1980-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Ti#g of �$ttlem, 'Mttsstttlfuse##s
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1980
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Wednesday, January 16,
1980' at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green for a public hearing. Said notice of hearing
was duly published in the Salem Evening News on January 2 and January 9, 1980,
and notices were sent postpaid to abutters and others in accordance with Mass.
General Laws.
On roll call the following answered present: Douglas Hopper, Arthur LaBrecque,
Edward Luzinski and Joseph Piemonte. (Mr. Feeherry and Mr. Boulger arrived later.
Mr. Hopper as Acting Chairman appointed Mr. Piemonte as Acting Secretary
and the Associate Members Mr. Piemonte and Mr. Luzinski as voting members until
such time as the regular members arrive.
136 Federal Street - Pace Properties (Owner) & Walter B. Jones (Petitioner)
The petitioner is requesting a variance from the 7,500 square foot per dwelling
unit requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, so that the premises may be used
by two families.
A letter was received from Mr. Walter B. Jones, A.I.A. , the petitioner,
requesting permission to withdraw the petition without prejudice, so that he
may re-submittat a more appropriate time. Mr. LaBrecque moved the petitioner
be given leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. ROLL CALL IN
FAVOR OF WITHDRAWAL: Douglas Hopper, Arthur LaBrecque, Edward Luzinski, and
Joseph Piemonte. UNANIMOUS
ic,F�4-kip*�'eat�Fici�k�Fkic�ci�lc�'rA-h�l ki�irk
3 Bedford Street - Leona Leon
The petitioner is requesting a variance from the parking requirements in
order to convert the one-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling.
A letter was received by the Board from John W. Cassella, 8 Beckford Street,
in opposition to the petition.
A letter was also received from the petitioner, requesting permission to
withdraw her petition without prejudice, as she has decided against converting
the dwelling into a two family at the present time.
Mr. LaBrecque, moved that the petitioner be given leave to withdraw without
prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. ROLL CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL: Douglas Hopper,
Arthur LaBrecque, Edward Luzinski, and Joseph Piemonte. UNANIMOUS.
*�Ya:k***�tieh'.�* icicicic�t�'rtc**aYAYc
��•
332 Lafayette Street - Louis Goutzos
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to use certain rooms of the
dwelling to carry on his profession as a photographer, he will also reside on
the premises.
BOARD OF APPEAL - MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1980 PAGE TWO
Louis Goutzos - 332 Lafayette St. (Continued)
Atty. George Vallis, 1 Church Street represented the petitioner before the
Board. He stated that this is a Special Permit use for an R-2 District. The
building will primarily be used as Mr. Goutzos' s residence. He has been a
photographer in Salem for 17 years, and wishes to conduct his business in two
of the downstairs rooms. The only other employee will be a receptionist. He
will be using less than 25% of the area for the business and any sign he erects
will conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Vallis stated that this is a simple
request, no hardship must be shown for a Special Permit, and the use is in harmony
with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hopper asked if the site plan
showed existing conditions. Mr. Vallis stated that the plans show 7 proposed
parking spaces, in an area which is' now grassed and has 3 trees. ., He stated
that there are a number of buildings on Lafayette Street with offices in them.
Mr. Goutzos, the petitioner appeared in favor.
Mr. Roger Estella, 29 Wisteria Street the abutter on the rear property
line appeared, neither in favor or opposed, but with some questions as to what
will be done with the rear of the property. He stated that there is about 4
feet in the rear of his house to this property line. His children play in the
yard and he is concerned about the cars coming in and out. The bank located
next to Mr. Goutzos's property has erected a stockade fence, which correct
problems he had with their parkers. He stated that the house is now occupied
by the Sisters of Ste. Chrietienne, and they have a chicken wire fence, the
area is grassed and there are 3 oak trees. He would hate to see the whole
area hot-topped.
• REBUTTAL: Atty Vallis stated he felt Mr. Estella's concerns could be
taken into consideration. There was really no need for 7 parking spaces, as
Mr. Goutzos only works by appointment,there would only be one customer there
every hour. He needs one space for himself and under the zoning ordinance
a ki space for his employee. He works from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. , no Sundays,
except for an occasional wedding party. Mr. Piemonte suggested that the
trees not be removed. Mr. Hopper noted that the spaces could be reduced to
4 and a fence could be erected. Mr. Estella stated he had no objection to the
Special Permit if these conditions were met.
Mr. Piemonte moved to grant the Special Permit. Mr. Hopper amended to
attach the following conditions to the motion: 1. There only be 4 parking spaces;
2. There be a seven foot green area buffer zone between the property line at
the rear abutting 29 Wisteria: Street and the parking; 3. A six foot stockade
fence be erected; and 4. The trees be left standing. Mr. LaBrecque' seconded the
motion. ROLL CALL TO GRANT THE SPECIAL PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS: YEA:- Douglas
Hopper; Arthur LaBrecque; Edward Luzinski'; Joseph Piemonte.UNANIMOUS TO GRANT
�cki�ch4e�CYc�k�F�Yck�i xn
4A Buffum St. Ext. - Michael & Joan Bick
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend the existing two
family house by the addition of a third floor apartment. There is sufficient
parking for the third apartment.
A letter was received in opposition to the petition from Frederick and
Leona Erwin, owners of Sonny's Auto Body, 7A Buffum Street.
BOARD OF APPEAL - MUNITES - JANUARY 16, 1980 PAGE THREE
• Michael & Joan Bick - 4A Buffum St. Ext. (Continued)
Mr. Bick represented himself before the Board. He stated that he purchased
the house about 2 years ago, and has had one unforseen thing happen after another.
The house was abandoned and he has had to replace the boiler and the roof as
well as re-finishing the inside to make it livable. He stated he wishes to
make the third apartment because everything is already there. There are stairs
to the third floor and there are four rooms up there. He stated that he has
plenty of room for parking.
Mr. Hick submitted a petition signed by six of the abutters in favor of
Special Permit. Mr. LaBrecque questioned Mr. Mr, as to who signed "Mason TanningCo.
by Joseph Jones" . Mr. Bick stated that one of the Joneses signed it. Mr.
LaBrecque stated that Mr. Joseph Jones contacted him by phone and stated that
he was opposed to the petition.
Mr. John B. Nutting, Councillor for Ward VII appeared in favor of the
petition. He stated that the Bicks have improved this property which was in
terrible condition . ' He stated Mr. Hick works for the Park Department, Mrs.
Bick for Salem Hospital and they have 2 children. They have improved and re-
furbished two apartments and improved the exterior of the house. He felt that
anything they did would only add to the area.
No one appeared in opposition. HEARING CLOSED.
• DISCUSSION: Mr. Piemonte noted that the parking seems to be sufficient,
and that there are other homes in the area as well as industry. Mr. Feeherry
agreed, but felt that a variance might be necessary instead of a Special Permit.
Mr. Boulger stated that the Zoning Ordinance was written to seperate
Industry from Resident. Industry has accompanying noise, dirt, odors, trucks,
which residents find objectionable. Mr. Feeherry stated he was in favor of the
proposal, and felt it could be granted under Section V Sub-section 10 of the
Zoning Ordinance, in that the extension was not more detrimental to the
neighborhood. Mr. Piemonte agreed, and noted that the Bicks have been the owners
for two years. Mr. Boulger noted that the Special Permit should be written that
the petitioners should expect noise etc. Mr. Luzinski stated the house was existing.
Mr. Boulger stated that the permit will be increasing density. Mr. Feeherry stated
that there was adequate parking. Mr. Boulger proceeded to read a court case
that was similar. Mr. Feeherry stated that 1`t-.was a variance case, not a
Special Permit. Mrs. Bick asked to speak. She stated that the Erwins were
very happy when they bought the house and it was no longer vacant. She could
not understand where one more family could be a problem. She stated that her
husband did bring the petition around the neighborhood, and someone at Mason
Tanning did sign it.
Mr. Piemonte moved to grant the petition on the grounds that it is not a
detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Feeherry amended the motion " that the petitioner
maintain four parking spaces". Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion as amended.
ROLL CALL TO GRANT: VOTING YEA: Anthony Feeherry;; Douglas Hopper; Edward Luzinski;
• Joseph Piemonte. VOTING TO DENY PETITION: Arthur LaBrecque SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
BOARD OF APPEAL - MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1980 PAGE FOUR
Mr. Boulger replaced Mr. Piemonte as voting member and resumed the Chair.
• 25 North Street - Robert Balboni (Petitioner) 25 North St. Realty Trust (Owners)
Petitioner is requesting a variance to use the building as an insurance
office. Variances were granted on January 18, 1979 for use of the premises
as law offices, and from the parking requirements.
Atty. George Vallis, 1 Chi ru ch; Street represented the petitioner before
the Board. He stated that the original variance was sought because three young
attorneys intended to practice law together. He stated that they have found
that they cannot agree and have decided to sell the building. They signed an
agreement in November with Mr. Balboni, but when the bank saw the original
variance which specified a law office use, he was unable to secure financing.
He stated that the petitioner's primary business is the sale of state life
insurance. He has a Boston office and this office will be used to meet his
clients that reside on the North Shore.
Mr. Vallis stated that the hardship still exists with the building. The
plans for the interior have not been changed. The building is ready to be
occupied. Mr. Boulger asked how many people will the petitioner be seeing
in a day. Mr. Vallis stated there will be two secretaries, but the petitioner
spends most of his time in Boston and will only be here to meet a client.
Mr. Feeherry asked if he will be having other people selling out of this
office. Mr. Vallis stated that he only has one associate. Mr. Vallis noted
• that there are 4 parking spaces, and on street parking, and requested that
the variance be granted for a business or professional office. Mr. Boulger
noted that the Board did not want to increase the density. Mr. Feeherry stated
that the previous variance was very general - law offices.
Mr. Feeherry felt the petition could be restricted to insurance office.
Mr. Boulger felt it should be restrict to Life Insurance. Mr. LaBrecque felt
with the previous variance granted if insurance office was added they could
rent the second floor to lawyers.
There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Hopper moved to grant the variance for use as an insurance office or
` a law office, but not both,, and only one agency or firm at a time. Mr. LaBrecque
seconded. ROLL CALL TO GRANT VARIANCE AS MOVED: YEA - Anthony Feeherry; Douglas
Hopper; Arthur LaBrecque; James Boulger; Edward Luzinski. GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY
The February meeting was scheduled for February 20, 1980 at 7:00 P.M.
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Theresa I. Carr, Clerk
•
9
CUM of 'Sulam, 'Maso 4u$E##S
Pmmb of Mvd
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1980.
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Wednesday, February
20, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green for a public hearing. Said notice of
hearing was duly published in the Salem Evening News on February 6 and 13, 1980,
and notices were sent postpaid to abutters and others in accordance with Mass.
General Laws.
On roll call the following answered present: Douglas Hopper, James Hacker,
James Boulger, and Associate Members Edward Luzinski and Joseph Piemonte. Mr.
Boulger appointed Mr: Luzinski and Mr. Piemonte as voting members for the meeting.
Mr. Piemonte moved acceptance of the minutes of the January meeting, with
correction of Mr. LaBrecque' s name. Mr. Hopper seconded. Voted.
132 Bridge Street - Mickey Benson
The petitioner is requesting a variance to use the property, which is in
an R-2 District for a bicycle sales and service business. He is also requesting
a variance from the parking requirements.
The petitioner represented himself before the Board. He stated that he
•' and his wife have just moved from Chicago, and wish to set up this business to
encourage the use of bicycles. There will be no motorized bikes. He is in the
process of buying the property, subject to the granting of the requested variances.
He submitted pictures of the locus as it is now and as they intent to remodel
it. He stated that in the past it was a grocery store, and he feels that this
business will have similar traffic patterns. He also stated that he would prefer
to use on the street parking rather than the parking spaces shown on the plot
plan, which would require backingion to Bridge Street. He intends to have a
bike rack to encourage customers to come to the shop on their bikes.
Mr. William Kozek of Woodbury Court appeared in favor. John Nestor, Councillor
of Ward 2 appeared for his constiuents, who are in favor provided there are no
motorized bikes. The neighbors would also like to see the parking requirements
waivered. Mrs. Doris Dunham, 131 Bridge Street appeared in favor. She stated
she is concerned 'about the hazards of the intersection. She is glad there is
no parking on that side of Bridge St. and is in favor of waivering the parking
requirements for this business in order to keep it that way. Mrs. Elizabeth
Little of 130 Bridge St. appeared in favor.
There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boulger stated that in no case should the petitioner be
allowed to use the spaces on the property, which would have to back on to Bridge
Street. The Board could deny the use of parking on the lot and let the petitioner
use street parking, which is available on Northey and Winter Streets. Mr.
• Piemonte asked the petitioner if the parking is restricted, would the business
still be viable? Mr. Benson stated he would prefer that his customers use the
on the street parking and the business would still prosper at this location.
(ditg of Attlem, 'Mttssac4usetts
Pawa Vf Mat
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1980 PAGE TWO
132 ,4- St. (Continued)
Mr. Piemonte asked the hours of operation. Mr. Benson stated probably 10:A.M.
to 6:00 or 8:00 P'.M. , he is not yet familiar with the local store hours. Only
he and his wife will be working in the business. Mr. Luzinski asked where he
will be living. Mr. Benson stated,he was not sure, as they just sold their
home in Chicago. Mr. Luzinski stated the petitioner could put bike racks
on the side of the building, instead of parking spaces for cars.
Mr. Piemonte moved a variance be granted to operate a bicycle sales and
service business at 132 Bridge Street, and a variance from the parking requirement
subject to the following conditions: 1. The spaces on the property be used for
a bike rack, not the parking of cars; and 2. There be no sales or servicing of
motorized bikes. Mr. Hacker seconded the motion. ROLL CALL - VOTING TO GRANT:
Mr. Hopper, Mr, Hacker, Mr. Boulger, Mr. Luzinski and Mr. Piemonte. GRANTED
UNANIMOUSLY WITH CONDITIONS.
• Phyl-Gerald Realty Trust - 105-107 Essex Street
The petition is requesting a variance to allow the premises, which is zoned
R-2, to be used permanently for the conducting of retail businesses.
Arty. Spencer Kagan, One Orr Square, Revere, represented the petitioner
before the Board. He stated there are 7 apartments on the upper floors of the
building, and there are small retail businesses on the first floor, which enter on
Essex Street. He stated that the owners of the property have had to keep coming
back to the Appeal Board every time the tenants change for Special Permits. They
would like a variance to allow the premises to be used permanently for the conducting
of "retailing businesses." He stated that there is ample parking in the Hawthorne
Hotel lot and at street meters. Mr. Dinerman, Treasurer of Phyl-Gerald Realty
Trust appeared in favor. Mr. Luzinski asked how many years the petitioner owned
the building. One Year.
Mr. Mansur, Asst. Building Inspector asked the Board, if they grant the
petition to give some indication as to the types of businesses it can be used for.
There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boulger stated that he feel that any retail use granted by
the Board should remain a Special Permit, and that the Board could not justify
the granting of such broad powers to the petitioner. Mr. Hopper stated that
the Board could specify certain uses from the Zoning Ordinance. Mr, Boulger felt
the tenants could come in every year if necessary. Mr. Hopper said the permitted
uses for B-1 could restrict the uses for this R-2 in granting a variance. Mr.
• Piemonte stated he could understand the inconvenience of the petitioner, but feels
that if the Board gave "carte blanche" permission to them, they would be doing
a disservice to the community. Mr. Luzinski noted that the problem should not
come up every year.
01i#g of �$ttlem, 'Mttselar4use#s
Ppb Vf Affvd
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1980 PAGE THREE
105'=107 Essex Street (Continued)
Mr. Boulger moved the petition be denied because the powers that would
be given the petitioners would be too broad, and it would be a detriment to
the community. Mr. Piemonte seconded. ROLL CALL TO DENY: Mr. Hacker; Mr.
Boulger; Mr. Luzinski and Mr. Piemonte. VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION TO DENY:
Mr. Hopper. PETITION DENIED - R.C.V 4 YEAS 1 NAY
ic*�k**�Y4c�hkxk�Y*�hk�'.Ycinl-xirk�l hick�cicic*
140-142-144 Bridge Street - Salem Bridge St. Realty Trust (William S. Hawkes, Tr.)
Petitioner is requesting variances to place three multi-family dwellings
located at the above address (R-2 District) on separate lots, thereby requiring
variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling, minimum lot
width, minimum lot coverage, minimum front, side and rear yard set backs with
respect to each newly created lot, in accordance with plans on file.
Mr. William S. Hawkes, 86 Hesperis Ave. , Magnolia, the petitioner appeared
• before the Board to present his case. He stated that he bought these three
houseslast Oct, at which time they were the worst three houses on Bridge Street.
He has since painted, repaired and landscaped the property. As they now stand,
the houses could not be sold separately as they are all on one lot. Mr. Luzinski
asked why he wanted to separate them. Mr. Hawkes stated that the banks want
the houses on separate lots before they will finance them. Mr. Boulger noted
that there is only a 4 foot right of way to the house in the rear.
Atty. John D. Hodges, 63 Main St. Gloucester, speaking for the petitioner
stated that the houses have existed since the early 1900's and the petitioner
is just trying to separate them. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Luzinski moved that the hearing be continued at the next meeting and the
Planning Board and Fire Marshal be requested fo give written comments on the
petition, after reviewing the plans. Atty. Hodges requested that copies of
comments be forwarded to him and the petitioner. Continuation voted.
