The URL can be used to link to this page

1983-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS i 4 01itu of �6ttlrm, 41assurjjlisB##s oarb of Vd MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HEARING - JANUARY 5, 1983 A public hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, January 5, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly published in the Salem Evening News on December 22, 29, 1982: abuttors and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present were: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte and Associate Member, Mr. Luzinski Hearing was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Hacker at 7: 25 p.m. Mr. Luzinski is a voting member. Mr. Hopper made the motion to accept the minutes of the September 29, and October 20, 1982 meetings, Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Piemonte, acting as secretary in Mr. Feeherry's absence, read a letter from Maine Post and Beam Co. , requesting permission to withdraw without prejudice. They have submitted a new application and requested to be heard in February. Mr. Hopper moved to allow them leave to withdraw, Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ALLOW WITHDRAWAL. At this time Mr. Raymond Gauthier, 24 Chandler St. submitted • a petition signed by residents of Salem recording their opposition. (on file) . Mr. Hacker explained to everyone present that as there are only four members present the granting of any petition must have a unanimous vote anyone wishing to withdraw without prejudice could do so. 235 Lafayette St. - Williams Realty Trust Attorney George Vallis representing the petitioner requested leave to withdraw without prejudice. MrC Mysliwy, 232 Lafayette at. , saidshe wanted to go on record as being opposed, said he had a petition of opposition and would submit copy to the Board at a later date. Mr. Piemonte moved to grant Leave to Withdraw, Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW. 60 Bayview Ave. - Mary E. Hanlon Attorney George Vallis representing the petitioner requested leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Piemonte moved to allow the petition to withdraw, Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW 5 Gardner St. - Ronald L. Wright Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow use of a three family unit. Attorney Jack Keilty represented the petitioner. He explained that Mr. Wright wanted to sell this property as a three family, said it had always been a three family,what they are looking for is permission to sell as a three family. Mr. Hopper questioned whether the Board can grant this type permission. Mr. Hacker said he did not feel this was a problem, but did not like the plans submitted, plans showed no parking. He suggested this case be taken under advisement until more complete plans could be submitted. Mr. Wright told the Board there was room for three cars . MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 page two 5 Gardner St. (Continued) • Mr. Piemonte said he would like to hear testimony. Attorney. Keilty showed the members of the Board copies of the Assessors maps showing the number of multi-family dwellings in the neighbor hood. Mr. Wright did the research on this, he said he did this by counting the number of doorbells on each house. Mr. Piemonte asked if there were separate electric meters, he said yes. Mr. Luzinski asked when it was last used as a three family, not since 1979. Mr. Piemonte said, you are here for the formality of.establishing this as a legal three family. Mr. Wright said yes, it has always been a three family, no one was occuping the third apartment when I bought it. Mr. Hopper questioned why it is illegal, Mr. Wright responded it was in an R-2 zone. Mr. Hacker asked if anyone was here in favor of this petition. No one appeared in favor. Mr. Kneeland, 10 Gardner St. stated he had lived there since 1978, was concerned about the parking. He suggested opening up the chain link fence as a possible solution. Capt. Goggin, Salem Fire Marshal, stated the smoke detector should be brought up to date. Mr. Polemanakos also concerned about parking, also suggested the removal of the chain link fence. Mr. Piemonte said he felt the parking was a situation the Board could handle. In rebuttal, Attorney Keilty said the violations in regards to the Fire Marshal would be taken care of, we are also willing to show where the parking will be, will open up parking area, if we don' t comply, the variance will terminate. Also made note that this would be owner occupied. Hearing closed. After a brief discussion the members of the Board felt they would like to see more detailed plans in respect to the parking, would also like to see a copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Mr. Hopper made a motion to continue this case until the next meeting, at which the petitioner will be first on the agenda, Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE TILL NEXT MEETING. • 277 Canal St. - John S. 'and Bertha L. Cappuccio Petitiorier is requesting a Special Permit to use existing structure as a Package Store and to construct an addition to the existing structure. Also to extend nonconforming lot area, front & side yard requirements. Mr. Piemonte read the petition and a letter from the fire marshal. Attorney Philip Moran represented the petitioner. He told the Board that this building used to be an Exxon Station and did not feel this use would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Additional storage area is needed because of the bottle bill. There is plenty of parking for the two employees and for customers, the average customer will be in the store about the same length of time it would take to put gas in. The greenery will add to the neighborhood. Mr. Hopper asked how many parking spaces they would have, Mr. Moran said there will be 12 for customers, 2 for employees and one for 'the delivery truck, these spaces will be marked off. Attorney Moran also said they would relay on engineering studies as to where the entrances and exits would be. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Luzinski asked if the addition would be strictly for storage, he replied yes. Mr. John Bertini asked if this was granted and for any reason the package store did not go in there, could it be used for other things . Mr. Luzinski told him no, they would have to come back to the board for any other use Mr. Luzinski asked about the number of employees, Attorney Moran told him there is one employee during the day, two at night. Mr. Hopper asked if the Board should limit access to one street or the other. Attorney Moran said they were going to have an.engineer survey this to determine the best access and exit. Mr. Hopper suggested refering this to the City Engineer, Moran said he has already been consulted. MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1983 page three 277 Canal St. (Continued) • Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow use of structure for a package store and a Special Permit to extend non-conforming front and side yard requirements on condition that 14 parking spaces be maintained, said parking spaces to be paved and marked; landscaping shall be as shown on plans, access and exits on each street, and curb cuts to be approved by the City Engineer, addition will be in strict accordance with plans on file, a Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained prior to use, a Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Marshal shall be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski, UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 11 Foster St. - Robert T. Marsilia Petition is requesting a Special Permit to change existing non-conforming use (Metal Shop) to another non-conforming use (Wood Working Shop) . Mr. Piemonte read the petition and a letter from the Fire' Marshal (on file) . Attorney Gary Sackrider represented the petitioner, he displayed assessors maps to the Board. Mr. Marisilia, the petitioner then explained the type business he would be running. It would be light industrial, mostly working with architechs and decorators. He said it is a very quiet operation, would like to use-existing office as his office, said he would insulate if it is granted, this would help cut down on noise. He told the Board he had ample parking, has only two employees, has parking for four cars, has made arrangements for snow removal. Mr. Piemonte asked if there was any need for ducting, he said that right now all they use is vacumn. Mr. Piemonte asked about storage of paints, he said there would be none, all finishing is done on the site, no on the job. Mr. Piemonte asked him about the letter from the Fire Marshal which said the Fire Department has no been able to get into the building, Mr. Marsilia • said he does not have the keys as yet but he is willing to work with the Fire Marshal. Attorney Sackrider showed the Board the Purchase Contract, said there would be no heavy equipment, He said the building was cement block structure, it was built for commercial use, it would not be feasible to use as residential. We have parking and there is no problem with access. Mr. Hopper asked about any future plans to expand, Mr. Marsilia said the building is large enough to allow some expansion but would be willing 'to have limitations put on. Mr. Hacker mentioned limiting the number of employees. Mr. Hopper asked about the hours of operation, Mr. Marsilia told him it would be 40 hours a week. Mr. Hopper said the Board could put some kind of limitations there. No one appeared in favor. Mr. Richard Butler, said he was not really opposed, but was concerned about the noise and the hours of operation. Mr. Marsilia told him there would be no problem with the noise, the largest motor they have is only 1 horse power, said they do work all day. Mr. Butler asked about the summer, said the building was not air conditioned and the doors would be opened. Mr. Ernest Robichaud, 7 Foster St. , said he was concerned also about noise, said there had been a problem with the previous owner. Mr. Morency, Ms Cathy Montagne also against noise. Mr. Ray Mannix, 10 Foster St. , wanted to make sure that if this is granted it will be limited to this use. Also concerned about guard dogs, he was assured there would be none. Hearing closed. In summary, Attorney Sackrider said they were ready to meet these objections and to accept conditions regarding hours . Mr, Piemonte felt that this type operations would avoid just what the neighbors are worried about, did not think it would harm the neighborhood, would help it instead. Mr. Hacker said that the insulation should take care of the noise. Mr. Piemonte said he felt this was the best possible use. