Ave. - Continued It is true I have a financial interest, but I used to live on Route 114 and I thank the Lord I was able to get out. That's what Highland Ave. could become. Richard William, 3 Barnes Circle, there is already a traffic problem, why isn' t there a light at Swampscott Rd. already. The City should have control. He has been heard many times and this indicates to me that he has no interest in building a shopping center. He should do this according to the rules. Lets look ahead, I want nego- tiations but I want him bound to it so there is no getting out. Mr. D'Amato, 30 Clark St. , would like to see single family homes. Stasinos has no concern for the people. Why doesn' t he talk to us. He wants to make money, that's all, condominiums are a better deal. I am in favor of negotiating but I don't think he wants a shopping center. Pauline Alexander, 12 Clark St. , will the noise continue while negotiations are going on? Also, he trucks are not covered, it is dangerous. Mr. Hacker: if you have any problems with what is going on there now, call the Building Inspector. If we negotiate for residential use it will eliminate some of the problems. Ms. Alexander: what if the blasting breaks something, who do we go to? Mr. O'Brien, City Solicitor: they must post a bond, you can get compensated. Ms. Alexander: the last time I had to take them to Court. Mr. Hacker: We could add condition that there be a Clerk of the Works, a representative of the City at the site all the time. Mr. Piccitto, 418 Lafayette St. , why doesn't this Board instruct the City Solicitor to enforce the laws. I say no negotiation. June Duran, Sophia Rd. , where is all the manpower going to come from? Mr. Hacker: One of the conditions would be to have a Clerk of the Works and the developer would reimburse the City for his pay. Will Jordan, Barnes Ave. , perhaps the only thing he understands is an injunction. Mr. Fleming: what he is doing there now, this Board has no control over. What we are trying to do is get some control by negotiating and the only way we can is if he agrees to our conditions. Mr. O'Brien: any violations of City Ordinances is the responsibility of the Police Dept. Mr. Jordan: the Police have been there and he behaves while they are there, when they leave it is back to the old way. A Clerk of the Works would cut down on this. Councillor O'Leary: you mention conditions, I have a copy of a variance granted to 2 Orleans Ave. , and there were conditions, they have not been met. Who will control these conditions, if these few conditions are not controlled, who's going to control all these. Mr. Fleming: that is why we will have a Clerk of the Works. Mr. Munroe, 1 Ravenna Ave. , there are two inspectors there now and he has them. in his pocket. No one on Highland Ave. has ever gotten away with what he has. If he can get two State Engineers in his pocket he certaily can get to. the Clerk of the Works. Negotiations no worth a damn. Mary O'Leary, 31 Barcellon Ave. , what about the Planning Board, what has become of them. Mr. Hacker: the Planning Board would do pretty much what we are doing. Mr. O'Brien: he has the right to develop this, he can do the com- mercial, he had the zoning change overturned so the new zoning does not affect him. Councillor O'Leary: they rezoned only the B-2, not the residential area. Mr. Hacker: the question before us tonight is do we try to make a deal for just 126 residential units or not? Councillor O'Leary: you did that at the last meeting. Mrs. O'Leary: is the Planning Board out of it right now. Mr. Hacker: yes, they are out of it. Mr. Fleming: if you would wait and listen to the conditions I am going to ask the City Solicitor to implement and if Mr. Stasinos accepts these conditions, we will be doing the job of the Planning Board. I don't think he'll accept my conditions, he is not going to the Planning Board because he does not have to. The .public portion of the meeting is closed. Mr. Fleming: this has been on of the most aggravating petitions to come to the Board. I have listened to the people and I think there is a common reason for them to be here, they want the less detrimental use. If we allow him to continue to go uncontrolled we are doing a disservice. I think these people want to preserve their homes. I would like now to MINUTES - JULY 23, 1986 page four 394 Highland Ave. - Continued read the conditions I would impose in addition to the 17 conditions listed by the City Planner. 1 . petitioner enter into an agreement with the City Solicitor for dismissal of complaint 86-1534, now pending in Superior Court. 2. Petitioner waive all appellate rights int he matter of his petition to the Board of Appeals, ,in a form approved by the City Solicitor. 3. petiitoner amend his deed to the real property located at 394 Highland Ave. , said amendment to be a covenant not to build on any portion of said real estate, other than on that portion utilized for 126 condominium units, said amendment is to be approved in form by the City Solicitor. 4. the petitioner deed to the City a total of three acres to be used for public soccor fields. 5. the Board of Appeal have the full time services of a consultant to serve as a Clerk of the Works, monitored weekly, to ensure that proper constructio practices are adhered to. Petitioner hall reimburse the City on a monthly basis, the full cost of such Clerk of the Works. No further development of the site shall take place until such Clerk of the Works is hired and is present on the site of the development. 