*it nett*�Ytirkirk�:t��k*icfrlc*al xx��Yh:c
481 Highland Avenue - Walter Proodian
The petitioner is requesting a variance to place a 24 foot by 24 foot
prefabricated garage on the undersized lot, said lot to be used for the sale
of cars.
Atty. Irving Kane, 89 Broad St. , Lynn represented the petitioner before
the Board. He stated that the Proodian family has owned the lot, and the
• adjacent lot for many years. They had a 20 year lease with the Jenny Co, for
the adjacent lot, and since that recently expired, they converted the building
and lease to Mr. Saunders Tuxedo. He submitted a picture of the location
showing the improvement made to the site. He stated that the lot in question
is presently used for storage by an equipment company and this equipment will
be moved off and the lot improved by the establishment of this new business.
,f
Q1itg of �$ttlem, Massttr*ttts,
• �;a s Pmb of Meal
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1980
481 Highland Avenue (Continued) PAGE FOUR
Mr. Hopper noted that auto sales is not a permitted use in a B-2 District.
Atty. Kane stated that this small lot sits between larger lots, and that the
petitioner has a potential agreement with Mr. Luke Vagganis of Lynn who has
been in the used car business for many years. He stated they would be pleased with
any restrictions the Board may want to put on the variance. Mr. Luke Vagganis
appeared in favor. Mr. Luzinski asked if Mr. Proodian owned the three lots
shown on the plot plan. Yes. Mr. Boulger noted that the Mr. Saunders business
has been placed on two lots. He also noted that the minimum lot area".in the
B-2 District is 12,000 square feet. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boulger noted this was a very small lot and that parkers
would have to back out on to Highland Avenue. Mr. Hopper expressed concern
about traffic on Highland Avenue. Asst. Building Inspector Mansur informed the
Board that there is already a highway cut to this property. Mr. Boulger noted
that the lot is less than half the size it should be. Mr. Piemonte noted that
he did not feel a used car lot would be an upgrading of the property. Mr. Hopper
felt it was an appropriate use for the area.
• Mr. Piemonte made a motion to deny the variance on the grounds that this
would not upgrade the general area, it could be a detriment to the public good,
there is no hardship of a substantial nature and it could set a precedence.
Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion. ROLL CALL TO DENY: VOTING YEA - Mr. Hopper,
Mr. Hacker, Mr. Boulger, Mr. Luzinski and Mr. Piemonte. DENIED BY UNANIMOUS
ROLL CALL VOTE.
int�'c�t�-k�k�.Yrk�l-x alYnYk aY�Ylc�lYc*irk k
4 Brown Street - Gary H. Palardv (Owner) , Philip L. Frasca (Petitioner)
Petitioners are requesting a variance to divide the three story structure
which is located in a R-2 District into five studio apartments and provide five
off-street parking spaces.
Mr. Boulger withdrew from the Board and appointed Mr. Hopper acting chairman.
A letter was received from the Planning Board suggesting that the variance
be denied. Mr. Philip Frasco presented the case to the Board and submitted
letters from the Salem Fire Marshal and the owner of the other side of the duplex
in favor of the petition. He stated that the building is presently a shell, and
an attractive nusiance. This same variance was granted in November, 1977, but
the work was not done at that time and that is why the case is again before the
Board. He stated that the apartments are designed for single people and therefore
the parking provided should be adequate. Mr. Boulger spoke in favor of the petition.
• He stated there is a great need for studio apartments in Salem. There was no
opposition. Hearing closed.
(Qitg of �$ttlem, 'Mttssacltusetts
Pamb of Mat
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1980 PAGE FIVE
4 Brown Street (Continued)
DISCUSSION - Mr. Piemonte noted there will always be a problem of density
and parking in this area. Mr. Hopper asked why five apartments not just two or
three. Mr. Frasca stated that because of the amount of work necessary to restore
the building it would not be economically feisable for anything less than five.
Mr. Hopper felt that studio apartments would be a good use for the building.
Mr. Luzinski agreed with Mr. Hopper.
Mr. Piemonte moved to grant variances for the use of the building at
4 Brown Street for five studio apartments and that there be five parking spaces
provided. Mr. Luzinski seconded. ROLL CALL TO GRANT: VOTING YEA - Mr. Hopper,
Mr. Hacker, Mr. Luzinski and Mr. Piemonte. GRANTED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE
OF 4 YEAS.
'.cal-k�YhhA-k�Yic�'c�'cfi�k�xat xx�.cic�l-k�'c
Cor. Federal Street at Washington Street - Salem Redevelopment Authority
Stern-Tise Salem Group, Inc.
• The petitioners are requesting variances from the required side yard and
rear yard requirements for the construction of a three level structure for multi-
family residential use. The proposed plans call for the construction of 16
condominium units and parking for 19 cars.
Mr. Christopher Olney, Project Administrator of the Salem Redevelopment
Authority represented the petitioners before the Board. He presented a letter
from W. Gregory Senko, City Planner in favor of the petition. He stated that
18 months ago the Phase I of this Redevelopment area was started and the 18
units have been all sold. He stated they are before the Board due to technical
problems with the Zoning Ordinance. They have a decrease in the parking ratio
in order to have greater density. He stated the burden of parking in the residental
units is at night when there is plenty of parking in the down town area. Mr.
Steven Tise of the Stern-Tise Salem Group, Inc. , stated that this is a unique
type of housing which they find is very successful in cities. The project will
be of the highest quality, but these will be smaller units than Phase I.
Mr. Olney informed the Board that the Redevelopment Authority has accepted
the introduction of small office space at the corner of Washington Street.
Mrs. Morse, Trustee of the Universalist Church appeared in favor. Mr. Charles
Phipps former Trustee of the church appeared in favor.
Jan Robins, 7 Ash Street appeared, and stated she was not in opposition to
the petition she had to disagree with the statements that the parking was not a
problem. She stated that Ash Street is a very narrow street with no parking on
• either side, and she has had to have cars moved to get out of the street because
of the overflow of parkers from the constructed condominiums. There was no
opposition. Hearing closed.
CCU of 'f6ttlem, 'Mttssurlluse##s
Pawb of Mad
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1980 PAGE SIX
REBUTTAL - The petitioner stated that not all the units of the existing
condominiums are occupied, and that the spaces are being occupied by shoppers
and workers. The parking will be controled by the residents association shortly.
In Phase II the reduced bedroom count should make the parking adequate. Mrs.
Robins stated that she works in Boston during the day, and her complaints are
about early evening and night-time parking.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boulger stated that he was not happy with the way this
Phase was laid out and he was concerned about the building not be 15 back from
Washington Street. He suggested that the building be kept back 15 feet or that
an ell be put on it. He felt it would be a detriment to the public good as
submitted. Mr. Hopper stated that the lack of set-back was a desired goal of
the developers. Mr. Boulger stated they are not creating open spaces in a
residential development. Mr. Luzinski felt that the parking will become more
congested as the Phases aye completed. Mr. Piemonte did not wish to reject the
petition if the 'petitioners could not re-submit it after having an opportunity
to revue it. Mr. Boulger stated they have the option of coming back with
another plan. Mr. Boulger made a motion to deny the petition for variances
• because they do not satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the
parking requirements, in conjunction with the other phases of the project will
be a detriment to the public good. Mr:LLuzinskilseconded the motion. ROLL
CALL - VOTING TO DENY- Mr. Boulger, Mr. Luzinski and Mr. Piemonte. VOTING - NOT
TO DENY: Mr. Hopper and Mr. Hacker. DENIED R.C.V. 3 YEAS 2 NAYS
The next meeting of the Board for scheduled for March 19, 1980 at 7:00 P.M.
On the motion of Mr. Hacker, seconded by Mr. Piemonte the meeting adjourned
at 9: 15 P.M.
Respectfully. submitted,
d/ 0, (f 4-,A�
Theresa I. Carr, Clerk
•
5 Olitg of �$Ulem, 'Mttssrullusetts
arc Powb of Meal
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1980
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Wednesday, March 19,
1980 at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green for a public hearing. Said notice of hearing
was duly published in the Salem Evening News on March 5 and 12, 1980, and notices
were sent postpaid to abutters and others in accordance with Mass. General Laws.
On roll call the following answered present: James Boulger, Jr. , Anthony
Feeherry, Douglas Hopper, James Hacker, and Arthur LaBrecque. On the motion
of Mr. LaBrecque, seconded by Mr. Boulger, the minutes of the February 20th, 1980
meeting were approved.
A letter was received from the Salem Planning Board requesting a meeting
with the Board of Appeal to discuss the following topics. No action taken.
1. Form A approvals.
2. Density and parking.
3. Interrelated workings between our two boards.
4. Zoning changes.
5. SRA parking and development policies.
• 140-142-144 Bridge Street - William S. Hawkes, Trustee - Salem Bridge Street
Realty Trust (Continuation)
Petitioner is requesting variances to place three multi-family dwellings
on separate lots, thereby requiring variances from minimum lot coverage, minimum
lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling, minimum lot width, minimum front, side
and rear yard setbacks, with respect to each newly created lot.
A letter from the Fire Marshal in favor of the petition was received and
made a matter of record. A letter from the Planning Board, neither for or against
the petition was received and made a matter of record. Mr. Hawkes presented the
case before the Board. He stated that Miss Madison, Planning Board Aid suggested
that a variance from frontage requirements should be requested, in order to obtain
FormA approval from the Planning Board. He stated that she was concerned that
more density might be added by the addition of a third apartment to the house in
the rear which is presently a two-family. Atty. John Hodges stated he did not
feel this additional variance was necessary. He stated the right of way could be
deeded to the house in the rear and the other two houses be given easements on the
right of way. He stated that the petitioner would have no objection if this
condition was attached to the granting of the variances. Mr. Feeherry asked why
the petitioner was seeking the variances. Mr. Hawkes said to facilitate financing,
and to make it easier to sell as individual homes. Mr. Feeherry asked what was
presently in the buildings. --Lot 1 - 3 family units; Lot 2 - 3 family units;
Lot 3 - 2 family units. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Feeherry moved that all the variances be granted as requested and that
it be specifically noted on the plan on file that Lot 3 own the right of way,
which is four feet, and Lots 1 and 2 have easements in the right of way and also
that nothing change the character of the buildings - Lot 1- 3 family Lot 2- 3 family
Lot 3 - 2 family. Mr. LaBrecque seconded the motion.
01itg of 'Sttlem, cmttssar4usttts
MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1980 PAGE TWO
140-142-144 Bridge Street (Continued)
ROLL CALL VOTE TO GRANT: Yes: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr.
Hacker and Mr. Boulger. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED - Atty. Hodges and Mr. Hawkes
signed the following statement on the official site plan "The applicant agrees
that the 4 foot wide right of way shall be deeded to Lot 3 on the above plan,
and appropriate easements over and in said right of way shall be granted to
Lots 1 and 2 on the above plan by Lot 3."
36-38, 38-40 Irving Street - Zolotas Realty Trust (Owner) Raymond Cloutier (Petitioner)
Petitioner is requesting variances to convert the factory building at the
above address to twelve residential single family units, which will require relief
from density requirements and side, front and rear yard setback requirements.
A letter was received from the Planning Board recommending that the
petition be denied.
A letter was received from Raymond Cloutier, petitioner requesting permission
• to withdraw the petition as he wishes to submit a new application at the next
meeting reducing the number of units to eight.
On the motion of Mr. Hopper, seconded by Mr. LaBrecque, petitioner given
leave to withdraw by unanimous hand vote.
47 Summer Street - Richard and Margaret Marchand
Petitioners are requesting a variance from the density requirements in regard
to lot area, and side yard and rear yard minimum requirements for the purpose of
adding a 17 foot by 20 foot family room.
Mr. Marchand represented himself before the Board. He stated that he has
spoken to his neighbors and they have no objection. It is a two family house, and
he resides on the first floor, where the addition will be constructed. He will
do the work himself, as this is his trade. He has owned the house three years
and has renovated all the other rooms and wishes to rip down the small existing
room and build this new family room. Councillor Stephen Lovely appeared in favor.
He stated the house was an eyesore when Mr. Marchand purchased it, and it is now
a credit to the neighborhood. He stated it is a small apartment for a family of
five, and the family needs the extra room. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Feeherry did not feel sure that a variance was needed. Mr. Boulger,
Mr. LaBrecque and Mr. Hopper believed it was because the petitioner would be extending
non-conforming set backs. Mr. Hopper, seconded by Mr. Feeherry moved the necessary
• variances as requested be granted. Roll Call - TO GRANT: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper,
Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Boulger. GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY
(gity IIfMIEIIt� tI$Stlthli$PttB
a ?8WWb Vf Vd
MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1980 PAGE THREE
40 Hillside Avenue - Edward and Carol Stetson
The petitioners are requesting a variance to build a single family dwelling
on this lot which contains 10,400 square feet and has 65 foot of frontage.
Edward Stetson represented himself before the Board. He stated he has
owned the lot for 3k years and will reside in it when it is built. Mr. Gilbert
LeTarte, 34 Hillside Ave. , his father-in-law subdivided the property in 1976
and gave one lot to each of his daughters. He brought in water lines, and sewer
lines and now a change in the Zoning law in 1979 has made the lot undersized
for construction. Appearing in favor were Gilbert & Lorraine LeTarte, 34 Hillside
Ave. , Jeffery Clark, 38 Hillside Ave. , Laurent & Lucille Levesque, 32 Hillside
Avenue and Benjamin Letarte, 12 Pope Street. Also Raymond LeTarte, 34 Hillside
Avenue. A letter was received fromtlWarda:IVcCouncillor Grace stating she had
received no complaints from the neighbors regarding the petition. There was
no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Boulger, seconded by Mr. Hacker, moved that variances for non-conforming
• lot area and lot width be granted. ROLL CALL TO GRANT: Yea: Mr. Feeherry,
Mr. Hopper. MrJ LaBrecque, Mr. Hacker and Mr. Boulger. GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY
384 Essex Street - Mary L. Powers
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to operate an antique shop
in a portion of the first floor at the above address.
A letter was received from the Salem Historical Commission in favor of the
petition. A letter was received from the Planning Board recommending that the
petition be denied. A letter in favor was received from Dr. and Mrs. John Ballou.
Letters opposed were received from the following: 0. Palmer & Elms Swecker, 380
Essex St. , Mrs. Gladys C. MacKay, 38 Flint St. , Dr. Paul A. O'Brien, 377 Essex
Street
Atty. Sterling E. Rowe represented the petitioner before the Board. He
submitted a documented list of the improvement made to the building in the past
9 years by Mr. and Mrs. Powers. He stated that this a 25 room structure that was
built in 1706, and was known as the Stern-Sprague House. Renovations were done
in the 1800's by Samuel Maclntyre. The present owners purchased the building in
1971 and have done much to restore the building. It presently has 8 rental units
and this proposed shop would eliminate one of the units. He stated that revenue
from the sale of antiques would provide funds to continue the renovations. He
stated that there are many professional offices on Essex Street and this business
would be consistant with the house and the area. He stated there are 13 parking
• spaces and 2 additional parking spaces could be added if necessary. He spoke with
Councillors Healey and Grace, and neither had heard of any objections. He stated
that the kitchen of the unit to be used for storage and office space, and the
two front rooms will be the display area.
H (gi#g of Adem, 'Mttssar4use##s
g oma of Mad
MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1980 PAGE FOUR
384 Essex Street (Continued)
Mr. Feeherry asked Mr. Rowe to show him the 13 parking spaces. Mr. Boulger
stated that there were about 5 spaces, that there was no run in or turn around,
and the cars cannot back into the street. Mr. Feeherry noted he would need
11 parking spaces for the residental section alone. Mr. Rowe stated that the
residents of the apartments would be at work during the day when the antique
shop would need the parking. Mr. Boulger stated they would be there on weekends,
and that is when the shop would be busy. Mr. Powers stated that the Bowditch
School park is employ on weekends, and that they could run a rotary for parking
around the building by taking the barn down. Mr. Rowe asked if they could
rework the parking and come back to the Board next month. Mr. Feeherry stated that
he was skeptical about a commercial use for this property, the parking is not
the only problem. Mr. Powers stated that this was a tea room and restaurant for
many years. Mr. Powers stated that it had become a matter of making ends meet--
he has not accelerated depreciation.
Marjorie Ross, 31 Flint Street appeared in favor. She stated the parking
• is congested because of the Bowditch School, which will be closing soon. She
works at Eatons, at Essex and Flint Sts. , and and they have no customer parking
problem. Mr. Russell Weston, 391k Essex St. appeared in favor. Mary Powers, the
petitioner stated she and her husband are not in the real estate business, they
have put back into the house all they received as rent. They now have 4 children
of college age and need to take some revenue from the building. With the shop
there, they would be on the premises 7 days a week.
Dr. Barry Zitin, 373 Essex Street appeared in opposition. He stated this
is an encroachment of a commercial use into a residential neighborhood. He
owns a single family home and he is concerned that this will open up the block
to commercial use. He stated that the parking spaces are behind the house, and
could only be reached from Flint St. , which is one way, and the customers would
not use them, but would use Essex St. which is already congested.
