Loading...
57 REAR TURNER STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION �^?� J , r ,� �- _� } i .. zN `Vj . Y\i �trJ of � a'� �uttrh ut" ���Qttl A p�01V:EE E;Y..: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILLER WHARF MARINA F0$ A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 R. TURNER STREET a-: F L A hearing on this petition was held on May 12, 19$27iwith.the_fbU6i.41ng Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman, Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte and Feeherry. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published im the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. - The property in question is in an R-2 district. The Petitioner has requested a Special Permit to (1) validate the construction of an addition to a previously existing non-conforming use at the site; a snack bar, and (2) to extend and modify this pre-existing use by allowing the use of a different structure on the site for a dining facility. In addition, the Petitioner has in its petition asked for a variance to "operate a full service' marina including floating slips, gasoline and oil storage and sales, marine hardware and supply, haul-out facilities, sales, service, repair, and storage of boats and motors. .". The Board of Appeal, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the property, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There is no dispute that for many years a snack bar has been operated on a seasonal basis at this site. The facility operated out of a small building at the site and provided a limited amount of outside seating both in front of the restaurant and on the pier behind the snack bar This snack bar has operated each year from approximately May to October. Because of the nature of the structure housing this snack bar it had a fairly minimal impact on the area. There were a limited number of seats within the restaurant; thus, the facility had very few patrons during cold or rainy weather or late in the evening. 2. In October 1980, without benefit of a building permit or a special permit, the prior. operator of this restaurant/snack bar caused a substantial addition to be constructed at the rear of the property. This addition now provides 32 seats for patrons. 3. The addition in question constituted a substantial modification, alteration and addition to a prior non-conforming use by virtue of the fact that by providing a larger sheltered restaurant facility patrons could use the restaurant at any hour and in any weather. This has expanded the operation of this facility to the detriment of the residential neighbors. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILLER WHARF MARINA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 R. TURNER STREET Page Two 4. The addition to the restaurant has had an adverse impact on the area by increasing both pedestrian and automobile traffic, and by creating noise, traffic, parking, security and other problems which have affected the peace of the residents in this R-2 neighborhood. !- 5. In addition to requesting that this Board "validate" the addition to the restaurant, Petitioner's Special Permit request also proposes a further expansion of this non-conforming use through the use of a second structure on the property which would house approximately thirty seats. 6. The Petitioner's plan provides no detailed plans for how the property will accommodate the flow of increased traffic to and from the site. This deficiency in the Petitioner's plan is particularly troublesome because Turner Street in particular and this area in general simply cannot absorb any additional traffic. Turner Street is a dead end street with a major tourist attraction, The House of Seven Gables, on it. The street is adjacent to a large and developing commercial area.along Derby Street which is one of the most congested areas in the City. 7. The Petitioner's plan for this site fails to provide landscaping or _screening from area residences. The plan fails to propose any limitation upon the hours of operation of this expanded facility. In addition, the Petitioner proposes no improvements in the overall appearance of the property. The property currently has a substantial amount of debris scattered .about which is unsightly and particularly unattractive when compared to the well-kept restored homes in the area. Lastly, the Petitioner's plan for parking to accommodate restaurant patrons is wholly inadequate. In deciding a request for a Special Permit to alter a pre-existing non— conforming use, this Board must apply the following standard: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of non- conforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILLER WHARF MARINA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 R. TURNER STREET Page Three On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal finds as recorded in the vote stated below, (i) that the proposed use of the property will be substantially more detrimental than the existing use to the neighborhood, (ii) that the proposed use of the property will not promote the public health, safety, conveneince, or welfare of the City's inhabitants, and (iii) that the proposed use of the property is not in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Board, upon consideration of whether to grant the Petitioner's Special Permit request, voted as follows: Chairman Hopper and Mr. Feeherry voted to deny the Special Permit. Mr. Hacker-voted to grant the Special Permit. Mr. Piemonte.voted present. Accordingly,. the Board concludes that the addition at the rear of the existing restaurant is illegal and must be removed. Further, Petitioner is prohibited from expanding the existing restaurant into any other structure on the property. , . _- With respect to the Petitioner's request. as stated above for a variance to operate a "full service marina" including sales, service, etc. , this Board finds as follows: 1. This property had for some time prior to ownership by this Petitioner been run as a boat yard. Petitioner provided aerial photographs of the site taken in 1963 to prove this point. However, for several years prior to the purchase of this property by the Petitioner the property had a very minimal use. Those uses did not include, for example, floating slips, and engine repair shop, the sale of boats or the like. Accordingly, to the extent, if at all, that the property had a prior non-conforming. use as a boat yard, that use does not confer on the Petitioner any rights to use this property as a "full service marina" based upon a claim of a prior non-conforming use. 2. Petitioner's request for a variance to operate a full service marina at the site suffers from the same deficiencies outlined above in this Board's discussion of the Petitioner's request for a Special Permit. Petitioner's plan fails to adequately deal with parking, traffic or security issues. In addition, Petitioner offers no proposals to minimize the effect of the proposed "full service marina" on neighbors. 3. Petitioner offered the Board no evidence explaining the basis for the Petitioner's addition of approximately twenty floating slips in front of this property. These slips are not authorized by the Board's prior variance DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILLER WHARF MARINA FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 57 R. TURNER STREET Page Four for the property next to this parcel nor are these slips otherwise authorized by any provision in the Zoning Ordinance. The slips must, therefore, be removed. 4. Petitioner's proposal for "service, repair and storage of boats and motors at this site" fails to define where this work will take place, or whether there will be any restrictions on the hours of such work. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and other evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows with respect to Petitioner's request for a var:fance: A. The Petitioner failed to establish circumstances relating to the land or structure which affect that property but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the property is located. B. The Petitioner failed to establish that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as applied to this parcel would involve substantial hardship to the Petitioner. C. The Petitioner failed to establish that the requested variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the Salem Ordinance. Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted to deny the granting of the requested relief, the Board denied a variance to the Petitioner in accordance with the following vote: Messrs. Hopper and Feeherry voted to deny the variance, Mr. Hacker voted in favor of the variance, and Mr. Piemonte voted "present". r ; r r Anthonylf. Feeherrgq Seh'' tart''9. .. . u i_ [icy _. ,.J b«v l:':. L ._..J •.h_�..� b. . __. r.m.* COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PE'ANNTICG1B&RD AND CITY CLERK.