6. The preliminary plan of the development, as has been submitted by the petitioner to the Board be approved by the Board of Health, Conservation Com- mission, Engineer, Superintendent of Streets, Fire Dept. , Police Dept. and School. Dept. 7. That prior to any construction, the petiitoner file with the Board of Appeal, a Definitive Plan, in form and with the contents required by Section III B. of the Subdivision regulations. 8. the petitioner, prior to any construction, file an Environmental Impact Statement, clearly showing the relations of the proposed project to the total environment of the City and its inhabitants. 9• the Petitioner ' upon filing of the Definitive Plan shall also file said Plan with the Board of Health. The Board of Health, within 30 days, shall report to the Board of Appeal the effect of the development on municipal sewerage system and whether any building on the site might be injurious to the public health. 10. petitioner file a performance quarantee bond, in an amount and form approved by the City Solicitor. 11 . the petitioner meet all the design standards for streets, easements, open space, and the protection of natural features, as set forth in Section IV of the sudivision regulations, final approval resting with the Board of Appeal. 12. Petitioner meet all the required improvements for an approved subdivison in relation to street and roadway, sidewalks, grass strips, monuments, and utilities, as set forth in Section V of the subdivision regulations, final approval resting with the Board of Appeal. 13. the petitioner complete all construction and install all required municipal services within two years of the date of approval of the Definitive Plan. 14. the petitioner meet all conditons recommended by the City Planner, and that they be annexed and merged in these above mentioned conditions. 15. petitioner work on the site only between the hours of 8 a.m and 5 p.m. , Monday through Friday. 16. the collection of trash and plowing be done for perpetuity by the Condominium Association and not the City of Salem. These conditions mirror what the Planning Board would be doing. It cuts him down and limits him to the 126. It keeps him from being able to come back at a later date and asking for more. I don' t want this to proceed any further without controls. I must agree in total, not just one or two of these conditions but all of them and any others the rest of the Board may want to place on him. He would have 30 days to agree. Mr. Bencal: I think the 30 days would be a reasonable time and in addition to the conditions of Mr. Fleming I would like to add that he agree 30 days from July 24th. r I would like to ask Mr. Fleming, should the Planning Dept. hire the Clerk of the works? Mr. Fleming: I want us to have control. Mr. Bencal: I agree the conditions of Mr. Fleming and Mr. Kavanaugh will be more than adequate safeguards and I would like to commend Mr. Fleming on the effort .he has expended. Mr. Strout: I have a problem with us hiring the Clerk of the Works, I think it should be up to the City Planner. Professionally, he is better suited to it. Mr. Fleming: I can understand t MINUTES - ULY 23, 1986 page five 394 Highland Ave. - Continued that but want us to have some control. Could amend my condition #5 to read, that we hire the consultant and have the Planner monitor it weekly. Mr. Hacker: would like one more condition, that the City of Salem, no now or in the future be responsible for trash or snow removal. Mr. Fleming: I would go along with that and we have done that in the past. Mr. Fleming made a motion to direct the City Solicitor to enter into negotiations with the Developer Michael Stasinos and that Mr. Stasinos must agree to all 33 conditions within 30 days. Mr. Bencal seconded. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED 204 Highland AVe. — Mary Jane & Robert Kart At the request of the petitioner's Counsel, Attorney John Whipple, the above petition was withdrawn. Petition was withdrawn prior to the hearing so no vote was taken. 51 Bayview AVe. - Gerard & Marian Hosman The petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear and side setbacks to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection, a letter from John A. McNiff, 43 Bay View Ave. , in favor. Mr. Rosman represented himself. All we want to do is increas the area of our kitchen. Would like to build a small addition. He displayed plot plans to the Board. Submitted two letters in favor, from, Kristen Wenzel who wrote for her mother, Ruth Emon McRae, 51 Bay View Ave. , and from William Leavor, 55 Bay View Ave. - Speaking in favor: Robert E. Gauthier, 52 Bay View Ave. , they are good neighbors and I am very much in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: are you just extending the small section in the rear? Mr. Hosman: yes Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition all work be done as per plans submitted, all construction meet the requirements of the Mass. State Building Code and the requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. and any new exterior be finished in the same material as the existing structure. Mr. Labrecque seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 70 Summer St. - Steven & Patricia Hemphill Petitioners are requesting a Variance to convert a four family dwelling into a six family dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating they had no objection but would like condition that plans are submitted for their approval. Mr. & Mrs. Hemphill represented themselves. Mr. Hemphill addressed the Board. We do have a hardship with this building, when we bought it it was in poor condition, was an eyesore. To this point we have put 50 to 60 thousand into it. He displayed before and after