REBUTTAL: Mr. Rowe stated that this eenormous structure is being held up by
the Powers, who are dedicated to the building. The alternatives are to sell it
or let it deteriorate.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boulger spoke of the letter from the Planning Board against,
and the letters from the abutters opposing. Mr. Feeherry said there is no getting
around the fact that this is a large structure, but the problem when a change in
use is allowed in a residential section it lends itself to a next door request for
a commercial use. Mr. Hacker said there were two problems, and maybe the parking
could be worked out to satisfy the neighbors. Mr. Boulger felt the parking was
not the main problem, the commercial use would open up the flood gates to more
• commercial. Mr. Feeherry though the petitioner should more properly asked for a
variance
Mr. Feeherry moved, seconded by Mr. Hacker, to deny the petition because of
the problem of parking and the introduction of a commerical or retail use into a
residential district. ROLL CALL TO DENY: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque,
Mr. Hacker, Mr. Boulger. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED.
fgi#g of $U12m, f z19!5 stll tft,9
pomb of Mvd
MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1980 PAGE FIVE
Federal Street at Washington Street - Salem Redevelopment Auth. & Stern-Tise
Salem Group
Petitioners are seeking variances from the required side yard and rear yard
requirements for the construction of 16 condominium units. There will be parking
for 20 cars, which conforms with the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Atty. George Vallis represented the petitioners before the Board. Mr.
Feeherry noted that the first matter of business is whether there is significant
change from the petition denied at the February 20th meeting.
Atty. Vallis requested that Mrs. Joan Beaudreau, Vice Chairman of the Salem
Redevelopment Auth, be allowed to speak out of order, as she had an engagement
to go to. Mrs. Beaudreau stated that the SHA is very much in favor of proceeding
as soon as possible. The first 8 units built are already sold, and the owners
are anxious to have neighbors. She stated the construction work done is excellent,
and the developers must go before the Design Review Board in regard to planting
and landscaping.
• Atty. Vallis stated the petitioner is reducing the number of residential
units from 16 to 12, and the building on the corner of Federal & Washington St.
has been changed to a commercial building. They have increased the parking
spaces to 20.
Mr. Feeherry moved that there are changes significent enough to allow the
Board to vote ondhis petition. Mr. Hopper Seconded. Roll Call : Yes- Mr.
Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Hacker and Mr. Boulger. iivaaimous VOTE
on question of changes.
<� Atty. Vallis stated that the commercial building does not require parking.
There will be 5 spaces available for the business, people working in the offices
could park there. He stated the petitioners have taken into consideration the
Board's objections and that the residential section on Washington Street has been
set back 18 feet. He stated on the east side,athe building has been set right
on the property line, because as written on page 42 of the Zoning Ordinance, Central
Development District, there is no side yard requirement if the lot abuts public
open space which would allow the normal requirements to be met. He stated that
these requests are not much different than what was granted for Phase I.
The reasons the petitioner is here are:
1. Variance - rear yard setback - 30 ft. is shown on plan but thev may
make the units larger, and would like to have the option of the 16 foot'setback.
2. Variance between party wall of commercial building and residential--
there will be no set back and the requirement would be 30 ft. on the westerly
• side of the building.
Mr. Boulger noted that the were showing 22 parking spaces. Mr. Hopper
noted that the 16 ft. set back extends the full width of the property, and that
there was a 13 foot set back on the commercial building.
01ttV of Salrm, Massar4usette
2BV=b of Mud
MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1980 PAGE SIX
Stern-Tise (Continued)
Mr. Steve Tise, petitioner addressed the Board. He stated they are not
prepared to discuss landscaping at this point. The pedestrian, walkway will
be developed and landscaped in character with the walkways of the Redevelopment
Authority. The front yards of Federal St. will have privacy fences, which will
be staggered. Around the parking spaces there will be dense plantings, trees
up to 12 feet. SRA will assist in landscaping the buffer zone.
Mr. Feeherry asked what the rest of the development project will look like.
Mr. Tise stated that the success of Phase II will determine what will be done
in Phase III.
Atty. Vallis stated that the exterior plans and landscaping must be reviewed
and approved by the Design Review Board.
Mr. Tise stated that they are requesting the rear yard relief because they
have been requested to consider some units on one level for physically handicapped
• owners, and these units would require custom design on the interior and therefore
more space.
Mr. Boulger noted that when the developers come in for Parcel RC-2B they
may want zero setbacks, and the Board must consider this now. Mr. Feeherry
said he could see what Mr. Boulger meant, they could end up with a 14 foot
alleyway, depending of what is constructed.
Mr. Tise stated they would build one or possibly two of the one floor units,
and they could then leave the 30 foot set back for the remainder of the units.
Mr. Feeherry stated he was concerned about the landscaping around the parking.
Mr. Boulger asked how high the fence on the corner would be. Mr. Tise - 4 feet.
Mr. Feeherry noted that under Section VII-G of the Zoning Ordinance (Pg. 57)
no plantings or fence can be more than 3 feet at an intersection. Mr. Tise stated
that a landscape architect has been engaged, and the Design Review Board could
always withhold approval if the plantings did not conform. Mr. Charles Phipps,
95 Columbus Ave. , appearing for the 1st Universalist Church was recorded in favor.
There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Feeherry moved th grant the variances as requested in accordance with
plans dated March 19, 1980, said variances to include all of the following:
Variance for 30 foot rear yard set back for no more than two of the units,
which will have a 16 foot set back. - Variance from 30 foot side set back-
between the residential and commercial building. - Restriction on variances as to
dense plantings at minimum of 8 feet height on westerly side of property and on
• Washington Street by parking spaces to shield Bridge St. Parking spaces. The
variance make reference to Section 7-G re. visability at intersections, in regard
to the Federal & Washington St. intersection in particular, ( fence 3 feet high)
The variances will make reference to the 20 parking spaces, with access only from
Rust Street, and a permanent easement for the 20 foot right of way. Also that
the 6 ft. by 25 ft, section at the eastern end of the property line become part
of the parcel to be conveyed to the developer. Mr. LaBrecque seconded the motion.
ti THU of '�$ttlem, 'Mttsead use##s
Pmma of Meal
MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1980 PAGE SEVEN
Stern - Tise
ROLL CALL TO GRANT: YEA - Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Hacker
Mr. Boulger. GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS - UNANIMOUSLY
417 Lafayette Street - Dr. L. Kent Smith
Petitioner is requesting a variance to convey 1,875 sq. feet of land
to the adjacent owner, Mr. Philip Moran. The conveyance will reduce the
minimum lot area below the requirements for residention districts (15,000)
Atty. Philip Moran presented the case before the Board. He stated the
land was divided in 1948 and it was though that there was 17,600 sq. feet of
land with the Moran lot, but when surveyed recently there was only 14,800.
If this small piece is conveyed the Moran property will have 16,961 sq. feet,
and the Smith property 12,165 sq, feet, but the lots will be squared off.
Mr. Feeherry asked why Mr. Moran wanted to purchase the land and what was
• the purchase price. He stated he wanted more waterfront land, and the
price agreed on was $5.00 a square foot. Mr. Boulger asked if he intended
to put up another building. Mr. Moran said no. Mrs. Moran stated that she
cannot let her children out to play because they cannot fence the yard as it
now exists. Mrs. Jane Lyness, 416 Lafayette St, appeared in favor. There
was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Feeherry moved that the variance be granted with the restriction that
no structure be constructed on parcel A which contains 1,875 square feet.
Mr. Hacker seconded. Variance granted by unanimous hand vote. GRANTED WITH
RESTRICTION
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, April 23, 1980 at 7:00 P.M.
On the motion of Mr. LaBrecque, seconded by Mr. Hacker the meeting adjourned
at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
•
CHU of �6ttlem, cmttssaclfuse##s
• � 18mb Vf Meal
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1980
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Wednesday, April 23,
1980 at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green for a public hearing. Said notice of hearing
was duly published in the Salem Evening News on April 9 and 16, 1980, and notices
were sent postpaid to abutters and others in accordance with Mass. General Laws.
On roll call the following answered present: James Boulger, Jr. , Chairman,
Anthony Feeherry, Douglas Hopper, Arthur LaBrecque and Associate Member Joseph
Piemonte. Mr. Boulger appointed Mr. Piemonte a voting member for this meeting.
On the motion of Mr. Feeherry, seconded by Mr. Hopper, the--:minutes of the March
19th meeting were approved.
40 Bridge Street - Andrew J. Abdo d/b/a Pilgrim Motel
The petitioner is requesting permission to install kitchen facilities in
26 rooms of the motel, which is located in a B-2 District.
• Atty. Carl Pierce of Beverly represented the petitioner before the Board.
He stated that the business situation at the motel is very poor at present. He
stated that if the units had cooking facilities it would induce people to stay
• longer,F as they would not have the expense of eating all their meals out. It will
continue to be operated as a motel. It would give people transferred to the area
a temporary place to stay while they looked for permanent living quarters. Mr.
Feeherry noted that the motel is located in a B-2 Zone, which allows motels as a
permitted use, but that multi-family houses are prohibited, and what we would
have here with this petition granted would be 26 apartments. Mr. Feeherry asked
what would prevent the owner from leasing these units on a monthly basis. Mr.
Feeherry asked what the petitioner is requesting. Mr. Pierce stated a variance
to install services for tourists. Mr. Feeherry asked about the parking. . Mr.
Pierce stated that was no problem. Mr. Pierce stated that a hotel clerk will be
there all the time, and the units would be handled as hotel rooms. Mr. Feeherry
asked the percentage of the rooms at the motel : ==presently rented on a weekly
basis. Mr. Abdo stated that in the off season many of the rooms were rented that
way, but in the tourist season it would not pay to rent taem that way.
There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boulger stated that this is a direct violation of the B-2
uses. Mr. Hopper noted that there are motels that offer this type of unit.
Mr. Piemonte noted that these facilities would be an extra incentive for people
to stay in Salem in the tourist season, and in the winter would attract the weekly
tenants. Mr. Feeherry asked the petitioner if the plan was scaled down from 26
units would it be acceptable. Atty. Pierce stated Mr. Abdo did not intend to
• start out with 26 units, just wanted to provide for the future so that he would
not have to come back before the Board if the units were successful. Mr. Feeherry
noted the- nce of any objections from the neighbors. Mr. Piemonte noted these
• units mightt use of the facilities on a nightly basis. Mr. Feeherry stated
he was in favor of a scaled down project. Mr. Boulger stated that this could open
up a Pandora's Box of multi-family units in business areas.
01itg of �$ttlem, 'Mn99a l 9t t9
�;a s Pmb of Mad
MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1980 - PAGE TWO
40 Bridge St. (Continued)
Mr. Feeherry noted one aspect of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, although it prohibits
multi-family in B-2, they are allowed as Special Permit uses if built by the
government (Pg. 35 - Section V-(d)-1.) Mr. Feeherry stated he was against the 26
units proposed but could vote in favor of no more than 6 units. Mr. Boulger stated
he could not see where the Board could grant 1/3 of request. Mr. Feeherry withdrew
a motion to grant no more than 6 units be modified. Arty. Pierce requested permission
to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Piemonte moved petitioner be given leave to with-
draw without prejudice. Mr. Feeherry seconded. ROLL CALL - to WITHDRAW: Mr. Feeherry;
Mr. Hopper; Mr. LaBrecque and Mr. Piemonte. Mr. Boulger voted Present.
31 Boston Street - P.ardy' s Auto Body (Owner) Luke Vaganis (Petitioner)
The petitioner is requesting permission to construct an addition 24 feet by 24 feet
to the existing non-conforming structure, and a Special Permit to use the addition
for the sales and service of used cars.
• Atty. George Vallis, 1 Church Street represented the petitioners before the
Board. He stated that on November 20, 1972 the Board of Appeal granted a Special
• Permit for the construction of a large addition, but for some reason construction was
never started. He stated that the building now proposed is smaller and meets the
density requirements. It would not have to be before the Board if it were not for
the frontage which is only 42 feet. He stated that the sales and service of automobiles
is a Special Permit use in a B-2 District. He stated there will be no more than 10
used cars on the premises at one time. He stated that the proposed addition will
be leased to Mr. Vaganis, and the parking spaces are included in the lease.
Mr. Ralph Pardy, 9 Pond St. , Peabody appeared in favor. Mr. Luke Vaganis appeared
in favor. Appearing in opposition was Mrs. John Linehan, 27 Boston Street. She
stated the area was bad enough now with two auto body shops side by side. She stated
there are dogs, which mess her yard, motorcycles racing evenings and Sundays, and
she is very much opposed to this petition. Mr. Boulger noted that restrictions could
be put on as to hours and that Mrs. Lineham should call the Police re. the dogs and
noise on evenings and Sundays. REBUTTAL: Mr. Vallis stated Mr. Boulger had answered
the abutters objections adequately. Hearing closed.
Mr. Feeherry moved a Special Permit be granted for the construction of a 24 foot
by 24 foot building, and a Special Permit to allow the sale of used cars subject to
the following conditions: 1. 13 parking spaces be maintained, 3 for employees and 10
for the location of used cars for sale in accordance with the requirements of the
zoning ordinance. 2. The hours of operation be 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. Monday thru Friday,
8 A.M. to 1 P.M. on Saturdays and no operations on Sundays and legal holidays. 3. That
• there be no more than 10 cars at the location at one time. Mr. LaBrecque seconded the
motion. ROLL CALL TO GRANT: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte.
• Mr. Boulger abstained from voting.
• 01itu of �$xlem, 'Massa r4usetts
• a Pwma of MW
MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1980 - PAGE THREE
297 Highland Avenue - Anarpet Realty Corp, Petro Theophilopoulos, Pres.
Petitioner is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a building
60 feet by 150 feet, which will not meet the easterly side yard requirement of 10
feet and which will exceed the maximum lot coverage by 9.6 %. The building will
be used for the sale and storage of lumber and other building supplies.
Atty. George Vallis, 1 Church Street represented the petitioner before the
Board. He stated the proposed use is appropriate in the area and that there will
be adequate parking. The parcel of land presentsa special hardship in meeting
the zoning requirement because of its narrow frontage. He stated that there are
°�. 2* parking spaces, •23y�paces in front of the building and 3 in the rear. There will
be 5 employees. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Feeherry moved 1. that the Board grant a use variance to, permi.t the
retail sale of lumber and building supplies at this location; and 2:. A variance
from the easterly side yard and maximum lot coverage required, all construction to
• be in conformance with the plans submitted and 22 parking spaces be maintained---
A suitable barrier or fence be constructed for safety purposes along Highland Avenue
and the easterly side of the parking area. Mr. LaBrecque seconded the motion.
• ROLL CALL TO GRANT: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Boulger and Mr.
Piemonte. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED.
1 Milk Street - David Knight - Horizon Realty (Owner)
Petitioner is requesting permission to convert the existing two-family house
to a three-family which will require the construction of one 12 foot dormer on either
side of the gable roof.
Atty. Charles O'Donnell, 22 Lowell Street, Peabody represented the petitioner
before the Board. He stated that Mr. Knight plans to occupy the 3rd floor unit%.of
this house. He paid $45,000.00 for the house and has spent considerably more on
renovating it; and he needs the 3rd apartment to meet the mortgage. He stated that
Special Permits can be granted for a 3rd apartment in an R-2 District under Section
V-3 (Pg. 28) . Mr. Boulger stated that the structure is non-conforming and does not
have the required parking, the driveway is only 12 feet wide. Councillor Lovely appeared
in favor. Also appearing in favor were Steve Sebanti, 18 Andrews Street, Greg Maitland
16 Andrews St. , E? Hamel, 3 Milk Street. Opposed were Eleanor Ryan, 18 Pickman St. ,
Mrs. Arthur Ryan, 18 Pickman St. , Mrs. Callahan, 23 Pickman St. Councillor Nestor from
Ward II expressed concern re the parking situation in the neighborhood. Atty. O'Donnell
stated there may have been a parking problem while the work was being done on the house,
but there was none now. Mrs. Ryan pointed out that the dormers were put on without
the knowledge of the Building Dept. , and no permits were obtained for all the renovating
• done on the house. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boulger stated there are lots of problems - parking, the house
• is only 4 feet from the next house, the hardship will be on the neighbors, and it is
a detriment to the public good. Mr. Piemonte agreed. The street is very narrow and
he could not approve a 3 family here. Mr. Feeherry questioned what should be done
about the work already done. Mr. Boulger stated they could use the third floor as part
of the second floor apartment.
CCU of '*tt1Em, 'Massadjusetts
s Pmb of Mvd
MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1980 - PAGE FOUR
1 Milk St. - David Knight (Continued)
Mr. Boulger moved to deny the petition on the grounds that it would be a
detriment to the public good, there is no hardship, and it does not conform to
the zoning requirements. Mr. Piemonte seconded the motion. ROLL':CALL TO DENY:
Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Boulger Mr. Piemonte. Mr. Feeherry voted present.
60 Marlborough Road - Hugh '& Rosanna Mulligan
Petitioners are requesting a variance from lot area, lot width, front yard,
-side yard and rear yard requirements for the property which is in a R-C District.
They wish to combine three existing lots into two lots one containing 19,858 sq.
feet and the other 14,388 square feet, to be sold for the construction of single
family homes.
Atty. John R. Serafini, Jr. , 65 Federal St. , Salem represented the petitioners
before the Board. He stated that these lots as divided would still be much larger
•
than the lots in the area, which have already been built on. He stated that the
required lot area in R-C is 80,000 sq. feet and therefore this lot could not even be
built on if it were not divided. Mr. Boulger noted that the lots only have 88.47
•
ft, frontage. Mr. Serafini stated that the lots could not be built on until
sewerage came to the area because they would not perk. He stated that granting
this petition would not derogate from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. There
was no opposition. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Feeherry stated he was in favor of the petition as it was
consistent with the area. Mr. Boulger noted that there is a hardship and this would
not be a detriment to the community. Mr. Boulger moved that the petition be granted
subject to the density and set back requirements of the R-1 District, except that
a variance be granted for lot widths and on Lot A from area , and the granting be
subject to the approval of the Planning Board. Mr. Feeherry seconded. ROLL CALL TO
GRANT: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Boulger, Mr. Piemonte.
314-330 Canal St. & 16-24 Adams Street - Esther Realty Trust 8 Michael Shooltz
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit and variance to permit the use of
land presently divided into B-2 & R-1 Zones for a recreational facility (racquet ball) .
Atty. John R. Serafini, Sr., 65 Federal St, represented the petitioners before
the Board. Mr. Serafini informed the Board that when the original petition was granted
in 1979, it was assumed that the B-2 zone extended to the rear of the lot. He stated
that when the surveyors began to draw up the plans for recording they discovered the
• fact that part of the area was in a R-1 District, and now the petitioners are request-
ing a variance to use the area in R-1 District for a recreational facility. He stated
the building will conform to the Building Code and the requirements of the B-2 Zone.
• Appearing in favor were Timothy Etland of Atwood and Morrill and Roger Pelletier.
Mr. Boulger was recorded in favor. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Q1itg of Salem, fflttsear4usetts
�
Pwmb of vt
G
MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1980 - PAGE FIVE
Mr. Feeherry moved that a use variance be granted for the recreational
facility in the R-1 area because of the hardship caused by the location of the
property, conditioned on the petitioner meeting the obligations set forth in
the decision dated May 17, 1979. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. ROLL CALL TO GRANT:
Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Boulger, Mr. Piemonte. UNANIMOUS
It was voted to hold the next meeting of the Board of Appeals on Wednesday,
May 21, 1980, the hearings to begin at 7:30 P.M. , and the Planning Board to be
invited to meet with the Board at 7:00 P.M.
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
__
Clerk, Salem Board of Appeal
•
•
•
Tite of galem, �xa��xt t Ott
• ., �' j Poarb of �"sal
S T �tS
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF 'APPEAL HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1980
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Wednesday, May 21,
1980 at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green. The Board sat with the Planning Board
from 7:00 to 8:00 P.M. to discuss mutual problems. The public hearing began
at 8:00 P.M. Said notice of hearing was duly published in the Salem Evening
News on.May 7 and May 14, -1980, and notices were sent postpaid to abutters and
others in accordance with Mass General Laws.
On roll call the following answered present: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, .
Mr. Hacker, Mr. Boulger and Mr. Piemonte. Mr. Boulger appointed Mr. Piemonte
a voting member for the meeting, in the absence of Mr. LaBrecque.
Mr. Feeherry noted that the minutes of the April 23, 1980 meeting' -. hearing
of the petition of Anarpet Realty Corp. , 297 Highland Avenue, should be
corrected as to the number of parking spaces provided. The correction should
read as follows "There will be 22 parking spaces, 19 spaces in front and 3 .in
the rear."
Mr. Piemonte moved that the minutes as corrected be accepted. Mr. Feeherry
seconded. Voted.
40 Bridge Street - Andrew J. Abdo d/b/a Pilgrim Motel
Petitioner is-requesting permission to install sinks, cooking units and
refrigerators in eight (8) of the motel rooms at 40 Bridge Street (B-2 District) .
Atty. Carl Pierce of Beverly represented the petitioner before the Board. He
stated that business is good in the summer, but that the rest of the year it
is very poor. These facilities would induce peole to stay longer in Salem. There
would be no increase in traffic. ' He had originally asked for 26 units to be
changed and now has reduced th¢. request to 8 units, 4 units take off of a common
entrance way. A letter was received from Salem Fire Marshal David .Goggin stating
that smoke detectors and manuaefire alarm devices must be installed throughout
the entire structure at the time of change of said use. Atty. Pierce stated
that this was no problem, Mr. Abdo would gladly do what was required. There was
no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Hacker asked how many units there were in the entire motel. Mr. Abdo
stated 28 but two are used for the office. Mr. Feeherry stated he.was struggling
with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, which restrict multi-family dwellings
but allow motels in this district. He stated they could restrict the length of
stay - a family could use a unit for a week. Mr. Piemonte felt it the business
was sold the new owner could use it as multi-family. Mr. Boulger felt restrictions
could not be enforced, and the City as a whole would be. affected. Mr. Hacker
did not feel that families would be coming to Salem in the winter, as the children
would be in school. There was discussion as to the sq. footage required for .
apartment rooms. The rooms at the motel are 12' x 25' and 12' x. 23' . Mr. Hopper
• did not feel that there was a hardship, and it was a detriment to the city.
Mr. Feeherry noted that 4 votes are required for a variance.
• ��, \yUl�y '
GitU of Salem, � tt!3zatlpautto
u
• SY/
•��Uti�4�
MINUTES - MAY 21, 1980 PAGE TWO
40 Bridge Street - continued
.Mr. Hopper moved to deny the petition due to the lack of substantial hardship
and a change to muli-family would be detrimental to the City. Mr. Boulger
seconded. VOTING PRESENT: Mr. Feeherry and Mr. Piemonte. VOTING TO DENY:
Mr. Hopper, Mr. Hacker and Mr. Boulger PETITION DENIED.
20 Loring Avenue - Annette Gagnon
The Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to conduct a ceramic class
in the basement of her residence. She represented herself before the Board.
She stated she only wants to teach one 2' hour class a week, to friends and
relatives. She has a circuit breaker board and would be installing an electric
kiln. There will be 3 parking spaces available in the driveway, and if the
students want to come they can car pool. She stated she would be willing
to install a fire alarm in the basement. Mr. St. Pierre, owner of the dwelling
appeared in favor. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Feeherry moved to grant a Special Permit with the following conditions:
Limit the number of students to nine; Limit the class to one night .a week, for
.' ours, Limit the sign erected to, 1'k sq. feet which meet with the provisions
• of the Zonirig have the approval of the Planning Dept. ; The
Building Inspector to inspect and make 'tem-nnrnmandations; and the petitioner to
get the approval of the Fire Department. Mr. Hoppei se.-ti ,nded the motion.
VOTING TO GRANT: Mr: Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Bou-L9—r. and Mr.
LY
Piemonte. UNANIMOUSGRANTED WITH CONDITIONS.
337 Bridge Street - Robert Magarian
The petitioner is requesting, the necessary variances to construct a one-
story addition to the existing commercial building, said addition will be 25 fet.=i
by 40 feet.
The petitioner represented himself before the Board. He stated he needed
more warehouse space as the building across the street that he uses for storage
has been torched twice. He stated he has invested quite a bit of money in the 4 . ,
property and needs this addition to continue there. He stated he has the necessary
10 feet on the side. Mr. Boulger noted that the lot coverage is about 507,
35% is what is allowed. He felt the petition should go to the Conservation
Commission,.ias it might be in the flood area. There was no opposition Hearing
closed. (On checking with Conservation 5/22-Elevation 19)
Mr. Hopper wondered if this should be reviewed with the Planning Board as
the area is zoned R-2even if it is mostly commercial. Mr. Piemonte stated this
use is already there, there is no change, just expansion.
• Mr. Feeherry moved variances be granted as follows: 1. For reduction of
rear yard to 8 feet from 30 feet; 2. For lot coverage; 3. For minimum lot
area; 4. For use as warehouse space. and that the variance be subject to
review and approval of the Conservation if it is in a wetland. Mr. Piemonte
seconded. TO GRANT: Mr.Feeherrry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Boulger, Mr.
Peimonte. UNANIMOUS TO GRANT
(gitu of 'Salem, Anssadjuedto
'PIIMr?2 of Aptfc`ij
MINUTES - MAY 21, 1980 ,- PAGE THREE
120 Canal Street - Benjamin J. Hernando
The petitioner is requesting a variance to use part of the building at
120 Canal Street (Industrial District) for a Karate Center.
The petitioner represented himself before the Board. He stated he is ,
presently at 175 Essex Street, and he is moving because he needs more space.
He stated he has 20 students in a class, and averages 30 to 40 students in a
year. His classes and Monday thru Friday and Saturday mornings. Mr. Jason
Kates, owner of the building appeared in favor. He stated there is plenty '
of parking . Mr. Boulger suggested that ,curbs should be installed and a
30 foot driveway installed, as this is a very bad traffic location. The
owner stated he is going to hot top the parking area, mark the spaces and
mark the entrance and "exit. Mr. Boulger felt that barriers should be put
up and curbs and sidewalks installed. Mr. Boulger stated there should be
no signs erected without approval of the sign board. Mr. Piemonte could
see no problem with the use. Appearing in favor were John Bouchard, 2
Geneva Street and Ben Brodeur, 14 Hancock Street. There was no opposition.
Hearing closed.
• Mr. Feeherry moved the variance be granted with the following restrictions:
1. Hours of operation Monday tlru Friday, 6 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. , and Saturdays
8 A.M. to 12:30 P-.M. , no Sundays; a,. Classes be limited to 25; 3. Require 30'
entrance to site to be delinated with concrete barriers; t No signs erected
/ without proper approvals. Mr. Piemonte seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr.Feeherry,
Mr. Hopper, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Boulger and Mr.. Piemonte. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
WITH RESTRICTIONS.
11 Gardner Street - James Ahola'
Petitioner is requesting a variance for site coverage requirements to permit
the construction of a 20 foot by 27 foot addition to the existing 3 family dwelling
(R-2 District) . The addition is for living and bedroom space for an existing
apartment and will increase the lot coverage to 38%. Mr. Feeherry felt the
Board should focus on the hardship question.
Architect David Jaquith represented the petitioner before the Board. He stated
the petitioner has owned the house for 10 years and it was 'a 3 family when he
purchased it. Mr. Boulger did not feel the drawings were adequate as they did
not show the 3rd apartment. Mr.Fbeherry stated the only focus of the Board is
whether it is a hardship, and the reduction in lot area. Mr. Feeherry noted it
is not a change in use, there is sufficent parking, and it is a minimal/changg
in site coverage. Mr. Piemonte asked if the 3rd floor would be changed a4 a ii
Mr. Jaquith - No. Mr. Ben Brodeur, 14 Hancock Street appeared in favor}. T�*re
was no opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte stated he could see n oblem,
• the extension is in the back, it enhances the building and hurts no one.
t Qlitu of
n 7 �
7A PaxrL af }peal
MINUTES - MAY 21, 1980 - PAGE FOUR
11 Gardner Street (Continued)
Mr. Piemonte moved the variance be granted as petitioned for. Mr. Boulger
amended the motion "that no time in the future can the petitioner claim
hardship to turn this into a 4 family house. Mr. Feeherry seconded the motion
as amended. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Hacker, Mr, Boulger,
Mr. Piemonte. . GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY AS CONDITIONED.
The next meeting of the Board was scheduled for Wednesday, July 9, 1980
at 7:00 P.M.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
• Clerk, Board of Appeal
•
fdi#g of "Salem, 'fflttssar4use##s
Pottrb of ( p"Vd
'PLo�uroe tPM
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1980
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Wednesday, July 9, 1980
at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green. Said notice :of hearing was duly published in the
Salem Evening News on June 25 and July 2, 1980, and notices were sent postpaid to
abutters and others in accordance with Mass General Laws.
One roll call the following answered present: Mr. Hopper, Mr. Hacker, Mr. LaBrecque,
Mr. Boulger and Associate member Mr. Luzinski. Mr. Boulger appointed Mr. Luzinski
a voting member for the meeting.
On the motion of Mr. Hacker, seconded by Mr. LaBrecque the minutes and decisions
of the May 21st meeting were approved.
4 Aberdeen Street - Raymond T. & Joan E.White
Petitioners are requesting a variance to divide a parcel of land into two parcels,
one to contain 7,000 square feet and 70 foot frontage and the other to contain 8,000
square feet and 80 foot frontage. They have constructed a one-family home on the
parcel containing 8,000 square feet and desire to transfer the 7,000 foot parcel to
a life long friend who would construct a single family house thereon. The house to
• be constructed would conform in all other respects to the setback requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
A letter was received from the Planning Board suggesting that the variance be
denied.
Atty. George Vallis represented the petitioners before the Board. He submitted
a petition in favor of the variance signed by 11 residents of the area, Mr. Vallis
stated that when the City Council and Planning Board made the change in the Zoning
Ordinance in 1977 in regard to lot size and frontage it was primarily for the construction
of new sub-divisions. All the surrounding lots in this area contain 7,000 square feeet
and have 50 foot of frontage. The land was purchased prior to the change in the Zoning
Ordinance and the sub-division was approved by the Planning Board in 1964. He stated
that granting the variance would not be detrimental to the area and is not a substantial
violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that most of the existing lots in Salem
are 5,000 sq. feet and when the Whites purchased the land it was their intent to sell
the 2nd lot eventually. They have two mortgages with the Salem Savings Bank, one
for their house and one for the adjacent lot. They have a purchase and sales agreement
to sell the lot to Mr. & Mrs. Paul Kent. Mr. Hopper asked if the area was all zoned
R-1 . Yes. Mr. Hacker questioned the numbering of the lots as shown on a sub-division
plan which differed with the lots shown on the purchase and sales agreement. Mr. Vallis
stated he had not prepared the purchase and sales agreement, and the lots were numbered
wrong. Mr. & Mrs. White appeared in favor. Mr. White stated that the lot is attracting
children in the neighborhood, and his son has had to had stiches from a fall taken there.
He stated the city would receive more revenue if a house was constructed there.
• Stephen Kapaon, 31 Aborn St. , Peabody owner of the adjacent lot which is 100 feet
by 100 feet, fronting in Peabody appeared iri opposition. He stated he should be able
to divide his lot too. Mr. Vallis in rebuttal stated that if Mr. Kapaon would like a
variance too he should go before the Peabody Board of Appeals. Hearing closed.
MINUTES - BOARD OF APPEAL - JULY 9 1980 - PAGE TWO
4 Aberdeen Street - continued
• DISCUSSION - Mr. Hacker stated that the petitioners obviously intended to
sell the 2nd lot when they purchased the land in 1973, and all the houses in the
area are on similar sized lots, therefore he would be in favor of granting this
variance. Mr. Boulger felt that the Board should go along with the Planning Board's
recommendation.
Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the variance on the grounds that this is a
definate hardship to the petitioners as they always intended to sell the lot and
it would not be a detriment to the neighborhood as they have similar lots to the
two that would be created. Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE
TO GRANT: Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Boulger and Mr. Luzinski.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED.
119 Boston Street - Sotirios & Theoklitos Korisianos (B-2 District)
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to construct a 14 foot by 45 foot
addition to a non-conforming building at 119 Boston Street. The proposed addition
will meet all density regulations except the rear yard setback and will not exceed
the lot coverage of 257 permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Boulger withdrew.
Atty. George Vallis, 1 Church St. , Salem represented the petitioners before the
Board. He stated that the property in the rear is ledge and is a steep rise.
He stated that the petitioners took over a closed garage 3, years ago and have turned
• it into a very successful business. They are requesting the additional bay in order
to issue Inspection Stickers, presently they have to take their customers cars to
other stations to have them inspected. He stated that it is not a substantial extension
of the building, and it is a permitted use in the area. The bay must be 45 deep�
for the inspection of lights. The petitioners appeared in favor. Mr. Peter Polemenako,
115 Boston Street appeared in favor. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Hacker and Mr. Luzinski could see no problem granting the Special Permit.
.Mr. Hopper felt it would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Hacker voted
to grant the Special Permit for the addition as presented. Mr. LaBrecque seconded.
ROLL CALL - TO GRANT: Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Hacker, and Mr. Luzinski.
GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY
�Yk xk�k ick irk irk i�F xk'c�F.t is at�k at�t ie is�'r:HY�
6-6§ Cushing Street - Paul & Elizabeth Hinchion (R-2 District)
The petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to add a third floor apartment
to the existing two family house. No construction would be done - there are 5 rooms
and two exits from the third floor, also sufficient parking.
Mr. Boulger stated the petition was not correctly before the Board because there
no drawings bearing an architects stamp submitted. The petitioners requested leave
to-withdraw without:.prejudice, so they may re-submit at a later date. On the motion
o£_Mr._ ;uzinski, seconded by Mr. LaBrecque it was voted to grant leave to withdraw
without prejudice by unanimous hand vote.
i
irk is�k i<k i<k x is iCk irk aY:S-x*�k is is is irk irk ilk is
MINUTES - BOARD OF APPEAL - JULY 9. 1980 - PAGE THREE
• 14 Lynde Street - Kenneth E. Lindauer & Carin Gordon, Petitioners (R-3 District)
Petitioners are requesting variances to convert the building to professional
offices, and relief from the parking requirements. .
Atty. Kenneth Lindauer presented the case before the Board. A letter in favor of
the petition was received from the City Planner. Letters were received in favor
from the following abutters - The Witch Dungeon Museum, 16 Lynde St. , Berkal, Stelman
and Davern, 26 Lynde St. , Donaldson & Smith, 6 Lynde Street.