pictures. We got the porches back in a safe condition, got rid of problem tenants, during the rehabing we realized we would not have enough money to finish the exterior. We would like to removee what is there now and replace with clabboard. We have a problem with financing, The only way we can do it is to add two, one bedroom apartments. I spoke with the neighbors and they seemed to go along with this. First thing was the parking problem. I have leased six parking spaces from Rosemarie Spinazola, 58 Endicott st. He submitted copy of a letter from her certify that he had leased said spaces. (on file) I also went to all the neighbors that I could reach and I have fifteen letters from neighbors and abutters (on file) I have brought this appeal to the Board so that we may continue to upgrade this building. We will always keep parking available on a rental basis. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Richard Tardiff, 15 Endicott St. , I • i Ll � fff c� IPitt, cs5�TL1Tu5Ls ��, I�uningII�r� July 21,1986 Mr. Jim Hacker, Chairman Board of Appeal , One Salem Green IJ. Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Hacker: I am writing on behalf of the Planning Board with regard to the proposed development at 394 Highland Avenue. Over the past several years, the Planning Board has been peripherally involved in the review of proposed commercial, residential , or mixed use projects, and has also viewed with interest the deliberations of the Board of Appeal with regard to these same proposals. It is fully recognized by the Planning Board that, according to Chapter 40A of the General Laws, and because of a suit won by the petitioner within the past two years regarding the zoning of the land, the Planning Board has no formal role in the review and approval of any development project. . There have been, though, repeated questions raised by those involved in the review of the various proposals 'about the Planning Board' s thoughts on this project. In this regard, the Planning Board would like to convey to the Board of Appeal that it feels very strongly about the fact that a high density commercial development which can be built without any public review should be avoided if at all possible. A commercial development which could be constructed without public review would cause extremely high traffic flows and congestion which would be very detrimental to the City. Any substantial commercial development on this land would generate in excess of 13 ,000 cars per day. A major food store operated on the site, on a 24—hour basis, would increase that traffic flow to 25,000 cars. Such a development would also be constructed without any regard for the abutting residential neighborhood, which 'should, be protected in all possible ways. The City, quite appropriately, is now attempting to control and manage its growth. To do so, we must also take steps to control what takes place on this specific parcel of land. It is clear that a moderate density residential development would be far more appropriate to our needs and goals. With a proper buffer zone to protect abutters, the provision of open space for our City' s youths, and compensation by the developer for needed infrastructure and traffic improvements to address the impacts of all development on Highland Avenue, the City can make certain that its interests are fully protected, and a quality development will' exist. Most importantly, a residential development 4 r — Page 2— will guarantee that traffic flow will not be excessively affected. A ,-cod example of the difference between a typical commercial development versus a residential development is the fact that 25,000 cars each day could be generated with a commercial development, yet not more than 700 would be generated by a moderate density residential development. 11 IW e the'Boand of Appeal to In conclusion, the Planning Board would urge take whatever steps are at its disposal to prohibit the proposed commercial development, and approve a compromise residential development as recommended by .City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh lseewith attached letter) . Such a development will serve the City well, numerous public improvements to be implemented by the developer, at his expense', without the adverse impacts of a commercial development. Because of the preceding litigation regarding the denial of a variance request by the petitioner on a previous occasion, the Board would even support that the settlement of this suit be the basis for the approval of a residential development as recommended by Mr. Kavanaugh. The Boards onlyconcerns are two-fold: 1) that the City make certain that no commercial development takes place; and 2) that the e Planning Board be allowed to review and approve the site plan following your decision and prior to construction. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, it Walter B. Power, III t Chairman to - Ii ,n, _ -- , yev, �wi l n�. 0.w , arm e;v, n 1 - �I'�•�j Ay l i I1 7 1-�l ( to e CJyl fy11 ✓1 1 k vr. ✓� 3;: I' � , — Up� 1r�1� . .` G--K cs . . o.rtG -� - +;fL� QsaQs �LL� ct�i� r TdL-_cQ� Cft ,t'<-- N ,� )� (� 0r h _ S� T is t G ��� � �r� _ ��✓� � rem-��-�d ,�s d ro i � l rrO L Jam• iii � l �•/3 a ,,�:. .� L i-� � 1�v`-� "_G a ✓�5�—�S_C��� / C ar �Jt� `{ � e --� �a co A�V 61� J � _ d dl, l Cn inrrdaS II L� ju '� �' /' �. " -1-,irrv,r• �:iG'r� Y�l/'e-ate sL1�� Sln fJ t�-J /7j r p ' of n, -- r t1LAC 0. S 2✓� T11 •S h J 9 i / _ rT fA t� ---- '�oa�.l� •2r� 0�-�-�.1, �� " '�-2. ll C.sz, G,�. n �.�C;�.2� V - �. ft), Icl h --P0. _S'170 6n �i� 5 7ltilP�n iY—C-dy.sus i r r I � d N — cJ�c1—�ssouo��i�/n Gtr fi Is t I -- ;i,