Atty. Lindauer stated they intended to completely gut the house, which was built
in 1803, and restore it for professional office space. It is presently a rooming house.
Mr. Hopper asked if they have review their plans with the Historic Commission. Mr.
Lindauer stated they had talked with the Redevelopment Authority as to approval of
the facade, and were agreeable to getting the approval of the Historic Commission.
Mr. Luzinski asked how many people were living in the house. Mr. Lindauer stated
that the third floor is unoccupied due to a recent fire, there are roomers on the
other two floors, and the owner and his family live in a 6 room apartment on the
rear of the first floor.
Mr. Gauthier, Building Inspector stated that this rooming house was previously
licensed for 15 roomers, since the fire they are only licensed for 8. He stated
everyone would be very happy to see this building restored as planned by the petitioners.
Mr. Boulger-that Mr. Tseckares is one of the top rated architects in Boston, and
• that he did the Mercantile Building. Mr. Tseckares stated that the building is sound
and has many possibilities. Boulger- -the petitioners should get an agreement with
the Witch Museum for the right of entry and passage over their land so that the
emergency door could be used. Mrs. Albert C. Day, 55 Marble Ridge Rd. , North
Andover appeared in favor. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boulger noted that there is ample parking across the street,
though there is no on site parking. He stated that it would not be a detriment to the
neighborhood in fact it would be a hardship to the community if the building was not
restored.
Mr. Luzinski moved to grant the variances as requested. Mr. Hopper seconded with
the amendment that the petitioners get the approval of the Historic Commission on the
facade, and get agreement with the abutter re. egress. ROLL CALL - TO GRANT: Mr.
Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Boulger and Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED.
*�rxx�xx�rxnc��rxx�,rn�xn�rxx
16 Broadway - (Salem Paper Co.) June Brown- & Herbert Ablow (Industrial District)
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to enlarge a non-conforming structure.
Relief is requested from maximum lot coverage, minimum width - side yard, minimum depth-
rear yard and off street parking facilities.
Atty. George Atkins, III, 59 Federal St. , Salem, represented the petitioners before
• the Board.
MINUTES - BOARD OF APPEAL - JULY 9. 1980 - PAGE FOUR
• 16 Broadway - continued
He stated that the company was founded in 1922, moved to this location in 1967
and were granted a Special Permit to enlarge the building to 57% of coverage and they
are now requesting an addition which will cover 62% of the property. The petitioners
have entered into an agreement with their abutter to purchase an additional parcel which
when added to the Salem Paper Co. land will give a combined area of 53,125 sq. feet.
Previous petitions granted allowed for a 5 foot side yard , and the new addition will
extend on the same line. He stated that there is a requirement of 30 feet on the side,
they will need a Special Permit for 29 feet, they are within 5 feet of the rear line.
Atty. Atkins stated that they meet the number of parking spaces needed but there
may be a problem when a truck is at the loading bay, cars would have to back up and
turn around to get out. They have 2 company vehicles and 22 employees. There are
10 existing parking spaces in the front for customers. Mr. Hopper felt that they should
make an agreementment with the abutter re. cars backing to turn around, and did not
see the necessity of a variance or special permit for this problem.
Mr. Kenneth Brown spoke in favor. Stated that they have been there since 1967 and
have no parking problems. The Lafayette Club across the street is empty during the
day and Salem Paper parking is available at night, so they use' each others parking
as needed. They have the same arrangement with the bowling alley on the side. There
was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Hopper moved Special Permits be granted for the density, the maximum lot
coverage not to exceed 62 %, and special permits from the side and rear yard requirements
• as requested. Mr. Hacker seconded. Mr. Boulger noted that literal enforcement of
the Zoning Ordinance would involve hardship to the petitioners, and the granting of the
petition would not be a detriment to the public good. ROLL CALL - TO GRANT: Mr.
Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Boulger and Mr. LQzinski. GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY
72 North Street - Harry M. Andrews (R-2 District)
Petitioner is requesting permission to erect a free standing sign with a total
area of 192 square feet. The present sign ordinance allows only 64 square feet on
a free standing sign.
Letters were received from the Planning Board - recommending that Mr. Andrews
be allowed a sign of 160 square feet if the remaining small signs are eliminated;
from the City Planner, Greg Senko recommending that the Board grant a variance which
would allow Mr. Andrews to erect a second free standing sign not to exceed 125 square
feet in addition to the existing free standing sign, which contains 65 sq. feet.
Mr. Andrews represented himself before the Board. He stated that he has removed
920 sq. feet of sign, and that this free standing sign would be located at the site of
the old Burger-Chef sign. He stated that the sign is critical to his business because
of its location. He presented pictures of before and after, showing the signs that
have been taken down, and those that will be taken down if this variance is granted.
Mr. Boulger asked where the other free standing sign was. Mr. Hopper asked if the
petitioner would be agreeable to the Planning Board's suggestion to remove the other
• free standing sign. He stated he could not do this. Mr. Hopper asked if both businesses
could be advertised on one sign. Petitioner stated no, the auto beautification center
and the car wash are two seperate things. He stated the signs he is allowed on the
sides of his building by the Sign Ordinance would be of no value to him.
MINUTES - BOARD OF APPEAL - JULY 9, 1980 - PAGE FIVE
• 72 North Street (Continued)
Mr. Andrews stated that it was his understanding that the Planning Board knew
that the existing free standing sign would remain. There was no opposition. Hearing
closed.
Mr. Boulger felt that Mr. Senko was the Salem Sign Officer, and he would be willing
to go along with his recommendation. Mr. Boulger moved that the petitioner be granted
variances for the two free standing sigps, theN;existing one to remain as is, and the
new one to contain 125 sq. feet of signage on the existing sign post, with the restriction
that no other signs be allowed on the site. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. ROLL CALL VOTE
TO GRANT: Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Boulger and Mr. Luzinski.
GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY
�YaYk:Yki�'caY�th*ic�*�'c�AYc�chhtm�XYc
475 Highland Avenue - Rent-All Automotive, Inc. (B-2 District)
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to use the property for the sale,
service aid Eental of trailers and motor vehicles. A letter was received from the
Planning/reeodmending the property be improved as to facade and fencing, and attaching
pictures taken at the location.
Atty. Loring Fluke, 60 Lewis St. , Lynn represented the petitioner before the
• Board. He stated that the business rents, sells and services all types of equipment,
and now they are forming a new corporation to rent and sell trailers and motor vehicles.
He stated that there will only be 4 vehicles on the premises at one time,� they will
be cars mostly, the trailers would flat bed or utility trailers measuring 6 to 7 feet
in length:; Mr.. Boulger asked how come the building projects on to Wyman Ave. as shown
on the plot plan submitted. Mr. Fluke stated he did not know. Mr. Hopper asked
when the property was occupied by Pioneer Dodge. --About 8 years ago. Mr. Hopper
noted that the Planning Department have no objection to the petition, just want the
property upgraded. Mr. Boulger stated that the Board had granted this type of thing
before with conditions for upgrading and the properties are never improved once the
petitions are granted. He is sick and tired of promises, this is an entrance to Salem
and he did not feel it should be granted until the property was improved. Mr. Hacker
noted that it is difficult to hold the petitioner to what someone else has done in
the past. Mr. Hopper noted that this might be a chance to get the property undated,
if the petitioner would come back with drawings of the improvements to be made.
Atty. Fluke stated that the Planning Dept. never communicated with them as to
their feelings. Harold Kramer, 50 Auburndale Rd. , Marblehead, Owner spoke. He stated
they were trying,., to improve and increase business, they pay revenue to the City of Salem.
Their customers park on Wyman Avenue, and they need open fencing so that the customers
can see what is available for hire. Mr. Hacker asked, since they were not aware of
the Planning Dept. 's feelings, could they be allowed to withdraw and work with the
Planning Dept, for an agreeable site plan, or could the hearing be continued until
September. Atty. Fluke requested permission to withdraw without prejudice.
Mr. Hopper moved the petitioner be given leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr.
. LaBrecque seconded. GRANTED unanimous hand vote.
MINUTES - BOARD OF APPEAL - JULY 9, 1980 - PAGE SIX
•
It was voted that the next meeting of the Board be held on Wednesday, .September 10,
1980 at 7:00 P.M.
On the motion of MrarLaBrecque the meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
•
a
•
s �a alt#g o 'ttlEm, 'Massadjusetts
0 �
� PaxrD of ��ettl
��1MM6 v."
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1980.
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Tuesday,
August 19, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green, for the purpose of electing
officers.
The following members were present: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr.
Piemonte, Mr. Hopper, Mr, Hacker and Associate Members Mr. Luzinski and Mr.
Martineau. Mr. Robert Gauthier, Building Inspector was also present,
Mr. LaBrecque nominated Mr. Douglas Hopper temporary Chairman, Mr.
Feeherry seconded. Voted.
Mr. LaBrecque nominated Mr. Douglas Hopper permanent Chairman. Mr.
Feeherry seconded. Mr. Piemonte moved nominations be closed. Voted. Mr.
Hopper elected Chairman by hand vote.
Mr. LaBrecque nominated Mr. Joseph Piemonte as Vice-Chairman. Mr.
Feeherry seconded, Mr. Piemonte elected Vice-Chairman by hand vote.
• Mr. Piemonte nominated Mr. Anthony Feeherry as Secretary and Legal Counsel
to the Board. Mr. Hacker seconded. Mr. Feeherry elected by hand vote.
Mr. Gauthier explained to the Board the reasons for the meeting on
August 29, 1980, relative tb=%the petition of the Salem Housing Authority
for variances to erect elderly housing at the corner of Bridge and St. Peter
Streets.
On the motion of Mr. Hopper it was agreed that the board members will
read over the Rules and Regulations adopted by the Board of Appeal in 1976,
and any amendments or changes will be discussed at the August 29th meeting.
On the motion of Mr. Feeherry, seconded by Mr. LaBrecque the meeting
adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Clerk
•
e Qlitg of "4ale i[, 'Massadjusetts
Paarb of ( p"Zal
Zo=auras
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 1980
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Friday, August 29,
1980 at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green. Said notice of hearing was duly published
in the Salem Evening News on August 15, 1980 and August 22, 1980, and notices
were sent postpaid to abutters and others in accordance with Mass General Laws.
The following members were present: Chairman Hopper, and Messers. Piemonte,
Feeherry, Hacker, and LaBrecque. Also present were Building Inspector Robert E.
Gauthier, Salem Housing Director William Farrell, and Stephen Tise of Stern-Tise
Developers.
CORNER BRIDGE & ST. PETER STREETS - SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY
The Salem Housing Authority is petitioning for any variances needed to
construct 54 units of elderly housing at the corner of Bridge and St. Peter
Streets. The property is in a B-5 District.
Letters in favor of the petition were received from the Planning Department
and the Salem Redevelopment Authority. A letter was received from Fire Marshal
• Goggin listing eight requirements necessary for approval by his department.
Mr. Gauthier, Building Inspector spoke in favor of the petition, and stated
all city departments will waiver their fees for all necessary permits.
Mr. William Farrell, Housing Authority Director stated that this elderly
housing is badly needed in the City of Salem. There are 900 people on the waiting
list. He stated that the City could lose 1.9 million dollars of aid if the
City does not move quickly.
Mr. Stephen Tise, Architect and Developer presented the case before the
Board. He stated that the Housing Authority and the Redevelopment Authority
advertised about a year ago for mixed use development of this parcel of land,
condominiums and state financed elderly housing.
He stated that the variances necessary are from side yard and front yard
requirements. The front of the building will be on St. Peter Street, and
they are requesting permission to build,. to within 22 feet of the street,
instead of the 30.67 feet that would be required, for front yard. On the Bridge
Street side they are requesting permission to build to within 7 feet of the
street, although their current plans allow 10 feet. He stated that the land
has already been sub-divided into two parcels, and that Stern-Tise will also
constrpct the condominiums to be built on the other parcel. There will be
18/jp cesgfor the 54 units and the access and exit to the parking will be on
Bridge Street. He stated that they have hired the same landscape architect
as the City of Salem, and all work done must have the approval of the Design
Review Board. Mr. Piemonte asked if there would be any balconies. Mr. Tise
stated the state will not allow balconies. There will be meeting rooms and
a sun terrace on the first floor.
5 .- . �t#� IIf �t11Em, �tTSS�ItIpz88##g
PnttrD of �ppex1
�huxs
MINUTES - AUGUST 29. 1980 - PAGE TWO
Mr. Feeherry asked where the parking for the condominiums would be. Mr. Tise
stated - underneath the buildings. He stated that the state has allowed that
the $60,000.00 that would have been spent on purchase of the land be used for
the facade of the building.
Mr. Henry LaPointe, member of the Salem Housing Authority was recorded in
favor. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Feeherry moved that a variance be granted from the side yard restriction
to allow construction to within 7 feet on the Bridge Street side, and a variance
be given for the front yard restriction to allow construction to within 22 feet
on the St. Peter Street side. He,. also moved that there be 16 parking spaces
with access and egress on Bridge Street, and 2 with access and egress on St. Peter
Street, and that the petitioner comply with the letter from the Fire Marshal,
and the plans be stamped by the Fire Prevention Bureau before a building permit
is issued. Mr. Piemonte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE TO GRANT: Mr.
Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte. GRANTED BY
• UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE.
Discussion followed on proposed changes in the rules and regulations of the
Board. The Board agreed to take up the matter at the next meeting after further
study.
On the motion of Mr. Feeherry, seconded by Mr. LaBrecque, the meeting adjourned
at 7: 55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
-�ZZiLlia/.G� V; C�LJ/2/tJ
Clerk
s e 01ttu of "Saletn' ' IKnsq rlju$Ett$
DBYD Df Pill
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1980
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Wednesday, September 10,
1980 at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green for a public hearing. Said notice of hearing
was duly published in the Salem Evening News on August 27, and September 3, 1980,
and notices were sent postpaid to abutters and others in accordance with Mass.
General Laws.
On roll call the following answered present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman,
Anthony Feeherry, Arthur LaBrecque, Joseph Piemonte and Associate Member Jean-Guy
Martineau. Mr. Hopper appointed Mr. Martineau a voting member for this meeting.
On the motion of Mr. Piemonte, seconded by Mr. Labrecque the minutes of the last
meeting, as corrected, were accepted.
1-3 East Collins Street - Ward Two Social Club of Salem, Inc.
Petitioners are requesting a variance to 't erect an eight foot fence to
enclose the yard in the rear of the building. Mr. Peter Tracy, Pres. of 36 Osgood
Street presented the case before the Board. He stated that under the Zoning Ordinance
the club could erect a six foot fence, but v are requesting the variance for
the eight foot fence in order to provide extra security, and prevent trespassing.
• Appearing in opposition - Henry Casey,25 Planters Street. He asked if there
would be a gate in the fence. Mr. Tracy - Yes, for trash collection. Mr. Casey
asked if the gate will be open for functions. Mr. Tracy- Yes. Mr. Casey asked
what kind of surface would be on the lot and if there would be dancing. Mr. Tracy
stated the parking section will be paved, there will be a horseshoe court and
it is not decided as to what else.
Joseph Perreault, 21 Planters Street spoke in opposition. He stated the
club has 90 members, and a capacity of 200. They do not have enough parking spaces,
the building has not been painted for 10 years. After functions the crowd leave
cursing, drunk, and the people in the area cannot sleep. They take all the parking
spaces on the surrounding streets.
Others in opposition, Elaine Pooler, 29 Planters Street, Frank Silveria,
4 East Collins Street.
REBUTTAL - Mr. Tracy stated that they are just asking for an additional two
feet on the fence for security. He stated that some of the late drinkers come from
the Salem Willows gs3 well as the club. Mr. Piemonte asked why they needed 8 feet
instead of 6 feet. -Mr. Tracy - harder for people to drop over. Mr. Hopper asked
how many spaces they had for parking. Mr. Tracy - 30 spaces, they will be losing
8 of these. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Piemonte noted that if the variance is denied they can still
• put up a six foot fence. Mr. Feeherry noted that if the fence goes up it will reduce
the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Feeherry moved that the petition be denied because no special hardship
was established. Mr. Piemonte seconded. ROLL CALL TO DENY: Yes: Mr. Feeherry,
Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Martineau. DENIED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL
CALL VOTE.
tly.tt�tn
(.9itg of 'Salem, 'fflttssadjusetts
Poarb of Appvd
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 - PAGE TWO
190 North Street - Panagoula A. Young - Salem Carpet Center, Inc.
Petitioners are requesting a variance to use the rear portion of the
building for the purpose of storing carpets and rugs and holding occasional
warehouse sales on the premises.
Atty. George Vallis represented the petitioners before the Board. He
stated Mrs. Young has owned the building since 1936, it was used for the
manufacturing of coffee from 1936 to 1973. She had rented to a coffee manu-
facturer, but the use has been abandoned. The rear portion of the building
contains 3,000 square feet and the City has taxed it fully until 2 years ago.
She had 'machinery stored in the building but has sold it for scrap. The
front of the property is the Naumkeag Drug Store. Mr. Warren Dion of Salem
Carpet Center, Inc, wishes to lease the premises for storing rugs. There
will be one employee on the premises, no display or sales. About four times
a year he would like to hold a warehouse sale. Mr. Piemonte asked it there
would be inflammables on the premises. No. Mr. Gauthier the Building Inspector,
stated that he and the Fire Marshal would have to check the building out anyway
• to see if it was suitable for storage.
Mr. Dion stated that his men would pick up rugs in the morning, and
that trailer trucks would deliver to the warehouse about two or three times
a week. He stated that the rugs that were delivered in vans could make use
of the driveway to unload. The trailer trucks would not be able to use
the driveway, but would park on North Street. Mr. Feeherry asked the hours of
operation. 8: 30 A.M. to 5: 30 P.M.Mr. Hopper asked about weekends. Mr. Dion
stated there would be no deliveries on Saturday but a mechanic would be working
in the building on +Saturdays.
Mr. Piemonte asked Mr. Vallis why they were petitioning for a variance
instead of a special permit. Mr. Vallis said that it is over a year since
it has been a non-conforming use, and that it is a hardship for the owner.
There is no way this building can be used as anything but a commercial use.
Appearing and speaking in opposition - Mary Wilkins, 188 North Street.
She stated that her bedroom window is 3 feet away from this property. North
Street has enough problems with noise, trucks, and parking. She stated the
building is listed in the Assessors as dead storage. Mr. Hopper asked her if
she could think of a better use than the one proposed. Mrs. Wilkins - dead
storage. Mrs. Wilkins submitted pictures of-.. the site and a petition signed by
20 neighbors in opposition. The following also appeared in opposition;
Kenneth Mansfield, 6 Cressy Ave. , Dorothy Wood, 188 North St. , Edwin Hatt,
8 Nursery St. , Joseph Silva, 191 North Street.
• ' REBUTTAL: Mr. Vallis stated he could appreciate the problems on North
Street, but this business would not be adding to the traffic. He stated the
owner keeps the property in excellent condition, she cannot get an abatement
from the City, it is difficult to rent as it is only suited for industrial use.
It is a definite hardship on the owner to maintain this building.
(gi#v of ,,�itt1Em, 'Massadjusetts
Poarb of Appeal
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 - PAGE THREE
Mr. Dion stated he has three vans, which would make between 12 to 15
deliveries a week, 3 or 4 trailer trucks and the balance of the deliveries would
be in straight body trucks. Hearing closed.
Mr. Hopper asked Mr. Dion if he could restrict the loading and unloading
to the vans. Mr. Dion did not think it possible. Mr. Feherry asked if the
vans would be left at the location over night. No, the installers take them home.
Mr. Piemonte moved to grant the variance with the following restrictions:
1. It be limited to one year; 2. No deliveries or pick ups Saturdays and Sundays ;
3. Deliveries be limited to vans up to 25 feet and the driveway to be used;
4 Hours of operation 8: 30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. six days a week;S.No warehouse sales.
Mr. Labrecque Seconded. ROLL CALL TO GRANT: Yes - Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque,
Mr. Piemonte, No-Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Martineau. PETITION DENIED - 3 Yeas 2 Nays.
------------------------------------------
• 411-413 Essex Street - Frank A. Bisegna
Petitioner is requesting a variance to construct a restaurant which would
not meet the density regulations as they affect front yard and west side yard
requirements.
Atty. George Vallis represented the petitioner before the Board. Letters in
opposition were received from Fire Chief Brennan and Ward IV Councillor Frances
Grace. A letter was received from the Planning Board requesting that the venting
be on the west side or rear of the building. A letter was received from the
Historical Commission requesting that they review the facade design before
construction.
Mr. Vallis stated the property is in a B-1 District, and by re-arranging the
building he could avoid coming to the Board, as the restaurant proposed is a
permitted use. He wishes to take advantage of the foundation on the site and
therefore needs variances from front yard and west side yard requirements.
Mr. Vallis stated there will be three employees and the hours of operation
will be 7 days a week 7: 30 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. It would be necessary for him
to go to the Licensing Board and come back to the Appeal Board again if he
wished to serve alcoholic beverages. Mr. Hopper noted that the parking does
not conform, it would be necessary to back out into the street. Mr. Gauthier
noted that he realizes the neighbors are opposed, but that the law protects
everyone' s rights. Mr. Bisegna can build the restaurant without any board
approval if he moves it away from the side line.
• Mr. Bisegna spoke in favor of his petition. He stated the property is a
hardship to him, and he has tried many times to construct something on the
land.
Appearing and speaking in opposition - Miss Dorothea Leonard, 40 Warren
Street.
�y,corw,
4 (gitg of �Satem, fflttssadjusetts
PIIarb of Ptil
"8^Mxa o�'S
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 - PAGE FOUR
411-413 Essex Street (Continued)
Miss Leonard submitted a letter in opposition from Howard and Ellen Beechey,
42 Warren St. &a petition signed by 46 neighbors in opposition.'-The -lot is
very small. She stated that this is - Mr. Bisegna' s third attempt to get
something on cnis property. There are four other restaurants in the area.
She stated that the Board of Appeal found no hardship in 1978. She stated that
the Planning Board' s recommendation would put the venting right into her back
yard. Also appearing in opposition - Mr. Robert Moulton, 39 Warren Street
submitted pictures of the lot. Mr. Feeherry asked the size of the lot. Mr.
Vallis stated in the vicinity of 6,000 square feet (Assesor' s map shows 5,063)
Mr. Moulton stated that due to the limited parking space on the lot the patrons
will be parking on the surrounding street. He felt that there was no unique
hardship. Mr. Hopper noted that if a variance was granted, restrictions could
be tacked on. Mr. Moulton felt there would still be the parking problem.
Councillor Lovely spoke in opposition. He stated that Mr. Bisegna did not finish
tearing down the building that was there for 3 years, this restaurant would produce
a hardship for the people in the area. Also appearing 'in opposition were -
John Cappucio, 45 Warren St. , Mildred Moulton, 39 Moulton St. , John J. Toomey,
36 Warren Street, Bertha Cappucio, 45 Warren Street and Helen Baldwin, 47 Warren
• Street.
REBUTTAL - Mr. Vallis stated that Mr. Bisegna has been here of two previous
occasions. He was asking for a restaurant with a liquor license. The objection
at that time was to the liquor. He stated a restaurant is a permitted use in
this district and the petitioner would be willing to submit the plans for the
structure to the Design Review Board. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Hopper to Councillor Lovely - If it were granted with
restrictions would the neighborhood be amendable. Councillor Lovely - No the
requirements of Zoning should be met. Mr. Feeherry moved that the petition for
a variance from front and side yard requirements be denied because the petitioner
failed to prove special hardship. Mr. Martineau seconded. ROLL CALL - VOTING
TO DENY - Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Martineau.
PETITION UNANIMOUSLY DENIED.
-----------------------------------------
6-6'.- Cushing Street - Paul & Elizabeth Hinchion
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to add a third floor apartment
to the existing two-family dwelling. They represented themselves before the Board.
Mr. Hinchion stated that there are 5 finished rooms on the third floor with a
front and back entrance. He stated that they have lived there 2'k years and have
made many improvements. The driveway is 100 feet long and cars can park in the
• rear. There was no opposition. A letter was received from the Planning Board
suggesting the variance be denied. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION - Mr. Feeherry noted that there was no opposition but that parking
was the problem. He moved to „grant the Special Permit with the following
conditions: l. The Special Permit ends r.-a when the property is sold; 2. The
Special Permit terminates if the Hinchions no longer occupy it; 3. The parking
on the lot is for the residents of 6-6k Cushing Street only. Mr. Piemonte seconded.
�„•oOPW,
fditg of 'Salem, �Rttssnr4usetta
S PoMrb Ld ( 1k"V 1
• '�s r
�OrrrMB
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 - PAGE FIVE
6-6k Cushing St. (Continued)
ROLL CALL TO GRANT: Yes- Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte,
Mr. Martineau. SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY.
----------------------------
101 Loring Avenue - Edward J. McCormick - Thomas Coppola
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow for the use of the
premises as an office and storage area for a small landscape business.
Atty. James Coppola of Lynn represented the petitioner before the Board.
He stated that Thomas Coppola entered into an oral agreement with Mr. McCormick
to store his equipment and use some space as an office in exchange for work
done on the property. He stated Mr. Coppola left early in the morning and returned
in the evening and no customers come to him. He stated the neighbors felt the
improvements he made to the property have benefited them, and there are many other
small commercial businesses in the neighborhood.
• Mr. Hopper asked if he and Mr. McCormick intend to have a written agreement.
He said he could if it were needed. He wishes to store his equipment there
over the winter, and the oral agreement was for 2 years.
asked
Mr. Feeherry/what is at the property. -The front is Nick' s Variety Store,
Mr. Coppola' s storage would be behind, 2 pick up trucks, a dump truck, plow and
equipment.
Councillor John Nutting, of Ward VII had some questions. Would the early
morning hours disturb the abutters, would they be sharpening the power equipment
at night, would there be gasoline stored on the premises,. would there be any
selling. Mr. Piemonte asked about the hours. Mr. Coppola stated that the hours
would be 7: 30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. , he had no problems with the neighbors, nothing
will be done there late at night, there is a cement fire wall between his space
and the store, there is gasoline in the mowers, and a 5 gallon can. He stated he
would like to have a sign on the building. There was no other opposition.
Hearing closed.
Mr. Feeherry moved a Special Permit for Professional use be granted with the
following conditions: 1. The petitioner be limited to 3 lettered vehicles (2
pick-up trucks and 1 dump truck) ; 2. The hours of operation be 7: 30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
6 days a week; 3. The Special Permit be for 2 years, and then must be renewed;
4. There be no selling of nursery stock or landscaping materials from the location;
5. There be no more that one cord of wood, neatly stacked on the property;
6. Any sign erected have the approval of the Planning Department. Mr. LaBrecque
• seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE TO GRANT - YES: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper,
Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte, and Mr. Martineau. GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY.
s ei#v of '*tlem, mttssar4usetta
nxrD of eal
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 - PAGE SIX
9-11 Ocean Terrace - Martha B. Sanders
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert the existing two
family dwelling at 9-11 Ocean Terrace (R-1 District) into three family.
Atty. George Vallis represented the petitioner before the Board. He stated
that when Miss Sanders purchased the property it was in a bad state of disrepair.
She has evicted the tenants and is renovating the apartments. She has put in
new walls, floors, wiring, and plumbing. When the second floor apartment is
completed she intends to live there. It is a very large house, built after
the Salem Fire, the surrounding houses are three family. The third floor
has five large rooms. The 1st floor has been rented to a couple with 2 cars,
she will live alone on the second floor and has 1 car, she intends to make the
third floor into a three room apartment with one bedroom, so it would be
suitable for a couple. A letter from Stewart Comer, 3 Ocean Terrace, in
favor was presented. A petition signed by 4 abutters was presented. Appearing
in favor Philip Jerszk, 13-15 Ocean Terrace, Stuart Comer, 3 Ocean Terrace,
Nancy Hern, 5-7 Ocean Terrace. Also appearing and speaking in favor was Richard
• Otenti, 21 Ocean Terrace. He stated that the property had been eye sore until
Miss Sanders purchased it. In the last six months she has completely turned the
property around, and has improved the neighborhood.
Speaking in opposition - Councillor Nutting, Ward VII, stated that the
neighborhood is crowded with college students who have caused all types of
problems, parking, late parties, etc. He challenged the parking spaces available
quoting the Zoning Ordinance which stated that shall be 9 feet by 18 feet.
He stated this is a dead end street on a steep incline and is very short.
Betty Ash, 15 Cliff Street spoke in opposition. She stated the area is full of
three family homes, for which permission was never obtained, that 13-15 Ocean
Terrace is owned by a absentee landlord, the people that have lived there for
years have no place to park. Also appearing in opposition were Dennis Gagliano,
20 Ocean Ave. , Larry Ash, 15 Clifton Ave. , John Sousa, 12 Cliff Street.
REBUTTAL: Mr. Vallis stated that this is not an absentee landlord situation.
The neighborhood is slowly deteriorating and Miss Sanders is bringing this house
back. Miss Sanders said she wanted to cut down on the number of people on the
premises, not increase them. Mr. Martineau told Councillor Nutting that he is
well aware of his problems as the former Ward V Councillor, but that it is the
absentee landlord that is the cancer eating up the city, if the landlord lives in
the house the situation does not exist.
Mr. Gauthier stated that he has met with some of the neighbors, and had been
against this petition, but that he thought Miss Sanders was going to be another
absentee landlord. Mr. Nutting mentioned the problem of snow removal.
• Mr. Hopper asked Mr. Vallis if the petitioner would be willing to accept a time
limitation, so that the neighbors could see if she lived up to what she is
saying. Hearing closed.
��.wvwr
e e �Lf J of `Satent, 'MassadjusettB
• L 9 Pearb of Appeal
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10. 1980 - PAGE SEVEN
9-11 Ocean Terrace (Continued)
DISCUSSION: Mr. Piemonte stated he could understand the parking situation--
but that this is the kind of neighbor that he would want. Mr. Feeherry stated
that he liked to see young people move into Salem, and maybe the number of
vehicles could be limited. Mr. Feeherry asked the total number of people in
the building now. --Two on the first floor, one on the second floor. He
suggested that the total occupancy of the building be limited to 7 individuals.
Miss Sanders asked if she could come back at a later date for a variance without
restrictions. Yes.
Mr. Feeherry moved to grant the variance for a third apartment at '9-11 Ocean
Terrace with the following conditions: 1. The 3rd floor apartment be limited to
a 1 bedroom, three room apartment; 2. The use as a three family is contingent on
Miss. Sanders living in, and owning the property; 3. Only up to seven persons
dwell in the building; 4. Only 4 vehicles can be owned by people dwelling on the
property. Mr. MaBrecque seconded the motion. ROLL CALL TO GRANT- YES: Mr.
• Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte and Mr. Martineau. UNANIMOUSLY
GRANTED.
--------------------------
35 Congress Street - Shetland Properties
The petitioners are seeking a variance to construct a waterfront Marina
consisting of floats with slips to accommodate 75 boats, with a car parking area
to accommodate 100 vehicles.
Mr. Gauthier requested permission to withdraw without prejudice for the
petitioner since no one was present to present the case.
Mr. Edward Plesanoga of Ocean Ave. appeared and stated he was not against
the Marina, but was concerned re. the piece of property owned by the city.
He stated that the previous •;Lasee gave the public problems when they ,.tried to
use the public float. He wishes to see the public facility maintained on the
same side of the bridge as it has always been.
Mr. Feeherry moved the petitioner be given leave to withdraw without
prejudice. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. Voted by hand vote.
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 29, 1980 at 7:00 P.M.
• The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Clerk
01itu of 'Saleui� Massachusetts
�A
PattrD of �kppettl
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1980
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session of Wednesday, October 29,
1980 at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green for a public hearing! Said notice of hearing
was duly published in the Salem Evening News on October 15 and 22, 1980, and notices
were sent postpaid to abutters and others in accordance with Mass. General Laws.
On roll call the following answered present: Joseph Piemonte, Edward Luzinski,
Anthony Feeherry, and James Hacker. Mr. Piemonte as Acting Chairman appointed
Mr. Luzinski as a voting member for the evening. On the motion of Mr. Luzinski,
seconded by Mr. Hacker the minutes of the September 10th, 1980 meeting were accepted
as submitted.
35 Congress Street - Shetland Industries (Heard as second petition)
Petitioners are requesting a variance to construct a waterfront Marina con-
sisting of floats with slips to accommodate 75 boats, with a car parking area to
accomodate 100 vehicles.
Mr. Robert Lappin appeared to present the case before the Board. He stated
that Shetland Industries has the necessary permits from the Salem Planning Board
• and Conservation Commission and is waiting for permits from the State. Mr. Piemonte
expressed concern as to the availability of a public landing. Mr. Gauthier, Building
Inspector informed the Board that he has talked with City Solicitor Tinti, and has
been assured that the public landing, at the Congress St. Bridge, will not be
affected by this marina. The Mayor has asked Mr. Gauthier to speak in behalf of
this petition. Mr. Feeherry assured Mr. Piemonte that any decision written could
contain an agreement for the public landing. Mr. Lappin stated he had no objection
to the public landing. Mr. Piemonte noted that the petition states that there will
be no facilities for storage. Mr. Lappin stated the people moored there would go
to a boat yard to be pulled out for the winter. Mr. Feeherry asked if there will
be any construction. Mr. Lappin - No. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Feeherry moved that the variance be granted for a Marina consisting of
floats with slips to accommodte no more than 75 boards, and that it be provided in
the variance for the execution of an agreement with the City Solicitor for the
existing public landing to remain. Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion. ROLL CALL TO
GRANT. VOTING YES: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. GRANTED
UNANIMOUSLY.
94 Bridge Street - Michael J. A'postolos (Heard first)
Petitioner is requesting a variance to extend the non-conforming service station
by the construction of a 30 foot by 17 foot addition in the rear of the existing
building.
Atty. Edward Holzberg, 1 Salem Green represented the petitioner before the
• Board. He stated this is a mixed district with many traffic problems. Mr. Apostolos
wishes to construct this addition for the storage of oil on the first floor and
office space on the second. He stated that a fence has been erected to lessen some
of the problems of the abutters.
(.9i#g of 'SaIrm, Anssar4usE##s
Pourb of �ppeul
. 60
MINUTES - OCTOBER 29, 1980 - PAGE TWO
94 Bridge Street (Continued)
Mr. Feeherry asked if this was the same proposed construction that was before
the Board a year ago, and what was the height of the fence erected. Mr. Holzberg,
stated it was the same petition and the S$nce erected was 6 feet. Mr. Feeherry noted
that the variance granted in 1974 contain/a provision for landscaping, and that there
is none there now.
Mr. David Jaquith, Architect stated that one side is landscaped. Mr. Feeherry
asked how high the landscaping will be on the other side of the building. Not known.
Mr. Feeherry asked if the petitioner was requesting a Special Permit or a Variance.
Mr. Holzberg - a Variance. Mr. Feeherry asked as to the status of the land in the
rear of the existing building. Mr. Holzberg stated it is now dirt but it will be
paved. Mr. Feeherry asked if the trucks parked along the side of the property now
will be eliminated by the construction of this addition. Mr. Holzberg - No.
Mr. Gauthier noted that the variance granted August 26, 1974 allow an addition
• 47 feet by 14 feet, and actually the building addition was build larger with an
additional 12 foot by 18 foot piece added. Mr. Piemonte noted that this violated
the first variance.
Mr. Apostolos spoke for his petition. He stated that when he bought the property
it was a dump. He has cleaned it up and planted bushes on one side. He wishes to store,
in. • this new addition, 500 cases of oil . He stated he is trying to fix up the place-•
for his son before he retires. He said he will hottop the rear and plant shrubs.
The Jatran' trucks that have been parked on the street are not his. The ones on
the lot are the ones he rents.
Mr. Jaquith stated that the landscapeing strip would be 4 feet. Mr. Feherry
asked if he understood the reason for side yard and rear yard restrictions. Mr.
Piemonte stated that all the truck stored on the property and the larger addition will
cause more congestion.
Commander J. Alex Michaud, of Michaud Trailways appeared and spoke in favor.
Ruth McNamara, 3 Pearl Street spoke. She stated that she was not appearing in
opposition to Mr. Apostolos's petition, but in opposition to the conditions existing
there now. She stated the weeds are taller than her, children going to Carlton School
cannot be seen by drivers if trucks are parked on the corner. Dana Robert, 4 Pearl
Street appeared in opposition. He submitted pictures of trucks parked on the street.
He stated cleaning the yard is not landscaping. He would like to see shrubs and hot-
topping. The fence is an improvement. Councillor Nestor, Ward II appeared in opposi-
tion for some of the neighbors. He stated that this is the same petition that was
• withdrawn a year ago. He stated improvements to the lot should be done first and
any variances granted after they are done. Mr. Robert Conrad, 8 Cross Street felt the
solution would be to restrict parking on Pearl Street.
5 01i#g of '&zletn, gassadjuse##s
_s Pottrb of �kppvd
'�'oiHne W"
MINUTES - OCTOBER 29, 1980 - PAGE THREE
94 Bridge Street (Continued)
REBUTTAL: Atty. Holzberg stated that Mr. Apostolos does provide a service to the
community with his towing business. The Jatran Trucking had rented 87 Bridge Street,
but they have now moved. Mr. Apostolos stated that since the explosion, he has
spent money refacing the building and erecting the fence. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Hacker questioned the legality of adding to an already illegal
building. Mr. Feeherry stated that must go from the structure already built for
any variance. Mr. Jaquith stated the addition will go 4 feet above the existing
roof. The height of the building is 16 to 17 feet. Mr. Feeherry asked how many
parking spaces there will be once the area is hot-topped. Mr. Jaquith - 17
How many vehicles are available for rent. - 20 vehicles. Mr. Feeherry asked
when Mr. Apostolos started renting vehicles to the public from this location.
Nine or ten years ago. He stated with Ryder then U Haul, and he has 6 towing trucks.
Mr. Piemonte asked how the addition will effect the vehicles already there. It will
take up 3 parking spaces.
Mr. Feeherry felt the Board should have time to consider this petition, as he was
• not happy with the proposed landscaping. He stated that a proposal could be made
that the landscaping and paving be done before the Building Inspector issue a permit
for the structure. He wished to continue the case until the next meeting and ask
the petitioner to come back with more landscaping. Mr. Gauthier stated he would
meet with the petitioner and the abutters to see if something agreeable to both
parties could be worked out, and report to the Board at the November meeting.
On the motion of Mr. Luzinski, seconded by Mr. Hacker, case continued until the
November 19th meeting, and the Building Inspector meet with all parties before the
19th. VOTED.
28-30 Lynde Street - Lynde St. Realty Trust
The petitioners are requesting variances from side yard restrictions, to permit
the construction on the right side of the building for new egress stairs, and on the
left side for a new second floor deck.
David Jaquith, Architect presented the case before the Board. He stated this
was a 10 unit apartment house which will be converted to 6 condominiums. He stated
the original stairway goes up through the middle of the house and there is no place
for a second stairway. The Design Review Board is in favor of the plan. This is
basically for a fire escape. A letter was received from Leonard A. Berkal, 26 Lynde
Street, in favor of the petition. Mr,Feeherry asked how far the sidelines that will
bring the property. 5 feet on east side and 8 feet on west side. There was no
opposition. Hearing closed.
• MrFe eherry moved that a specific variance be granted to within 5 feet of the lot
line on the easterly side and to within 8 feet of the lot line on the westerly side for
the proposed construction, and that there be no more than 6 units when completed, that
the two existing parking spaces be maintained, and the construction be as shown on plans
submitted. Mr. Hacker seconded the motion. VOTING TO GRANTED - YES ; Mr. Feeherry,
Mr Hacker, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED.
�y.cowrrti�
s a ting. of 4atem, 41ttssar4uset#$
PuarD of �k"ettl ,
_Sr
MINUTES - OCTOBER 29, 1980 - PAGE FOUR
52 Howard Street - Thomas Pelletier
The petitioner is requesting relief from the density requirements to construct
a 24 foot by 26 foot addition to the existing one story concrete building presently
used as a furniture repair and refinishing shop.
Atty. Gregory DeMarcus represented the petitioner before the Board. He stated
they are requesting an extention of a non-conforming rear yard and side yard. He
stated that a reason for the request is that there is very little room for two
people to work and this is Mr. Pelletier's business. He stated that no harm would
be done to the public, this variance does not affect the district generally, and it
is a hardship due to the shape of the land.
Mr. Feeherry noted that the front yard will be reduced to 29 feet, and a variance
will be needed for that too. Atty. DeMarcus asked to amend the petition for the
front yard variance. Mr. Hacker asked if this would be a fire hazard. No.
There was no opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Feeherry moved that Special Permits
• be granted for encroachment on the rear and front yards, under Section 5, Paragraph
10 of the Zoning Ordinance and a variance be granted for the side yard encroachment
on the basis of hardship, all work to be done as shown on plans submitted. Mr. Luzinski
seconded the motion. ROLL CALL TO GRANT - YES: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Piemonte
and Mr. Luzinski. GRANTED UNANIMOUSLY
266 Canal Street - Charles P. Bertini
Petitioner is requesting a variance on the R-C portion of the land so as to
permit that portion to be used in conjunction with the permitted B-2 uses on the land
in question.
Atty, John R. Serafini, Sr. represented the petitioner before the Board. He
stated the building in question is the old Lear-Seigler Building, which was used for
warehousing and light manufacturing. In 1969 the zoning line was changed and now
disects the building. He stated that he has discussed this with the Planning Board,
and when they change the zoning map that will change the zoning on this lot to be all
B-2, but in the meantime he would like to change just the building so that it could
be leased. Mr. Feeherry asked about the parking area. Mr. Serafini stated it was
always used for parking. Mr. Feeherry was concerned about granting the petition
without knowing what would go in. Mr. Serafini suggested it be limited to commercial
purposes, or that some of the B-2 uses could be eliminated.
A letter was received from the Planning Board relative to the granting of the
variance was received. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
• Mr, Feeherry moved to grant a variance for the portion of the existing building
that sits within the R-C zone, but that no portion of the building be used for a
research and development facility or a laboratory without prior approval of the Board.
�y,co�ner�
s o �ttv of '-$ttlEm, assatr4usetts
Poarb of �kppeA
MINUTES - OCTOBER 29, 1980 - PAGE FIVE
266 Canal Street (Continued)
Mr. Hacker seconded the motion. VOTING TO GRANT - YES Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker,
Mr. Piemonte, and Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
*****
Mr. Feeherry submitted some amendments for the rules & regulations of the
Board, for the members consideration. Copies to be mailed out.
On the motion of Mr. Luzinski the meeting adjourned at 9: 20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�6Wi��
**** Petition of Hawthorne Acres for a Special Permit and variance for land
on First Street, was withdrawn by Atty. John R. Serafini with the permission of
the Board.
•
•
QOlt#v of Salem, �ttssttr4srtts
Peart of :A p"vd
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1980
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Wednesday, November 19,
1980 at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green for a public hearing. Said notice of hearing
was duly published in the Salem Evening News on November 5 and Nov. 12, 1980, and
notices were sent postpaid to abutters and others in accordance with Mass. General
Laws.
On roll call the following answered present: Douglas Hopper, Joseph Piemonte,
Edward Luzinski, Arthur LaBrecque. Mr. Gauthier the Building Inspector was
also present. Mr. Luzinski noted that he could not vote of the petition of David
L. Flaherty relative to the property at 37 Turner Street, as it would be a conflict
of interests. Mr. Flaherty's petition will be scheduled for the December meeting
as the Board would not have a quorum on the case. Mr. Luzinski a voting member for
the hearing.
,The petitioners present were informed by the Board that any petition acted
upon would require a unanimous vote, since there were only four members present,
and they could request that their case be heard at the December meeting.
Clayton Smith requested that his petition for Lots B, C, D, and E on Pierce
Road be postponed until the December meeting. Voted.
• 94 Bridge Street - Michael J. Apostolos (Continuation)
Mr. Gauthier explained that the case was continued to this meeting so that
a meeting of the neighbors, Ward Councillor Nestor and himself and Mr. Apostolos
could be held to reach an agreement. Councillor Nestor stated that a meeting was
held with 11 abutters and that they expressed concern because the conditions on
a variance granted previously were never complied with. The matters that the
neighbors would like taken care of were 1. The area be hot-topped; 2. Six foot
shrubs and trees be planted in the rear as a barrier; 3. The dead tree in the
rear of the property, ;which is half on City land and half on the petitioner' .; land,
be removed. Mr. Gauther stated that another concern of the neighbors was that
they be guaranteed that the 2nd floor to be constructed remain an office and the
proposed construction on the first floor remain for storage.
Mr. Hopper asked about- the clearance at the intersection at Cross Street.
Mr. Piemonte noted that there already was a six foot chain link fence, Mr. Piemonte
questioned the number and type of vehicles on the lot. Atty. Edward Holtzberg,
33 Federal Street, representing Mr. Apostolos explained that the company that
was parking the trucks on the street.has moved away. There was no opposition.
Hearing closed.
Mr. Piemonte noted that the problem with Mr. Apostolos is to make sure he
complies with the conditions requested by the neighbors. The landscaping could not
be done now, and would the construction be allowed before the landscaping is done.
Mr. Apostolos stated that he has already hired some one to do the hot-topping.
• Mr. Gauthier stated that if the petitioner contracted for the hot-topping and for
the landscaping, and he had the contracts in hand as a bond, there would be no
reason that Mr. Apostolos could not start the construction now. Mr. Hopper asked
when the tree could be removed. Mr. Gauthier stated that if Mr. Apostolos filed
a, request with the Park Department, the Park Department will pay half and the
petitioner the other half for the removal of the tree.
04ty of " dem, 'Mass
adjuse##s
?0IIMrb DE ,�pJP1
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 19, 1980 - PAGE TWO
94 Bridge Street - Michael J. Apostolos (Continued)
Mr. Piemonte moved the petition be granted with the following conditions:
1. Within three weeks contracts be: submitted to the Building Inspector for
the hot-topping, landscaping, and tree removal. 2. That the first floor addition
be used for storage permanently and the second floor addition always remain an
office for the business. Mr. Hopper ammended That the landscaping be according
to the drawings submitted and be completed by June 30th, 1981„ and a variance
also be included for the 12 ft by 18 ft addition not shown on the original
plot plan. Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion as amended. ROLL CALL TO GRANT-
YES - Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte and Mr. Luzinski GRANTED WITH
CONDITIONS.
3 Barnes Circle - Victor Pierro
The petitioner is requesting variances to construct a one family house
on a lot containing 5,000 feet with 50 foot frontage. Atty. George Vallis pre-
sented the case before the Board. He stated the petitioner has owned this lot
• for 46 years, and at one time he owned the surrounding lots. All the other `
lots have been sold and he would like to build a house on this lot for himself.
The lot directly across the street contains 5,000 square feet and has a house on
it. Atty. Vallis submitted a petition in favor of the petition signed by 19
residents of the area, including the immediate abutters to this property.
When he sold the abutting lot to Mr. Miraglia, he had to sell him a large
piece as it was full of ledge, and he needed the land to place his septic system,
so he is now left with a non-conforming lot. He will not need variances as he
will meet the side line and rear line requirements. These lots were recorded
in 1926, all as 50 foot lots. There was no opposition. Hearing closed. Mr.
Piemonte felt a hardship had been proven, and it would not be a detriment to the
neighborhood as all the surrounding houses are on the same size lots. Mr. LaBrecque
moved to grant the petition. Mr. Piemonte seconded. ROLL CALL - VOTING TO GRANT:
Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED.
36-38 Perkins Street - John H. Hamilton
Petitioner is requesting variances from density and parking requirements
for the two building. These variances are required to convert the present first
floors of each building from two (2) three-bedroom apartments each to four (4)
one-bedroom apartments each.
Mr. Hamilton, 12 Summit Avenue, Salem presented his case before the Board.
The buildings are very dilapidated and have been condemned for human habitation.
His proposal for rehabilitation under the Section 8, Moderate Rehabilitation Program
• would prefer the conversion of the first floor units, which would actually result
in a reduction of the number of people in the building. He stated that the exterior
of the building will not be altered. He stated he must get the cost of rehabilition
($170,000.00) plus the purchase price of the building back.
Qli#g of "'IgalEm, 'fflttssnr4usetts
Poxrb of jAppenl
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 19. 1980 - PAGE THREE
36-38 Perkins Street - John H. Hamilton (Continued)
Mr. Gauthier, Building Inspector spoke on the problems of this property.
The tenants were evicted because of the condition of the buildings, and if they
are not rehabilitated, they will eventually have to be torn down. Mr. Ralph
Nicosia-Rusen, Director of the UDAG program in Salem spoke in favor of the
petition. He stated that the Planning Department has worked with Mr. Hamilton
to put this project together, they will inspect as work progresses and they
do have a maintenance budget for the buildings after they are completed.
Mr. Hopper asked what was planned for the exterior of the buildings. Mr. Hamilton
said they have yet to make a decision, the asbestos shingles will be taken off,
and new windows will be installed. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Hopper felt that there should be a restriction that the
exterior be in harmony with the neighborhood. Mr. Piemonte felt the variance
should be predicated on the fact that UDAG be part of the project. The project
would not be possible without UDAG funds.
• Mr. Piemonte moved that variances be granted from density and parking require-
ments, subject the the conditions .worked out with the UDAG program, as there was
proof of hardship and the rehabilitation of the buildings would benefit the neigh-
borhood. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. ROLL CALL TO GRANT: YES- Mr. Hopper, Mr. La
Brecque, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. GRANTED
96 North Street - Arthur C. Chalifour
Petitioner is requesting a variance for the existing encroachment on the side-
line requirement.
Mr. Gauthier sulained the situation to the Board. Mr. Chalifour had constructed
the addition with/a permit from the Building Dept. Mr. Gauthier, after requesting
him to either tear down the addition or come to the Board of Appeals, took Mr.
Chalifour to Court. The court has allowed an extension of the case in order to allow
the petitioner to come to the Board.
Atty. James Fleming represented the petitioner before the Board. He asked
for permission to withdraw the petition without prejudice in order to meet with
the abutter and his attorney, and he would re-submitted the petition to the Board
of Appeal for the December meeting.
Atty. John Serafini, representing Mr. Antonio Lenares, 94 North Street stated
that the case as Mr. Gauthier explained it is correct. He was agreeable to discussing
the matter with Mr. Chalifour and his attorney and postponing the case until December,
• but felt that in the meantime the entrance to the restaurant should be returned to
the front of the building, and the stairs that Mr. Chalifour constructed on the
side of building be closed off until the case is heard,
e (9itg of '*Iem, 4Rag6z1r4Ugetts
° s Poxrb of Mvd
�I4M611"
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 19, 1980 - PAGE FOUR
96 North Street - Arthur Chalifour (Continued)
Atty. Serafini further stated that the use of this stairway has made for an
intolorable situation for Mr. Lenares's tenants. He felt that Mr. Chalifour
should put the entrance back on North Street, then come to the Board for whatever
variances he may need.
Atty. Fleming submitted =aiplot plan drawn by Joseph D. Carter, dated
October 8, 1980 showing that Mr. Lenares's building encroaches on the property
at 96 North Street by 2 feet. Mr. Serafini stated there was also a registered
plot plan drawn by the City Engineer in 1947-1948 showing the line ran between
the two buildings. Atty. Fleming stated it was not acceptable to his client
to use the North Street entrance.
Mr. Gauthier suggested that a meeting be held at his office as soon as possible
in regard to the use of the stairs. Atty. Serafini asked if Mr. Fleming would agree
not to use the stairs if Mr. Gauthier decided they were in violation. Atty. Fleming
. agreed to discuss the use. George Ahmed, 98-106 North Street stated he was concerned `
with the expansion of the building. He stated that Mr. Caron, the owner of the
property, had created problems at this location. Mr. Chalifour has improved the
situation, but he is afraid that if the variance goes to Mr. Caron, there will
be problems again. He stated there is a nursery school right next to this restaurant.
He does not want to see the petition denied, but would like some safeguards., for
the protection of the neighbors. '
t
On the motion of Mr. Piemonte, the petitioner was given leave to withdraw,
subject to the decision of the Building Inspector, after meeting with all parties
regarding the use of the stairs, until the petition is again before the Board.
Mr. LaBrecque seconded the motion. Voted.
On the motion of Mr. Luzinski, seconded by Mr. LaBrecque, it was voted to accept
the minutes of the October meeting with any corrections that should be made.
The next meeting was scheduled for December 17, 1980 at 7:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Clerk
�y.00�01,�
S (gi#g of 'Salem' f ttssar4usetts
• '�J2n„ � PIIMrb of , pppr l
PAGE FIVE - MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1980
Arthur C. Chalifour (Continued)
permission to build a dock on the back of the building. He stated that Mr. Chalifour
has purchased the land in the rear and can provide 60 parking spaces. He has a
driveway to the rear lot two parcels down on North Street. Mr. Fleming stated
that the building was in close proximity to other businesses. The petitioner has
changed it from a bar operation to a restaurant.
A letter was received from Gerri Yellen, co-operator of the Kiddie Koop at
98 North Street, stating that she was concerned for the safety of the children
attending her school. Broken glass and litter is being thrown on the play area.
Appearing in opposition was Staley McDermott, 30 Dearborn Street. He stated
he felt that the extension of the restaurant required a variance aa:it:•fs'an T '
e§tehsionsof.�a_non-conforming use in a B-1 District. He felt Mr. Chalifour
may eventually want to build a bigger building, and the parking lot is extending
into the R-2 District.
Mr. McDermott stated the congestion on North Street keeps getting worse and
worse. Mr. Feeherry asked how many parking spaces there were - 60 spaces.
• He asked how many seats in the restaurnat - 72 seats including bar and the second
floor will add an additional 50. Mr. Feeherry stated he saw this as a substantial
enlargement of a non-conforming use. Mr. Hopper felt that the Board was not address-
ing the issue of the second floor. When they are ready to occupy it the petitioner
will have to come back for the extension of the use. Mr. Gauthier stated that he
knew that they were given permission by the Licensing Board, but that he had no
knowledge of building plans. Mr. Fleming stated that the entertainment had been
extended to one live entertainer.
Atty. John R. Serafini,, Sr. , represented the abutter stated that he was
concerned about the stairway and entrance change. He stated he has been able to
obtain a agreement that the stairs on the side will be removed by January 6, 1981,
and he will get a release deed so rear portion will not be in question. Mr. 4r
Gauthier felt that the release deed should be part of the permit.
Mr. Feeherry moved the petitioner be granted 1. Variances from the existing
encroachment of the 8 x 12 and 5 x 12 additions, provided they are brought up to
the Building Code standards and the satisfaction of the Building Inspector.
2. The petitioner be allowed relief from the front set back, for the installation
on the new front door as shown on the plans and the side door and steps be removed
by January 6, 1981; 3. He be granted a variance for the side yard for the loading
platform as shown on plan, to be built in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
and Building Code; these variance are excluding the sta irway and deck shown on
the plans and the decision will make note of the fact, the 2nd floor addition
to the restaurant will be a substantial change and an appropriate petition must
be submitted to the Board. Mr. Hacker seconded the motion. Roll call to grant
• as moved: Yea - Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte.
Granted.
�µ,counn�
of 'Stt1Em, 'Massar4uutts
a
Poarb of �kppral
'1�'ounue�
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HELD ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1980
The Members of the Board of Appeal met in open session on Wednesday, December 17,
1980 at 7:00 P.M. at One Salem Green for a public hearing. Said notice of hearing
was duly published in the Salem Evening News on December 3 and December 10, 1980,
and notices were sent postpaid to abutters and others in accordance with Mass. General
Laws.
On roll call the following answered present: Douglas Hopper, Joseph Piemonte,
Arthur LaBrecque, Anthony Feeherry and James Hacker. Mr. Gauthier the Building
Inspector also was present.
Lots B-C-D & E Pierce Road - Clayton V. Smith
Petitioner is requesting a variance pursuant to Section VII, Paragraph 7-P
Wetlands and Flood Hazard Districts. He was denied a Special Permit by the
Planning Board for the construction of a one family house on this property.
Atty. Barry Plunkett of Salem represented the petitioner before the Board.
He stated that the Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions
permitting the work to proceed.
• A letter from City Engineer Anthony V. Fletcher was received stating the
conditions that must be met regarding this construction. A letter was received from
the Planning Board, urging that the petition be denied for the following reasons:
1. The sewer trunk line is in deplorable condition. 2. To insure' the control of
sewage, gas, electric, fuel and utilities. 3. The proposed driveway will be below
the 100 year flood hazard level. 3. The lot in question does not have frontage
on an improved public street.
Mr. Plunkett stated that the conditions that were set forth by the City
Engineer were agreeable to the petitioner. Mr. Feeherry asked what would happen
to Lot A on the plan - There is a house there already. Mr. Plunkett stated that
if the variance is not granted, it will constitute a hardship on the owners,
Salem Acres, and the petitioner Mr. Smith who has an option to buy. Mr. Carter of
Carter & Towers, Engineering stated that there was no danger to any flood level.
He stated at about 20 feet of the driveway is at the 100 year flood level, and
then there would be only about 3 inches of water. He stated that there is a
30 inch truck line sewer just east of the parcel. Mr. Piemonte noted that
there have been sewer problems in the area. Mr. Gauthier stated that this one
family house would not cause a problem, if a large development should go in
there would be problems, and that it is the joints of the sewer pipes that are
leaking. He stated that a back flow preventer protects the house, not the system.
Mr. Piemonte asked if the Conservation and the City Engineer are in agreement
now. Yes. Appearing in opposition was Paul D'Amour of the Salem Planning Board,
Richard Burke, 20 Buchanan Rd. , Lillian Papalegis, 29 Pierce Rd. , Charles and
. Kathleen O'Donnell, 18 Buchanan Road. Mr. Feeherry asked if these abutters had
raised their objections at the Conservation Commission hearing. Yes.
REBUTTAL: Mr. Clayton Smith, petitioner spoke. He stated that he is building
a perimeter drain around the house and is willing to help any of the neighbors if
they have problems.
Q
Qli#v of �ttlEm, Aassadjuatts
Paurb of '�kyvfld
PAGE TWO - MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1980
Clayton V. Smith (Continued)
He stated that he is aware that he must come back to the Board of Appeal
for a variance from frontage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Carter
stated that the perimeter drain will leach off surface water. Hearing closed.
Mr. Hopper noted that on the question of hardship, the owner of the land
was not here. Atty. Plunkett stated that he was representing the owner. Mr.
Feeherry stated that in the absence of a variance the property is in most
instances valueless. He stated that the Conservation Commission is sensitive to
the problems in the area and have made provision for the construction of a
one family home. The City Engineer is in favor of granting, with conditions.
Mr. Hacker stated that the problem is existing, and a 1 family home will not
add that much to it.
Mr. Feeherry moved to grant a variance from the applicable sections of
the Flood Hazard regulations with the following conditions: 1. There be only
one single family house on the lot containing 24,520 square feet; 2-, All work
be in accord with the Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission
and the conditions set forth by the City Engineer;3The construction include a peri-
meter drain; 4. Construction is not allowed until and unless a further variance
is granted for the frontage problem. Mr. Hacker seconded the motion. Voting
yes on the motion to grant: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque.
Voting no on motion to grant: Mr. Piemonte. Granted 4 yeas 1 nay
37 Turner Street - David L. Flaherty
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit in regard to the property at
37 Turner Street, in regard to Section VII, Paragraph C of the Zoning Ordinance
to allow parking on another lot.
Letters in opposition to this petition were received from Ward I Councillor
George Nowak, Bradford C. Northrup, 49 Turner St. , Dolores & Alice Jordan, 97
Derby Street, and Anna Lischynsky, 55 Turner Street.
Atty. Abrams represented the petitioner before the Board. He submitted a
letter from Henry Theriault, 143 Derby Street for the leasing of 3 parking spaces
on his property. He stated that the petitioner has a hardship on Turner Street,
inasmuch a only one house out of seven on the street has parking on the lot.
He is asking to use parking on a lot that may be over 400 feet from the location.
Mr. Flaherty stated that he had talked to the neighbors about converting the
gift shop to an apartment, and that they did not seem to object. He stated that
he has a 24 foot x 20 foot antique shop. He said that there were two parking
spaces on each side of the building. Mr. Piemonte asked if the garage in the
back was being used for parking. No- it is used for storage.
• Mr. Gauthier explained that a building permit was given in error for the
third apartment in this building, because of the lack of parking spaces. When he
inspected the building on the complaint of the neighbors, he found that there
was only one means of egress from the second floor front apartment.
�y,covM,,��
5 (1�itg of Salem, f ttssar4usEtts
� , ' � Pottrb of �pvett1
�Jr
�''0�IIM6�
PAGE THREE - MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1980
David L. Flaherty (Continued)
He stated he informed Mr. Flaherty .that he could not occupy the third apartment
until he went to the Board of Appeal. He gave the petitioner a building permit
for the construction of a stairway to the front second floor apartment.
Mr. Piemonte questioned the point of the appeal, if denied he could only
rent two of the three apartments, and he has already rented the three. Mr.
Feeherry asked how he got the original building permit. Mr. Flaherty stated
that Mr. Powers approved it.
Appearing in favor - Jim Maguire, tenant; H. Mulvehill, former tenant for
10 years; Mr. Genell, former owner of the building. Mr. Genell stated that
it is a hardship on Mr. Flaherty and himself as the holder of the mortgage.
He stated .that the area has always had parking problems. Mr. Stanley Jaskiel
abutter •in the rear appeared in favor.
Appearing in opposition, Sophie Sawicki, 39 Turner Street stated that there
is 1'k feet of land that is hers on that side of the building. If she erects a
• fence, which she intends to do, there will be no room to park cars. She stated the
new tenant is parking 2 cars on that side. She stated that the Board 4,.tppeal
denied Mr. Flaherty's petition 2 years ago to use the building, in the/for a one
room apartment.
Also appearing in opposition were Robert Getman, 43 Turner Street, Anthony
Iwanicki, 47 Turner Street and Edward Luzinski, 25 Hardy Street.
REBUTTAL: Atty. Abrams stated that George Fallon, 22 Hardy St, has agreed
to rent space for parking in addition to Mr. Theriault. . Mr. Feeherry asked how
large the apartments that are there are. All one bedroom apartments. Mr. Hopper
noted that the owner is only renting one space for his temants now, if the variance
were granted he could be made to rent all the necessary spaces. Mr. Feeherry
felt it would be/possible to guarantee the parking spaces. Mr. Gauthier noted
that if the garage in the rear was taken down it would solve the problem.
Hearing closed. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to deny the petition on the
grounds that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance cannot be met re. parking,
Voting for...the motion to deny : Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, and Mr.
LaBrecque. Voting against the motion to deny Mr. Piemonte - Petition denied.
10 Ames Street - Stephen & Madeline Bilodeau
Petitioners are requesting variances from the Residential Density Regulations,
in regard to non-conforming side, front and rear yards and lot converage, for the
. construction of a two car garage with a three room apartment on the second level,
as well as an 8 x 12 foot addition on the rear of the existing house.
A letter was received from the Planning Board recommending that the petition
be denied. Mr. Gauthier stated that he disagreed with the Planning Board.
of Salem, Anssar4use##s
� �p a
Poarb of � Bttl
JgfolyME
PAGE FOUR - MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1980
Stephen & Madeline Bilodeau (Continued) ,
d
Mr. Bilodeau represented himself before the Board. He stated that he is
at the end of a dead end street, and that he needs the three room apartment
for his mother. There was no opposition. Hearing closed.
On the motion of Mr. Feeherry, seconded by Mr. Labrecque, it was voted
to grant the variances from non-conforming side, front and rear yards and lot
coverage, with the condition that before construction uz----- the petitioner
file a certified plot plan and building plans with the Building Inspector, and
all work be done according to those plans. Roll Call unanimous.
First Street - Hawthorne Acres
A letter from Atty. John R. Serafini was received requesting permission
to withdraw the petition of Hawthorne Acres for a Special Permit and Variance
for approximately four acres of land on First Street. By unanimous hand vote
petitioner given permission to withdraw without prejudice.
• 96 North Street - Arthur C. Chalifour
Petitioner is requesting variances for the existing encroachment on the
sideline requirement and a proposed extension of the non-conforming front yard
set back.
Atty. James Fleming represented the petitioner before the Board. Mr. Gauthier
the Building Inspector asked permission to explain the case. He stated that
four months ago he received a complaint from the Fire Department relative to
an 8 x 12 and a 5 x 12 addition to the building. He told Mr. Chalifour that
he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and to come to the Board of Appeals
or tear the additions down. He stated that Mr. Chalifour brought in a certified
plot plan by Carter & Towers, showing that his abutter Mr. Lenares house was on
his property. Mr. Lenares attorney brought in a previous plot plan filed at the
Registry of Deeds showing the house was not on the Chalifour property. He
stated he asked the two attorneys to meet, relative to the stairs on the side
of the building abutting Mr. Lenares. He stated he had filed a complaint in court
against Mr. Chalifour, and has asked the Court to hold their decision until the
Board of Appeal could hear the case. He has given out a Building Permit to remove
the side stairs and put the entrance to the restaurant back on the front of the
building. He stated there is plenty of parking in the rear of the building.
He advised the Board that if they do grant the variances for the two existing
additions, to condition it on the additions being brought up to the building code
requirements.
Mr. Feeherry asked Mr. Fleming how come the additions were built without
• permits. Mr. Fleming stated that they were built without the advise of counsel.
Mr. Fleming stated that the Licensing Board has extended the liquor license to
the second floor, so there will be some substantial changes regarding the size
of the restaurant. He stated that his client is requesting: 1. The additions
to the kitchen area which were built without variance or building permit; 2.
He will be removing the staircase and entrance on side. ; 3. He is requesting
(gifg of '�SattalreDmo'f '�Mppatsttsl
ar4use##s)
PAGE SIX - MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1980
• 266 Canal Street - Charles P. Bertini
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to
be used for recreation purposes (-roLler_skating�and/or ice skating) .
A letter was received from the Planning Board suggesting that the variance
be denied because the parking area would be directly adjacent to a wetlands/
flood control area.
Atty. John R. Serafini, Sr. represented the petitioner before the
Board. He stated that the Planning Board has expressed a legitamate concern.
There is an existing wire fence and the petitioner is agreeable to the
condition that the parking not extend beyond the fenced in area.
Mr. Serafini informed the Board that the Bertinis own about, 10'k acres
in the area-will be able eventually to utilize about 3 to 3'k acres. He stated
there will be 141 spaces in the parking lot'and 50 more cars could be parked on
the other side of the building.
• Mr. David Jaquith, Architect spoke of the improvements to be made to the `
exterior of the building. There will be a new entrance, ramp and canopy.
Mr. Feeherry asked about the accessory structures on the property. Mr. Serafini
stated there were no plans to tear them down, the heating .plant is in one and
the other would probably be used for an office. There will be no alcoholic
beverages allowed on the premises, but there will be electronic games. They
expect an occupancy of between 300 to 400 people.
Mr. Serafini stated that this was a hard building to adapt, and the parking
should be more than sufficient. Mr. Bertini spoke in favor of his petition.
Paul D'Amour, 18k Linden St. , Salem, member of the Planning Board spoke in
opposition. Hearing closed.
DISCUSSION Mr. Feeherry asked the hours of operation. - Mr. Bertini
stated usually until 11 P.M. , on Friday and Saturdays there is usually an adult
skate which ends at mid-night. He asked the width of the entrance to the
parking area - Fifty feet, may be up to 60 feet. Mr. Gauthier noted that the
entrace requirements will be at the discretion of the City Engineer. Mr. Piemonte
asked if there would be shielded lighting to minimize the impact to the
neighborhood. Mr. Gauthier noted that the building must be insulated, which
will act as a barrier to the noise of the music.
Mr. Feeherry moved that the petitioner be granted a Special Permit for the
use and a variance from the parking requirements with the following conditions:
1. There be at least 141 parking spaces; 2. Activities be confined to the
fenced in area and the fence be maintained; The hours of operation be until
. 11 P.M. Sunday thru Thursday and 12 mid-night on Friday and Saturday; 3. There
be no alcoholic beverages allowed on the premises; 4. The lighting be shielded;
5. The entrance and' exit be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Mr. Hacker
seconded the motion. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper,
Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte. UNANIMOUS
Qltt of ale 'Mosullusette
Poma of Meld
PAGE SEVEN - MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1980
Mr. Feeherry requested that the proposed rules be sent out t6-,the
members again for revue, and action be taken at the next meeting.
The next meeting was scheduled for January 21, 1980 at 7:00 P.M.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
2ct��
Clerk
•
•