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to grant the Special Permit as requested on condition that there be no storage of flamables, use will be custom woodworking business with mostly hand tools, equipment will be • limited to 1'k horsepower, employees limited to 2, outside storate limited to wood and Must be covered, hours of operation for woodworking will be 7: 30 - 5:30 monday-friday: MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1983 page four 11 Foster St. - Continued four parking spaces will be maintained, exterior walls will be insulated, Certificate of Occupancy will be obtained prior to use, Certificate of Compliance will be obtained from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 127 North St. - Arvinder S. Bahal Petitioner is requesting a Variance from use and parking requirements to allow existing structure for storage and embroidery of garments, also the storage and sale._of antiques. Mr. Piemonte read the petitioner and letter from the Fire Marshal Mr. Piemonte noted that Councillor James Fleming went'-on record as being in favor Attorney Paul lynch represented the petitioner. He responded to the letter from the Fire Marshal, David Goggin, said they are prepared to meet all requirements. He then showed pictures of the old church. Told the Board that Mr. Bahal had purchased this in May of 1982, he then explained the type business Mr. Bahal would be operating. He said there is one machine on the premises, 3-4 employees, this is quiet operation. Since Mr. Bahal purchase this building he has invested approximately 16 thousand dollars, the building is uniqueg it has 5500 sq. ft. of floor space and is useless as far as what is allowed in that district (R-2) , it cannot be converted to a two family. He then submitted a petition in favor. Did not feel this use would be detrimental to the neighborhood, there will be no big deliverys, just UPS. Mr. Piemonte asked how the sales are made, He said there are no customers, it is done by appointment. Attorney Lynch explained that this is not a retail business, the goods are jobbed out. Antiques would be on 1st & 2nd floor, no machinery_ In • opposition, Capt Goggin said he wanted to see sprinkers installed, fire alarm system, and the access kept clear. Only needed sprinkler on one side. A Certificate of Occupancy would cover things. No one else appeared in favor or opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker made a motion to grant the petition on condition that the embroidery business hours are limited to 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday - Fridays, hours of operation for antiques will be Monday - Saturday by appointment only, employees will be limited to 4, machines will be limited to 2, there will be no retail sales, signs will be limited to 2 sq. ft. , there will be no exterior changes, ,a Certificate of Occupance shall be obtained, will comply with the Fire Marshal . Mr."Piemonte seconded. VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT. Next scheduled meeting of the Board will be 7:00 p.m. , January 26, 1983. The meeting adjourned at 9: 30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk • $" a Ctv of "Satem, Aussttejuse##s PuxrD of �kprvtt1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - JANUARY 26, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held .Wednesday, January 26, 1983 at 7;00 p.m. on the 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly published in the Salem Evening News on January 12, 19, 1983; abuttors and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte and Mr. Luzinski. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the chairman, Mr. James Hacker. It was rated for the record that Associate Member Edward Luzinski is a voting member. Mr. Hacker explained to the people present that as there were only four members present it will take a unanimous vote to grant any petitions, they have the right to withdraw without prejudice if 'they so desire. Mr. Hacker made a motion to accept the minutes of the January 5, 1983 meeting, with one correction. Regarding the petition of Williams Realty Trust, 235 Lafayette St. , the minutes read Mr. Mysliwy and it should have read Mrs. Mysliwy, the pronoun he changed to she. Mr. Luzinski seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. 5 Gardner St. - Ronald L. Wright (S Continued from the January 5, 1983 meeting. Mr. Hopper read the petition and a letter from 'the Fire Marshal, 'no opposition. (on file) Attorney Jack Keilty represented the petitioner. He showed the Board the Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Department. He displayed plans and said the parking problem had been corrected. The garage will be opened and there is paved area in the rear for cars. He showed the Board on the plans where the parking is, where the landscaped area is. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. After a brief discussion, the Board felt they had corrected the problems that the Board was concerned about. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow the property to be used as a three family unit on condition that parking and landscaping be in strict accordance with plans of file, that it be owner occupied and a Certificate of Occupancy and Use be obtained prior to renting. Mr. Luziniski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte and Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 82 Webb St. - Ernest Delpero Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the construction of a four family dwelling unit and a Variance from front & rear yard requirements, lot area and density. Mr. Hopper.read the petition and a letter frem the Fire Marshal, in opposition. (on file) Attorney John Serafini Jr. , representing the petitioner, explained that it was an oversight on their part as far as the Fire Department was concerned, they will immediately provide them with plans. He told the Board they wanted the Special Permit to change from business use to residential use, this was \ previously used as a meat market which was destroyed by fire. They also need the •Jl Variance from density restrictions, due to the shape of the lot a literal enforce- ment of the zoning is impossible. He explained the boundaries of the lot, Webb St. , Andrew St. and a park in the rear, no room for any expansion. Mr. Hopper asked if f the lot was vacant, he said he had not seen the lot. He said he felt the neighbor- MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 page two 82 Webb St. - Continued • hood is more receptive to residences. No problem with parking, there is room for six cars. Parking will be underneath with an open area between the street and the water. Mr. Luzinski asked if they will be able to see cars and right through to the ocean, Mr. Serafini said they were going to put in bushes. Capt. Goggin said as long as the Fire Department had plans, they would remove their objection. Gary Sturgewell, 17 Andrew St. , asked if he could see the plans, had a question regarding backing out onto Andrew St. Att. Serafini said it was conceivable the entrance could be on either Andrew St. or Webb St. , however, there should be enough room for them to turn around so they will not back out onto either street. Mr. Sicotte, 32 Andrew-St., Mr. Collins, 78 Webb St. , Mr. Beck, 90 Webb St. , and Mr. Staniewicz, 89 Webb St. , all wanted to go on record as being in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow use as four family residence and to grant the Variance from lot area, lot coverage, front & rear yard requiremnts on condition; all work be in strict accordance with plans on file, a Certificate of Occupancy and Use and a Certificate of Compliance must be obtained prior to renting. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT; Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 23 Beach Ave Robert Kalis & John 'Tierney Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert an' existing three family W dwelling into a three unit condominium. Mr. Hopper read the petition and a letter of opposition from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney Robert Kalis introduced • himself and his partner Attorney John Tierney to the Board. They will represent themselves. He submitted a copy of a 1953 Board of Appeal decision which granted permission to allow a three family dwelling at this location. Said decision was granted with no conditions. (on file) He submitted letters to the Board showing he had notified tenants of his intentions and he also submitted letters of reply from the tenants. Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Walsh, occupants of the first floor, said they have just finish construction of a new home and would be moving on or before Feb- ruary 1, 1983; Mr. & Mrs. Grayton, occupants and present owners, said they have made arrangements to move on or about February 11, 1983, they are remaining in the second floor apartment so the�building_would not be vacant; Mr. & Mrs. Woods, occupants of the thikd floor, will be moving to Danvers on January 22, 1983,' therefore no hardship will be created by this conversion. No changes in density, there will be no archi- techural changes, only minor cosmetic changes. Att. Kalis then submitted a copy of their Condominium By-Laws (on file) , these by-laws will restrict residence of units to a single family plus one. Attorney Tierney will occupy the third floor, so this will only remove two units from the rental community. Parking will remain the same, there is a parking lot across the street. Again said they would be upgrading the property, but will mostly be internal cosmetic, they will comply with the Fire Department. Mr. Hacker asked what the units would be selling for. Mr. Kalis replied they would sell in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars. Speaking in favor; Mr - Grayton, present owner. In opposition, Neal & Maureen Joyce, 19 Beach Avenue, questioned if it was a legal three family, said the property was not used as a three family from 1970 - 1978 and thought that it should revert back to two family. Did not feel the applicants had shown any hardship was also concerned about parking. Asked if they would feel better if this was not condominium, they are still concerned about \ parking. Mr. Burns, 32 Beach Ave., agreed with the Joyces, said the other condo in •/l/ the willows is still vacant, doesn't like condos in the willows. Joy Fisher, 15 Beach Ave. same objections, Diane Burns, 32 Beach Ave., objected to losing rental MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 .y page three 23 Beach Ave. - Continued • property, also felt condos spoil neighborhood. Mr. Joyce, 19 Beach Ave., asked if these are going to be owner occupied, Mr. Kalis said no, the by-laws state one single family plus one. Mr. Tierney said he had met with neighbors and tried to explain that with the interest rates today it makes it hard to keep rental property. Mr. Girard, 14 Beach Ave. , asked what impact this would have on the taxes. Mr. Luzinski said this would not effect them. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski questioned on the plans it showed the roof being used as a porch, Mr. Tierney said not at this time. He was reminded if they did, they would need a building permit. Mr. Hopper said they should check whether this is legal three family, Mr. Luzinski said that it may have been vacant at one time, but itis not vacant now. For the record he stated he had been opposed to the Bayview Ave. Condos. Mr. Hopper stated the Board finds this a legal three family dwelling, therefore made a motion to grant the petition to allow conversion to a three family condominium on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, a Certificate?of Compliance from the Fire Department be obtained, be in strict accordance with Condominium By-Laws limiting to single family plus one. Mr. Piemonte seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 347 Essex St. - Edgar Kelley/James O'Malley Tr. , 347 Essex St. Realty Trust Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to use premises as a law office. Mr. Hopper read the petition and letter from the Fire Marshal. He also read letters from Historic Salem Inc. and Mrs. Frances Pohl, in opposition. (on file) Attorneys James O'Malley and Edgar Kelley represented themselves. Stated to the Board that when they first looked at the property in. June 1982 they noticedthere were profess- ional offices in the area, they have been using this location since July 1982. Have not had a problem with parking, Does not understand Historic Salem's objection, all they plan to do is to paint, only exterior change is to remove some blacktop and put in some shrubs. In regards to requesting a Special Permit, they said the Board can grant a Special Permit when it will not derogate from the neighborhood. Mr. Luzinski asked if there were any residents there, Mr. Kelley said no, but perhaps if my son moved back to Massachusetts I would like to have this for his residence. Right now there are no overnight residents so there is no problem with all night parking. This use will be beneficial to the neighborhood. Never intended to offend anyone and apologized for not contacting the neighbors. It was our understanding there were two lawyers there for years. Mr. Hacker asked if these lawyers used this as their primary office. Mr. Kelley said he did not think so. Mr. Piemonte asked if they kept regular hours, are you there nights? Mr. Kelley said they were rarely there nights, have a secretary there 9 - 5. No one appeared in favor. Dr. Pohl, 335 Essex St., in opposition, said he did think a Special Permit was inappropropiate as it is not owner occupied, concerned about parking,also said that as lawyers they are either ignorant of the law or don't care. He had submitted a letter to the Board in September (on file) ; felt that approval of this petition would be mocking the law. Dr. Pohl also stated that as far as he knew this is the first business use of the site. Donald Hodgkins, 373 Essex St., agrees with Dr. Pohl, felt the petitioners have no basis for appeal, would like to see neighborhood remain residential. Katherine Marchand, 6 Botts Ct. , also opposed for same reasons, also said that Mrs. Tracey, previous resident of 347 Essex St. , was not a lawyer and there was never any business there, Mr. Tracey was a lawyer but he never conducted his practice from there. \ Peter Merry, 8 Botts Court, agreed with others, cannot see granting a Special Permit • \ when it is not owner occupied, would like to see it remain residential. Dr. Thomas Kruger, 358 Essex St. , there is a parking problem there because of the Library, would like it to stay residential, felt granting this would destroy the character of the MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1982 page four 347 Essex St. - Continued • neighborhood. Dr. Robert Alexander, stated he was about to purchase house at 361 Essex St. , felt use was inappropriate for this neighborhood, there is no parking, not even a driveway, there are plenty of other places 'in Salem for them to have their business. Also felt it should be denied because of the actions of the lawyers, they should have come to the Board before setting up business, should have known better. James Carney, Cambridge St. , agrees with others, this is violation of the law, would like it to stay residential. Betsy Merry,8 Botts Ct. , agrees with others, took exception to a remark made by Mr. Kelley regarding litter in the area. In rebuttal, Mr. Kelley said they never intended to slander the neighborhood, but there are areas that do have litter, as far as the parking, we have not burdened the area at all, I am only there about three times a week. Regarding the violation of law, we purchased this from an estate, it was vacant, we believed what we brought to the neighborhood was beneficial, had no intention of flaunting the law, due to the deterioration we found, we had to work quickly, no bad faith intended. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker, referring to a letter sent to the petitioners from Mr. McIntosh, the Zoning Enforcement Officer,asked what there response to that letter was. They did not respond to it. Mr. Hopper said he felt this is residential and would be opposed to granting. Mr. Luzinski said there was no prior business use. Mr. Piemonte, if this were owner occupied I might go along with it, does not feel parking is a problem and there are other professional offices, Mr. Hacker said he did not feel this was in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. Capt. Goggin said he had seen a copy of the Purchase and Sale agreement and this was sold as a one family. Mr. Hopper made a motion to deny the petition as there is no prior use to make this non-conforming, not in harmony with the neighborhood. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING \ TO DENY: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED. • / 86 Congress St. - Lawrence S. Theriault Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to use vacant store for his coin, stamp & jewelry business. Mr. Hopper read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Hacker went on record as operating the business across the street, this will not influence my vote. Mr. Theriault represented himself, stated there are Fire Detectors there. Mr. Hacker said that may be, but the Fire Department doesn't know it. He explained his type business, it is small retail handled mostly through mails and shows, some retail at the site. It was previously a jewelry store run by Mr. Duschenes, there is a sub shop in the same building. Mr. Piemonte asked if he was going to be doing any repair work there, he said no. He said there are five apartments in the building and his mother and father own the sub shop, they do not live there, he will lease from them. Speaking in favor Mr. Valiolis, said he was familiar with this operation, he is reputable and will not detract from the neighborhood. Capt. Goggin asked about the type of smoke detectors, said the Fire Department still opposed be- cause of the type. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the Special Permit on condition a Certificate of Compliance for the entire structure be obtained, all necessary licenses and permits be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. R144 North St. - John A. Locke Petitioner is requesting a Variance from setback and density requirements in order to construct a garage/family room. Mr. Hopper read the petition and a letter from • the fire Marshal. Attorney George T. O'Brine represented the petitioner. Submitted a petition. in favor signed by abuttors and neighbors, also two letters from immediate abuttors, John Piotrowski, 144 North St., Bill & Janet Wholley, 3 Dearborn St., both in favor. MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 • page five R144 North St. - Continued • He displayed plans of the proposed structure which will come to one foot of the side and rear yard. There will be no plumbing done. Councillor James Fleming spoke in favor of the petition, Phylis Locke, 5 Dearborn St. spoke in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to grant the petition from density and side and rear setbacks on condition all work be in strict accordance with plans on file, may encroach up to one foot of side and rear setbacks, as shown on plans on file, a Certificate of Occupancy and Use be obtained prior to using. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 150 Canal St. - McDonald's Corp. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from front yard requirements and a Special Permit to allow a recreation area. Mr. Hopper read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal and a letter from the Building Inspector (on file) , which stated they would need a variance from the Sign Ordinance. Attorney Barry Feinstein represented the petitioner. He displayed picture of what the site would look like when it is completed. He stated that he was aware that there was some m ncern regarding safety. He introduced Mr. Thomas Sisson, the Construction Engineer, who told the Board they have never had any incidents anywhere. He explained the con- stuction of the play area, saying the chances of a vehicle going into the play area was highly unlikely. There is a person supervising the area at all times, there is is a 6' fence. Mr. Hacker asked them how they felt about the Building Inspector's letter which said it was the opinion of himself and the City Planner that the character equipment constituted signs. Att. Feinstein said they were not intended • to be signs, the characters.are for children. Mr. Hacker asked why the play area couldn't be in a different location. He said any other location would mean the loss of about 10 parking spaces. Mr. Piemonte said they are concerned with the safety. Att. Feinstein said they felt the pillars and fence gave enough protection, did not feel cars would pick up enough speed in that area to go through this. We are very concerned with the safety of children, they are most of our business. Mr. Hacker concerned with cars exiting, lack of visibility,creating a hazardous situation. Mr. Hacker asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor. Mr. William Bursaw Jr. , wanted to go on record as being in favor, he could not stay for the meeting. Speaking in opposition was Councillor John Nutting, concerned with cars pulling out onto Canal St., they would have to pull out quite far in order to see oncoming traffic. Concerned that if there was an accident the metal rods would become flying projectiles. Very congested area with a tremendous amount of traffic, definite safety hazard, asthetic problem, there is no hardship. In rebuttal, Att. Feinstein said this has been good for the neighborhood, does not feel the play area would be detrimental. If safety is going to be the issue, we could revise plans and make diagonal cut which should take care of visibility problem, we are willing to come to some kind of agreement. As far as the characters being signs, they are not intended to be signs, if a variance from the Sign Ordinance is required we are more that willing to make an application. Mr. Luzinski asked how many kids would be in the play area at one time. Mr. Sisson said that question had never come up before and he did not know. Mr. McIntosh said there was room for 20 people at the tables. Mr. Piemont asked Mr. Nutting if making a diagonal cut would satisfy him as far as the safety aspect. Mr. Nutting said no, it is still hazardous and would not improve the asthetic value. Mr. Hacker asked again why it could not be located in a different area, did not feel \ losing 10 parkings spaces a problem considering the room they have at the site. • Mr. Sisson replied that some of the earlier McDonald's play areas were detached but MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 J• page six \ 150 Canal St. Continued • 1 felt these were more dangerous, the children have to cross the parking lot to Jget to it. Mr. Hopper suggested pushing it back about 4 feet. Mr. Sisson said they are willing to make changes. Mr. Piemonte said he felt it should be attached to the building, if the safety factor could be corrected he would have no objections. Mr. Hopper asked Councillor Nutting if he would object if they make changes and correct the safety problem. Mr. Nutting said he was still opposed. Att. Feinstein asked if they could withdraw without prejudice to give them a chance to modify the plans. Mr. McIntosh suggested checking with Lt. Jeffrey regarding the traffic flow in that area. Mr. Hacker said a letter from the Board would be sent to Lt. Jeffny regarding this and also asking him to come before the Board to discuss this problem. Mr. Hopper then made a motion to allow the petitioners to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. , next scheduled meeting will be February 16, 1983, second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk, Board of Appeal �coxmr t a (di#g of "Sttlem, ttsstttlluse##s MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - FEBRUARY 16, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, February 16, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , on the 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on February 2, 9, 1983; abuttors and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Piemonte and Associate member, Mr. Charnas. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by the Chairman, Mr. James Hacker. It was noted, for the record, that Mr. Charnas, new Associate Member is a voting member. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to accept the minutes of the January 26, 1983 meeting, Mr. Feeherry seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. 69 Mason Street - Ruth Realty Trust, Bonnie Leather Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend non-conforming structure, also • Special Permit to extend non-conforming density and setbacks. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections. Attorney Philip T. Durkin, represented the petitioner. He explained to the Board that there had been an error in the square footage on the petition that had been granted October 20, 1982. The original plans had called for a 30' x 36' addition ;(950 sq.ft.) and the new plans call for 36' x 36' (1080 sq.ft.) , a 6 ft. difference. It will bring the addition a couple of feet closer to the sideline. Mr. Piemonte mentioned the original concern regarding access for fire trucks and asked Capt. Goggin if he had any problem with this. Capt. Goggin said there was no problem. ' No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petition to allow the construction of a 36' x 36' addition of 1,080 sq, ft. on condition that all work be in strict accordance with updated plans on file, all other conditions of the October 20, 1982 decision will remain in effect. Mr. Piemonte seconded the motion. VOTING TO GRANT: MR. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Charnas. GRANTED. 92 Lafayette St. - Joan M. Boudreau Tr. , Lafayette B Trust Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow a restaurant which serves all alcoholic beverages. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney John Serafini represented the petitioner. He introduced Mr. Michael Anderson, who was the proprietor of Miguel's in Marblehead. Mr. Anderson would manage this Mexican Restaurant if it is approved. He told the Board Mr. Anderson has a good reputation. The total investment for this property will be in the neighborhood of 150 thousand dollars and will revitalize the area. Mr. Feeherry asked about \ previous use. Mr. Serafini told him it was used as a fraternal organization which had a full liquor license. Mr. Serafini felt that the need of a variance for this • type-6f restaurant was perhaps an oversight, B-4 incorporates uses in a B-1 zone, but not in B-2. Mr. Feeherry asked if this will be the sole use. Mr. Serafini said yes, there will be 92 seats, 15 - 20 employees. MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1983 page two • 92 Lafayette St. - Continued Mr. Piemonte asked if there will be a separate bar. Mr. Serafini said no. He told the Board this will have to go before the Licensing Board as well as this Board. He then addressed the parking situation. Said they were 380 feet from Riley Plaza, in addition, he had spoken with Father Bergeron, Pastor of St. Joseph Church, he presented a letter in favor (on file) . Mr. Feeherry read the letter which indicated they were willing to discuss availability of parking. Mr. Hacker asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor. Mr. Dick Folsom said he was in favor but was concerned about parking. He has a parking lot for his business and did not want it being used by unauthorized persons. He did feel this would be good for the area and said Mr. Anderson is a good manager. Also speaking in favor was Councillor Martineau, saying he did not feel the parking would be a problem, the clientele will be mostly the Hispanic community which is within walking distance. I want to encourage investment in Ward 5, definitely in favor. Mr. Bill McInnon, 108 Lafayette St., not in favor or opposed, wanted clarification on whether they would be sole occupants. Mr. Serafini indicated they would be. Mr. Feeherry, discussing future uses, was concerned some uses would add to the traffic problem and the parking problem, suggested a restriction which would require them to come before the board if they were going to have any additional uses. Mr. Serafini said they foresaw no use of second floor right now, but does not want to impair future financial use. Mr. Feeherry said they just want to look at it again if it is going to add to the parking, traffic problem. Mr. Mr. McKinnon asked about the existing use in basement, is in favor of this proposal but concerned about future plans. Dick Folsom, I am not happy because of the • Bingo using my parking area, I cannot afford to have a parking attendant, I just have a small restaurant. Would like to see valet parking, would like some guar- antee my lot will not be used. No one appeared in opposition. In rebuttal, Mr. Serafini said, regarding the parking issue, 903/of the restaurants have no parking, if we have to have valet parking we will, if this is not approved, the problem will still be there. Mr. Feeherry asked about the billiards, Mr. Serafini said they have a two year lease, they moved them from the street level down to the basement. Mr. Feeherry said he would like to encourage the owner to talk to the Pastor of the Church regarding parking. Mr. Hopper asked if the Board can require Valet parking. Ms. Boudreau told the Board she like Mr. Anderson, thought he would be a good manager, there will be no bar, which will help the parking situation, we plan to pave between buildings (the alley) , it is to our advantage to provide some parking for our patrons. Mr. Shawn O'Keefe concerned people will not use Riley Plaza as there is no direct access. Hearing closed. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petition for an all alcoholic restaurant on condition it meets the approval of the Liquor Licensing Board, limited to 92 seats as shown on plans, 4 parking spaces will be maintained as shown on plans, there will be valet parking Monday - Friday 11:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m, and 5-9 on Friday evenings, this condition may be waived in the event that the operator of this restaurant can get the use of 10 parking spaces in the vicinity and provides written notice of said parking arrangements, in the event there is any expansion of use of this property or any enlargement of this restaurant the petitioner must come back to the Board, A Certificate of Use and Occupancy for entire structure must be obtained. Mr. Hopper seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Charnas. GRANTED. MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1983 page three 34 Willson St. - Roger A. Tremblay Petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and read letters from the Planning Department and the Fire Marshal (on file) , both in opposition. Mr. Tremblay represented himself, he explained his plans to the Board. He told the Board he had a daughter who was getting married and this would help her and would help him financially. This is owner occupied, there is enough room to park four cars, all paved and a garage. Speaking in favor: Councillor Stephen Lovely, cannot understand the Planning Board's opposition, Mr. Tremblay has plenty of parking, has room for 8 cars if needed. I feel this will be good for the neighborhood, I have received no calls from the neighbors against this. Paul Tremblay, the petitioners brother, explained it would be an apartment similar to the other apartments for his daughter, this would help him meet his mortgage payments. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. After a brief discussion the Board felt the hardship was financial and as' there was no neighborhood opposition, Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petition and allow the addition of a third apartment on condition all construction be in strict accordance with more detailed plan to be submitted and approved by the Building Inspector, five off street parking spaces be maintained at the site, a Certificate of Occupancy and use will be obtained for the entire structure, this will remain a 3 family only as long as it remains owner occupied, if it is sold to someone else it will remain in effect as long as it is owner occupied otherwise it will revert to a two family; Mr. Hopper seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Charnas. GRANTED / 6 Andrew St - Robert C. Bramble Tr. Allyn Realty Trust ✓/ Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing three family dwelling into a three - unit condominium. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner. Mr. Vallis told the Board that they also wanted a Special Permit to expand the height because of exterior work they will be doing on the third floor. Mr. Feeherry asked if this was going to increase the height, he said no. Mr. Vallis then explained to the Board that this three family dwelling is presently occupied, but we have offered financial incentive for these people to move. He submitted copies of letters that had been sent to the tenants, on file. He said one tenant had already made arrangements to move. There are presently three parking spaces on the lot and there will continue to be three spaces. He showed on the plans where they will do landscaping, also showed purchase and sale agreement. He told the Board that Judith Hanson, 4 Andrews St. , had been there to speak in favor, but could not stay, wanted to go on record as being in favor. Mr. Hacker asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Feeherry voiced his concern about waiving the 6 months waiting period as there were tenants occupying the premises. Mary Stuart, Real Estate Agent, said that one of the tenants had made arrangements to move by April 1st and one of the tenants may be interested in purchasing a unit. Mr. Feeherry asked Mr. Vallis how they would feel with a restriction whereby the 6 months would be waived on any units that were voluntarily vacated. Mr. Vallis responded, we can live with that. Mr. Piemonte was concerned with construction going on in empty units while people were still living there. One of the--tenants is an elderly woman and she could find \ construction upsetting. Mr. Vallis said there would just be cosmetic work being • 1 done on the first floor, all building work would be on the third floor and should not effect her. Mr. Charnas wanted to know the hours the construction would be MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1983 page four • 6 Andrew St. - Continued going on. Mr. Vallis told him 8 - 4. Mr. Piemonte reiterated he was against any construction work being done while there, is any occupancy. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petition to allow conversion to 3 unit condominium on condition all work be in strict accordance with plans on file, a Certificate of Occupancy and Use be obtained prior to sale of units, landscaping will be in accordance with plans, three parking spaces shall be maintained as shown on the plans, no construction work shall begin for six months from the date of this decision, this condition will be waived should the tenant voluntarily vacate the first floor. Mr. Charnas seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Charnas. GRANTED 23-25 Liberty Hill Ave. - John & Paul Driscoll Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert to a three family dwelling unit. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . John and Paul Driscoll represented themselves. They explained their plans to the Board. When asked about parking, John said they just have a driveway on the side of the building, room for two or three cars. Paul 'said, they have to have a curb cut, this will make room for five. This will be a one bedroom apartment. No one appeared in favor. Mr. Hacker asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition. Councillor James Fleming, Ward 6, said he was not really opposed, but concerned as this was a good neighborhood with very few three family dwellings and those are mostly owner occupied. Said he would like to notify the neighbors to see if there is much opposition, would hand deliver these notices. This city has limitations regarding curb cuts, also concerned about parking. Hearing closed. Paul Driscoll said the neighbors seem to be in favor, they haven't had any opposition. Mr. • Fleming said he would like to see this continued so we can make sure there is no opposition, he again said he was not opposed but would like to make sure how people in the neighborhood feel. Mr. Charnas felt there was no reason for a continuance, the petition had been properly advertised and the abuttors had been notified. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to continue this until the next meeting at which time this will be the first item on the agenda and it will be limited to Mr. Flemings issue, also give an opportunity to get together with the City Engineer regarding curb cuts. Mr. Hopper seconded. VOTING TO CONTINUE: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte. VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO CONTINUE: Mr. Charms. CONTINUED, Lots 22 & 23 Emerald Ave. - John & Gloria Mancini Petitioner is requesting a Variance from minimum lot area to construct a single family dwelling. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney Robert Bowes represented the petitioner. He displayed plans to the Board and explained they wanted to combine lots 22 & 23 into a single lot containing 11,655 square feet, this would make it an undersized lot, it will meet all other density requirements. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Bob Martin, 3 Meadow Lane, Danvers and Mr. John Walsh, 5 Emerald Ave. , felt this would improve the neighborhood. Mr. Hacker then asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition. Mr. Roger Petit, 4 Emerald Ave. , said he was not really opposed, but was concerned about blasting going on, said that area is mostly ledge. Mr. Feeherry asked if a bond for blasting was needed. Capt. Goggin, Fire Marshal, said yes, in order to get blasting permit it has .to be approved by the Fire Dept. , City Engineer and the Clerk. Hearing closed. Mr.Fee- herry made a motion to grant the Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling and to combine lots 22`&23 for a total of 11,655 square feet on condition MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1983 page five Lots 22 & 23 Emerald Ave. - Continued . that placement of the house conform will minimum front, rear & side yard requirements, and lot coverage; prior to any blasting all permits, licenses, etc. , be obtained; a Certificate of Occupancy and Use be obtained prior to occupying this dwelling. Mr. Piemonte seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Charnas. GRANTED Tremont Place and Irving St.. - George N. Papamechail The petitioner is requesting a Variance to construct ten two bedroom bedroom apartments. Mr. Feeherry read the petition, also read letter from the Fire Marshal and the Planning Board (on file) . Attorney Philip Durkin represented the petitioner, he displayed plans to the Board. He showed pictures of the vacant factory which is presently at the site. He said he felt the only practical use for the property is the proposed apartments. There will be 15 parking spaces. He showed pictures of other multi-family dwellings in the neighborhood. Mr. Feeherry asked about residual problem, or chemical problem, if the factory is razed. Councillor James Fleming said that he felt, as far as chemicals are concerned, this has been vacant so long there should be no problem. Capt. Goggin said there may be some problem with soil, residual, sludge at least 50 feet deep, cannot say about chemicals of problem with flamability, depends on what tank was used for. Att. Durkin said the petitioner was willing to immediately remove the tanlS it was his understanding that the present owner is not financially able to remove this. He showed the Board a Purchase & Sale Agreement, explained these would be rental units for $550 - $600 monthly. Mr. Feeherry asked if there were any liens, don't think so. Have you considered soil testing, not yet. Mr. Durkin said they had a verbal agreement with the Heritage Bank so there will be no problem with financing. • Also said the density of the neighborhood is much greater than the proposed apart- ments. Speaking in favor, Councillor James Fleming, Ward 6, this is mostly a residential area and did not feel the neighbors want commercial use, he gave a lengthy history of the neighborhood. Cathy Pickett, 42 Irving St. , would like to see some type of nice housing there. Helen Pzenny, 6 Tremont Place, anything is better than what is there now. Eugene Victry, 72 Irving St. , Jeannie Martin, 49 Irving St. , both felt anything better than what is there. In opposition, Jack Gilchrist, 1 Tremont Place, concerned about parking, would like to see 2, 2 family dwellings and landscaping. Edward Freeman, 35 Irving St. , said there were about 17 single family dwellings and a few 2 family dwellings in the area, would like it remain this way, did not think this type building appropriate for the neighborhood. Donna Esterbrook, 30 Irving St. concerned about traffic. L. Levesque, 22 Grove St. , not opposed to this kind of development, but felt there are too many units, concerned about traffic. Jean Lachevre, 37 Irving St., too many units, should not be more than 4. Frank Pelletier, 22 Irving St. , doesn't think just anything is better than what is there, would like to see only 4 units. Phil Pickett, 42 Irving at. , too many units, traffic. Hearing closed. In summary, Att. Durkin said it was not economically feasible to put 2 family dwellings there, feels this will improve neighborhood, in respect to the industrial buildings, the cost of renovations just does not seem possible, he said there were apartments on Tremont (Norton Terrace) and they have been incorporated into the neighborhood with very little trouble. Mr. Feeherry said he would be opposed as it stands now, there is so much opposition. Mr. Hopper felt ten units was overkill. Mr. Piemonte felt this could have been opportunity to help the neighborhood but agreed ten units may be too much. Mr. Hacker didnt think this fit in with the neighborhood, would like to see less units. Mr.Piemonte said • he did not want to see the Board vote this down. Mr. Feeherry suggested as an alternative allowing them to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Ankeles asked if it MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1983 page six • ' Tremont Place & Irving St. (Continued) could be continued till the next meeting. Mr. Feeherry said he was reluctant to continue because of busy schedule. Mr. DurkinMrequested to withdraw without prejudice. �Mr. Feeherry made a .motion to allow leave to withdraw, Mr. Hopper seconded. VOTING TO ALLOW LEAVE TO WITHDRAW: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr'__'-Piemont, Mr. Charms: WITHDRAWN Hearing adjourned at 10:37 p.m. , next scheduled hearings will be March 16 and March 23, 1983 at 7:00 p.m., second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitte Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk i Ctv of 'Salem, ttssttt usE##s • 'JQO/4M6IP� � PeQ4Y of '4yfMd MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MARCH 16, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, March 16, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on March 2, 9, 1983; abuttors and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper and Mr. LaBrecque Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. James Hacker. Petitioners were informed that as there are only four members of the Board present it will take a unanimous vote of the Board to grant any petitions, anyone wishing to withdraw at this time could do so. 23-25 Liberty Hill Ave. - John & Paul Driscoll Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling. This case is continued from the February 16, 1983 meeting, to allow Councillor Fleming to determine if there was any opposition from the neighbors. Councillor Fleming thanked the Board and stated there was no objections from the neighborhood. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petition on condition all work be in accordance with plans on file, off street parking on the northerly side of the property and two spaces on the southerly side, landscaping will be maintained on southerly side, use as three family is condition upon it remaining owned by petitioners, a Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained prior to renting. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Winter Island - Winter Island Commission Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow overnight camping of no more than 60 recreational vehicles. Mr. Feeherry read the petition. Appearing in favor were Sue Madison, Ralph Hobbs & Howard Knight. Councillor Fleming suggested a Master Plan be instituted for Winter Island, concerned about conflicting uses. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petition on condition overnight camping of not more than 60 recreational vehicles be during the period June 1, 1983 to October 1, 1983; location of vehicles shall not limit public access to Winter Island; location of the vehicles shall be approved by the Fire Marshal. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 15 Ropes St. - George & Georgia Osgood Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition to an existing garage. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney Robert Bowes represented the petitioners. He explained this would be a 15' x 20' one-story addition to be used for storage and parking. There will be no storage of flamables. except perhaps gas for snow blower and lawn mower. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petition on condition all work be in strict accordance - MINUTES - MARCH 16, 1983 page two 15 Ropes St. - Continued • with plans on file, addition shall not be less than 15' from the Florence St. property and not less than 3' from the southerly property line; may be used for dead storage and parking; detailed plans to be submitted to Building Inspector in connection wkth Building Permit; A Certificate of Use and Occupancy must be obtained prior to use. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 204 Highland Ave. - Robert & Mary Jane Kart Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to construct an addition. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney Robert LeDeux represented the petitioner. He explained the plans to the Board, the addition would be 52'6" x 34'8" together with pavement at the rear of the addition and kennels measuring 15' x 50' . No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petition on condition all work be in strict accordance with plans on file; detailed plans to be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to any remodeling work; no less than 23 parking spaces shall be maintained at the site; a Certificate of Occupancy and Use shall be obtained prior to use, this shall be for the entire structure. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED / Marcia Ave - Maine Post & Beam V/ Petitioners are requesting a Variance to construct 24 Condominium Units. Mr. Feeherry read letters from the Fire Marshal, City Engineer, Planning Board, Conservation Commission; he also read the petition. A petition in favor and • a petition in opposition were submitted to the Board. (all on file) Mr. Feeherry indicated for the record that he lives in the neighborhood, but this would no influence his vote, he is not a direct abuttor. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioners, introduced Mr. Reid Blute a representative of the Company, Maine, Post & Beam. Mr. Blute explained the construction specifics and the reasons for clusters as opposed to single buildings. Speaking in favor were Al Trankey, Paul Benoit, Walter Power & Kenneth May, both from Planning Board, Mr. Jim Kern, Elinor Road. Speaking in opposition, Councillor Nutting, Ward 7, opposed to attached houses, noise, density, traffic;:- impact on schools, may be occupied by unrelated people. Attorney Robert Bowes represented some 20-30 abuttors, disagreed with Planning Dept. regarding cluster as it relates to set- backs, 507 of land is water and/or is sloped which is violation of requirements regarding 4plex attached houses, in his opinion, nothing can be built. Ben Shafer, Elinor Rd. , not happy with the way the city has treated him, ponds have been filled in. Councillor at Large Giardi, against attached buildings, concernced about water & sewer and the expense to the city. Ray Sweeny, Chandler Rd. , single family detached. John Raines, Peter Rd. , concerned about fire, police, snow. Thais Gauthier, pumping station would be too close to her house, wants single detached. Councillor Rochna, would change charactor of neighborhood. Ray Gauthier, Chandler Rd. , single family detached, snow & flooding. Donna Berube, Chandler Rd. , not enough water pressure, too many fences. Bill Farrel, Chandler Rd. , pumping station, Loring Ave. sewer not big enough. Chester Buras, Elm Ave. , pond has been filled in over the last 20 years or so. Attorney Vallis requested leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Feeherry moved to grant leave to withdraw, Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW. • Hearing adjourned at 10:50 p.m. , next hearing will be March 23, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , One Salem Green, second floor. pec fulysA i 'C RTM:bms ichor Mc ntosh oning Enforcement Officer r y 4 (pity of 'Salem, 'Mttssad usetts 3 PuxrD of (�Wetrl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MARCH 23, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, March 23, 1983 at 7:00 p.m., on the 2nd floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on March 9, 16, 1983. Abuttors and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Present were: Mr. Feeherry, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte Mr. Labrecque and Associate Member Mr. Charms. Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. James B. Hacker. 1 Peabody St. - Sertech Labs. Inc. Mr. Feeherry read a letter from Attorney John Serafini, representing the petitioners, requesting permission to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant leave to withdraw, Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW. 30 Beckford St. - Robert P. King • 1 Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to reduce an already non-conforming J lot. Petitioner proposes to convey a portion of the premises containing 2,007 square feet to the immediate abutter. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner. He explained plans to the Board. There is presently a two family dwelling on a lot containing 9,010 square feet, the petitioner wants to divide into lot A & B selling Lot B, Lot A will go the abuttor, Universal Wrecking. They will get a Certificate of Compliance from the .Fire Dept. and will go to the Planning Board for Subdivision Approval Not Required. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petition and allow lot B to be reduced to 7,003 sq. ft. , Certificate of Occupancy and Use shall be obtained prior to selling of Lot A. Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 35 Station Rd. - Raymond V. Beaulieu Petitioner is requesting variances from square footage on Lots 1 & 2 and variance from side yard requirements on lot 1. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Mr. Beaulieu represented himself, he explained he wanted to build a single family dwelling on lot 1 for his in-laws, the existing garage will be on lot 1. Has been to the Planning Board for' Subdivision Approval Not Required. Said he will continue to own both lots, will use the garage on lot 1 for parking, no plans at present time to build a garage on lot 2. Speaking in favor was Councillor Nutting as Ward Councillor and abuttor. Mr. Croteau, 29 Station road, wanted to see plans and asked if the garage was going to be used just for storage of car. Mr. Beaulieu said yes. No one appeared in opposition, ,1• ,� hearing closed. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petition andiallow division into two lots, 1 & 2, Lot 1 having 13,012 sq. ft., Lot 2 having 10,511 sq. ft. , side yard on lot 1 to 2.98 feet for the existing garage, garage may be used soley MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1983 page two 82 Webb St. - Continued hood is more receptive to residences. No problem with parking, there is room for six cars. Parking will be underneath with an open area between the street and the water. Mr. Luzinski asked if they will be able to see cars and right through to the ocean, Mr. Serafini said they were going to put in bushes. Capt. Goggin said as long as the Fire Department had plans, they would remove their objection. Gary Sturgewell, 17 Andrew St., asked if he could see the plans, had a question regarding backing out onto Andrew St. Att. Serafinj said it was conceivable the entrance could be on either Andrew St. or Webb St. , however, there should be enough room for them to turn around so they will not back out onto either street. Mr. Sicotte, 32 Andrew-St., Mr. Collins, 78 Webb St. , Mr. Beck, 90 Webb St. , and Mr. Staniewicz, 89 Webb St. , all wanted to go on record as being in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow use as four family residence and to grant the Variance from lot area, lot coverage, front & rear yard requiremnts on condition; all work be in strict accordance with plans on file, a Certificate of Occupancy and Use and a Certificate of Compliance must be obtained prior to renting. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 23 Beach Ave,;,. - Robert Kalis & John Tierney Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert an' existing three family dwelling into a three unit condominium. Mr. Hopper read the petition and a letter of opposition from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney Robert Kalis introduced • \ himself and his partner Attorney John Tierney to the Board. They will represent themselves. He submitted a copy of a 1953 Board of Appeal decision which granted permission to allow a three family dwelling at this location. Said decision was granted with no conditions. (on file) He submitted letters to the Board showing he had notified tenants of his intentions and he also submitted letters of reply from the tenants. Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Walsh, occupants of the first floor, said they have just finish construction of a new home and would be moving on or before Feb- ruary 1, 1983; Mr. & Mrs. Grayton, occupants and present owners, said they have made arrangements to move on or about February 11, 1983, they are remaining in the second floor apartment so the�building„wotild not be vacant; Mr. & Mrs. Woods, occupants of the thi.i-d floor, will be moving to Danvers on January 22, 1983,' therefore no hardship will be created by this conversion. No changes in density, there will be no archi- techural changes, only minor cosmetic changes. Att. Kalis then submitted a copy of their Condominium By-Laws (on file) , these by-laws will restrict residence of units to a single family plus one. Attorney Tierney will occupy the third floor, so this will only remove two units from the rental community. Parking will remain the same, there is a parking lot across the street. Again said they would be upgrading the property, but will mostly be internal cosmetic, they will comply with the Fire Department. Mr. Hacker asked what the units would be selling for. Mr. Kalis replied they would sell in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars. Speaking in favor,-Mr. - Grayton, present owner. In opposition, Neal & Maureen Joyce, 19 Beach Avenue, questioned if it was a legal three family, said the property was not used as a three family from 1970 - 1978 and thought that it should revert back to two family. Did not feel the applicants had shown any hardship was also concerned about parking. Asked if they would feel better if this was not condominium, they are still concerned about parking. Mr. Burns, 32 Beach Ave., agreed with the Joyces, said the other condo in • the willows is still vacant, doesn't like condos in the willows. Joy Fisher, 15 Beach Ave. same objections, Diane Burns, 32 Beach Ave., objected to losing rental MINUTES - MARCH 23, 1983 ^' page three 256-258 Lafayette St. - Continued • would be right in his back yard. Mike Petrashkevitch, 260 Lafayette St. , gave pamphlets to the members of the board, disagreed with the Assessors map";which says there is 29,108 sq. ft. Does not want condominiums there. Ms. Gormally, 236 Lafayette St. , just wants to make sure there is off-street parking. Mr. 'Cret'ien; 9 Linden St. , the parking is too close to his yard. Mrs. Cretien also concerned about parking. Mr. Hussey, 3 Laurel St. , objected to access to Laurel St., said it was a bad corner and suggested the Board go and look at it. Mr. Bowler, 262 Lafayette St., asked why they could possibly have 9 units without coming to the Board. Mr. Feeherry explained the density requirements to him, that according to the Zoning Ordinance, in an R-3 district each unit requires only 3,500 sq. ft. per unit, therefore, the petitioners could, by right, put in 8 or 9 units, he said he was not sure of the math right now. Attorney Bowes stated the petitioners were willing to work with the neighbors but they did not seem willing to compromise. He then requested leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Fee- herry explained to the assemblage that should the Board grant them leave to with- draw, they would have the right to come back before the Board. Mr. Feeherry made a motion to grant the petitioners Leave to Withdraw Without)lPrejudice. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW. Mr. LaBrecque had to leave the meeting, 8:45. It is noted that Mr. Charms is now a voting member. 150 Canal St. - McDonalds Corp. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from front yard requirements and a Special • Permit to allow a recreation area. Mr. Feeherry read the petition and letters from the Fire Marshal, the Planning Board and a letter from the Zoning Enforcement Officer requesting information from Lt. Jeffreys of the Police Dept. for which there has been no response. Attorney Feinstein represented the petitioners. He explained the modifications that had been made since they came before the Board in January 1983. They have reduced the height of the characters and put the area about 9 feet from the street. Mr. Charms asked if there had been any crash worthy tests done to determine safety of wall. Mr. Thomas Sisson, Engineer, said no, but there will be a -double barrier. They feel it is important to have the area in the front to allow better control. It will be supervised. No one appeared in favor. In opposition, Councillor John Nutting is still very much concerned with the safety aspect and the aesthetic aspect. Mr. Staley McDermott, also concerned with safety and aesthetic. Did not feel they had shown any hardship. This is a bad street with a lot of traffic. Councillor Nutting still concerned with visibility problem. Attorney Feinstein said they had made many modifications, there will be 9 feet between the street and the park. Mr. Hacker asked why they felt it necessary to put it in front, Mr. Sisson said they would have double supervision. Mr. Feeherry questioned the hardship. Mr. Hacker said he did not like to see kids playing out front, not happy with safety. Mr. Charnas said that unless it was proved crash worthy he could not approve. Mr. Piemonte concerned about the visibility. Mr. Hopper felt the safety was all right, second thoughts about aesthetic aspect. Mr. Feinstein as to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Feeherry moved to allow Leave to Withdraw. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ' MINUTES = MARCH 23, 1983 page four • \ Councillor John Nutting commended Mr. Feeherry, who will be leaving, for. his dedicated service to the City and he wished him well in the future. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , next meetings::will be held April 20 & 27, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk r r Qli#g of '�$tt1em, Aassadjuse##s � a � rnn�mard� MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - APRIL 20, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, April 20, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , on the 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on April 6 and 13, 1983. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Charnas, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski and Mr. Bencal. The hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. James Hacker. Mr. Charnas was appointed acting secretary. It was noted that although there are seven members present, each case would be voted on by only five members. Mr. Piemonted made a motion to accept the minutes of the Februaiy 16th and the March 16th meeting. Mr. Charnas seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. 13 Lynn St. - Grace Puleo Petitioner is requesting Variances from density and all setback requirements to divide parcel of land into Lots A & B. Mr. Charnas read the petition and letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . He also read a letter from the Planning Board which requested a Maintenance Easement be required by the Appeals Board. Miss Puleo introduced Mr. Joseph Seracino who would be representing her. Mr. Seracino presented a petition in favor signed by the neighbors. (on file) Mr. Seracino explained the plans and said they had no objections to the granting of an easement to allow maintenance, but explained that the property is going to stay in the family. Miss Puleo said there was aluminum siding so there is very little maintenance necessary. Said she was going to sell to her nephew. Mr. Piemonte asked how much of an easement would be supplied, should the Board set a certain amount of feet for the easement. Mr. Charnas said he felt it should be just a general statement rather that a set amount. Mr. Luzinski asked if the easement would be written into the deed. Mr. Seracini said it was. Mr. Luzinski then asked if it is on the deed, do we have to spell it out. Mr. Charnas again said he thought a general statement would be enough, was concerned about getting too specific. Mr. Seracini suggested saying reasonable access to lot A. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for variance to zero setback and density requirements on Lots A & B on condition a maintenance easement be granted for reasonable access to Lot A not to exceed' four feet. Mr. Labrecque=seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Labrecque, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski, Mr. Charnas. GRANTED 262-272 Highland Ave. - Tri-City Sales, Inc. Petitioner is requesting an Administrative Ruling from t1e Board to determine whether a Variance is necessary to use a portion of the property in the rear of the premises for parking, said portion being in an R-1 zone. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a 1 letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Petitioners were not present. Mr. McIntosh, Zoning Enforcement Officer, explained to the assemblage that on December 13, 1982, he received a complaint from Attorney Decoulos, representing George & Linda Zambouras, to the effect that Tri-City Sales was using land located in an R-2 district for a use that MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1983 page two 262-272 Highland Ave. - Continued • is not allowed in that district. On December 15, 1982, a letter to David Cohen of Tri-City Sales was sent informing him of the zoning violation and saying he must cease and desist immediately. Said letter also informed him .of the necessity of making an application for a variance. Since writing the letter, Mr. McIntosh said, he has, driven by the site a number of times and at none of these times was there any trucks parked there, so he has witnessed no zoning violation. On March 2, 1983 the Board of Appeal received a communication from Attorney Decoulos which stated his clients were aggrieved by the failure of the Building Inspector to enforce the zoning ordinance. On March 23, 1983, the Board of Appeal sent a letter to Mr. Decoulos informing him an application was before the Board. Mr. Charms asked how long Tri-City has been using this lot for parking. Mr. McIntosh said 5 years that he knows of, he again stated that since he has sent them a letter, they have not used it as parking. Mr. Hacker said he has gone by there and seen no trucks, all they are asking for is whether they need a variance or not and he felt they did. Mr. Charnas said this petition was not properly before the Board, unless the petition for variance is before us, we cannot act. Mr. Piemonte asked if we are going to decide if they need a variance. Mr. Charnas said it is not up to us. Mr. Zambouras, 18 Marlborough Rd. , asked to address the Board. Mr. Hacker told him the Board was not going to act on a variance tonight. Mr. Decoulas attorney for Mr. Zambouras, said he thought they had to make a decision tonight. He complained he never received a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Cohen from the Zoning Enforcement Officer, claimed they have raised elevation of theproperty. Mr. Hacker questioned whether we should respond to this application. Mr. Hopper and Mr. Piemonte both agreed this was not properly before the Board and there is nothing to act on. Att. Decoulas said it is a violation and they should have the Building Inspector do his job. Mr. Piemonte said he did not think the Building Inspector is at fault, that he • has done his job. Mr. Charnas made a motion to take no action on the petition as it is not properly before the Board and it is the roll of the petition to apply for a variance. Mr. Hopper seconded. VOTING TO TAKE NO ACTION: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Charnas. NO ACTION TAKEN 217-219 Loring Ave. - Kenneth Provencher Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and Variance to divide parcel of land into two lots, 16 & 18,to construct a single family dwelling on lot 18. Mr. Charnas read the petition a a letter from the Fire Marshal. (on file) Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner. He explained to the Board that the petitioner wants to divide the present 12,140 sq.ft. lot into two lots (16 & 18) . He submitted a letter from Mr. Joseph Alen, a personal reference for Mr. Provencher; he also submitted a petition signed by abutters, in favor. He then presented the Board with copies of the deed. (on file) He passed out copies of the assessors map and indicated on said map where there are many lots in that neighborhood with less footage. He explained he had originally submitted for a Special Permit but was told by the Building Inspector that because of the existing garage on lot 18, a variance would also be needed. The garage on lot 16 will be demolished. An easement will be granted to the tenants of the three family dwelling on lot 16 to allow them access to parking area in rear. The petitioner presently lives in the three family and he will continue to own it. They would have no objections to the restriction that he continue to own it. He said there will be room for 5 cars in the rear, single family will use garage. No one appeared in favor. Arthur Birmingham, 215 Loring Ave. , spoke in opposition. Concerned about the water problem. Said the property was on sea level, and it would cause him to get a lot of water in his basement. He was also concerned about cars driving in and out, he �• thought they would be going past his house. Mr. Hacker should him on the plans where the driveway will be between the 3 family and the proposed single family. Hearing closed. Mr. Vallis said that if there is a water problem, this project will not add MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1983 page three 217-219 Loring Ave. - Continued to it, there will be no change in the elevation. They would have no objection to a condition that the NW side never be used as a driveway. Mr. Piemonte asked the Building Inspector if he was aware of any water problem there. Mr. McIntosh said he had never seen any flooding there. Mr. Hopper asked whether the Board should check into whether this is a legal three family or not. Mr. Hacker said they should not-act on something that is not before us. Mr. Vallis said the parking area will be crushed stone. Mr. Charms moved to allow the petitioner to divide the property into two lots, lot 18 containing 6,220 sq.ft. ; lot 16 containing 5,920 sq.ft. and to allow setbacks to allow existing garage to within five feet of side yard of lot 16 and to allow existing 3 family structure to within five feet of side yard of lot 18 on condition that a Certificate of Occupancy and use be obtained prior to occupying single family; no driveway to be built within 16 feet of NW boundary of lot 16; parking area will be of crushed stone; three family will remain owned by the petitioner; 3 parking spaces will be maintained on lot 16, no closer than 16 feet of the NW side; NW side of lot 16 will be landscaped; a Certificate of Compliance must be obtained from the Fire Marshal prior to occupying single family; Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski, Mr. Charnas. GRANTED 5-7 Summer St. - Richard & Diane Pabich Petitioners are requesting variances from parking requirements and use to allow residential apartments. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Attorney George Vallis represented'.the petitioners. He explained the plans and read section of the Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan (SRA) . He said it would be difficult to rent rooms on the fourth floor. There will be two one bedroom apart- ments. He pointed out that there are many residential places in this area. The rooms would be for tourist, the apartments would be rented year round, there will be no kitchens in the 12 rooms. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Vallis told the Board that they would try to make arrangements with Texaco for parking. Mr. Charms made a motion to grant the petition to allow two one bedroom apartments on the fourth floor and to grant the variance from parking requirments on condition a Certificate of Compliance and .a Certificate of Occupance and Use be obtained prior to renting said units. Mr. Hopper seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte and Mr. Charnas. GRANTED 17 Varney St. - Robert & Teddie Hartwell Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow construction of a stairway to within four (4) feet of side line. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire° Marshal. Robert and Teddie Hartwell represented themselves. Explained plans to the Board. Stairway will be a third floor egress, it is a single family dwelling, owner occupied. They showed on the map where there 'is a severe drop in the rear, making it impractical to put the stairs there. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variance and allow construction of stairway to withinyfour feet of the sideline on condition all work be in strict accordance with plans on file and a Certificate of Compliance be obtained from the Fire Department. Mr. Hopper seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. LaBrecque, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Charnas. GRANTED MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1983 page four i 24 Horton St. - Linda Baillie • Petitioner is requesting a variance from lot area, coverage, width and setbacks to construct a single family dwelling. Mr. Charnas read the petition and letters from the City Engineer's Office and the Fire Marshal. Craig and Linda Baillie represented themselves. They explained this was the last lot on the street, this would not only finish the street, but would add to the aesthetic value. They submitted a petition, in favor, signed by the neighbors. Linda Baillie, referring to ',the letter from the City Engineer's Office, said she had put sewer lines in about one year ago, they will put in septic system. Speaking in favor was Robert Talbot who stated the Baillies were good people who belong in the neighborhood. Felt there plan was feasible. In opposition Robert Peck, 1 Church St., Attorney for William French and Kathleen O'Donnell, 22 Horton St. , said his clients were concerned about the impact of the septic system, there is surface water on the property, he showed pictures to the Bird. Said there had been no hardship shown, any variance granted must not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Sue Cawley, lot size too small. Fred French, reiterated what Ms. Cawley said. Leo Beaulieu, 27 Horton St., did not think any Engineer would approve of the septic system, concerned about leaching. Asked about perc test. Ms. Baillie said it had passed the perc test. In rebuttal, Ms. Baillie said the lot is small, but there is plenty of room, as far as the septic system is concerned, it would have to be approved before I could build anyway, Doesn't think it is an issue for tonight. The drainage is good. It would be hardship ifthisis denied. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte, referring to the percolation test done by Essex Survey Service (on file) , said he did not undertand this and it would make it hard for him to make a judgement based on this. Mr. Hacker said he had difficulty going along with this project with the plans that have been submitted. Mr. LaBrecque felt the septic system should be installed and shown. Mr. Hopper did not feel the septic system was our concern, we are concerned with lot area. Mr. Hacker said the perc test tells us nothing. He then asked Attorney Peck if their concern was with • water or with the house. Att. Peck said both, Mr. French already has water in his basement and this will worsen the situation. The other abutters also concerned with water problem. Mr . Hopper asked if the septic system got approved , if that would solve the problem . They did not feel that it would . Mr . Hacker asked the Baillie ' s if at this time they would like to withdraw without prejudice . Mr . Baillie said the question before this Board is size of the lot , not the water problem . Mr . Piemonte explained to her that the Board is trying to meet the needs of not just the applicants , but also the neighbors . The Baillie ' s then requested leave to withdraw without prejudice . Mr . Luzinski moved to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice , Mr . Charnas seconded . VOTING TO GRANT LEAVE TO WITH- DRAW : Mr . Hacker , Mr . Hopper , Mr . Piemonte , Mr . Luzinski , Mr . Charnas . PETITION WITHDRAWN Hearing adjourned at 9 : 50 p . m . , next scheduled hearing will be held April 27 , 1983 at 7 : 00 p . m . , 2nd floor , One Salem Green . Respectfully submittecl,7ai=� L/l Brenda M . Sumrall Clerk • ,.GeV rq of *Ilem, cmttssarliuse##s 9 PuxrD of �,Vyettl '°eouixs� MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - APRIL 27, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, April 27, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , on the 2nd floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertized in the Salem Evening News on April 13, 20, 1983. Abuttors and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Present were: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Charnas, Mr. Luzinski, and Mr. Bencal Hearing was called to order at 7:OO p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. James Hacker. Mr. Luzinski and Mr. Bencal were appointed voting members. 2 Winter St. - Jan Rozen and Arnold Maloff Mr. Charnas read a letter from Attorney John Serafini, Jr. , requesting Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant Leave to Withdraw Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE 256-258 Lafayette St. - Lafayette Villa Associates Mr. Charnas read a letter from Robert M. Maguire, Agent for Lafayette Villa Associates, requesting permission to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant Leave to Withdraw, Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 162 North St. - Robert E. Gauthier Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to use the first floor as an office. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Gauthier represented himself. He explained this would be a better location for his business as it is so hard to park downtown, it would also subsidize the rental units. Mr. Hopper asked him about any signs. Mr. Gauthier said it would not be necessary to have any. Mr. Bencal asked if this property was where Doctor O'Neil once had his office. Mr. Gauthier said it was. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper said the only thing he would like to see is a restriction on signs, no larger than 2 square feet. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition and allow the first floor to be used as an office on condition A.C. electric hardwired smoke detectors be installed, no sign larger than 2 square feet be erected. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 14 Nichols St. - Dolores A. Shea Petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert attic into a studio apartment. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. He also read a petition signed by the neighbors in favor of the conversion. Ms. Shea repre- sented herself. She explained to the Board her plans. She will put in a second entry, has place for parking, needs the extra source of income. Said she was a •� single parent, lives there. She said there was 2 parking spaces. Mr. Bencal asked where she would put a third car. She said she had room for three cars. no one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper said he did not see the hardship, she is asking for a Variance, not a Special Permit, also. there is not enough information here. Mr. Bencal agreed, said he would like to see more detailed plans. Mr. Charnas felt she had shown as much hardship as others MINUTES - APRIL 27, 1983 page two N . 14 Nichols St. - Continued who have been before the Board. Mr. Hopper said hardship is still an issue, does not want to see here come back with plans and get turned down; Mr. Hacker, should we make a motion or should we have her come back. Mr. Hopper, would like to see plans showing where the stairs will be and where the parking is, how long has it been a two family dwelling, thinks she should have Special Permit rather than a Variance. Mr. Hacker explained to her what the Board wanted, asked the Board if they wanted to continue this till next meeting. Mr. Luzinski moved to continue till May 18th, Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE TILL MAY 18, 1983. 50 Balcomb St. - John M. Martins Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert to a three family dwelling, also a Variance from parking requirements. Mr. Charnas read the petition and letters from the Fire Marshal and the Planning Board. Attorney John Serafini Jr. repre- sented the petitioner. He explained that parking is a problem because of the shape of the lot, he would like to be allowed four spaces instead of the required four and a half. Petitioner has invested a substantial amount of money, the work has already begun. Building Inspector told them they would have to come to the Board. The petitioners are from Portugal and speak very little english. The hardship is financial. There are two and three family dwellings in the neighborhood, this will be consistent with the area, it is owner occupied. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas questioned the hardship. Mr. Hacker felt it was because of there is no land. Mr. Luzinski said we could be creating the problem by granting the third unit. Mr. Charnas felt there was no problem as there are similar structures in the area and there is no opposition. Mr. Bencal said he is familiar with the neighborhood and they have very small lots there. Mr. Luzinski asked if this would be smaller than other apartments. Att. Serafini said it would be a little smaller. Also assured the Board they would comply with smoke detectors. Mr. Hopper said with a Variance we need to show hardship. Mr. Hacker suggested they limit the time, say five years and then they would have to come back to the Board. Att. Serafini said he did not object to time limit, but would like it longer than five years because of the finanical investment they are going to make, would like seven years. Mr. Charnas asked Att. Serafini to explain the hardship. Serafini said the shape of the lot, economic hardship, they have only so much space, it would cost so much to maintain, he reminded the Board that is is owner occupied. Mr. Hacker said he had no problem with it if it is limited to five years. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition and allow the addition of a third apartment on condition a minimum of four (4) parking spaces be maintained on-site, a Certificate of Occupancy and Use be obtained prior to renting, A.C. hardwired electrical detectors be installed, these Variances will automatically expire five years from the date of the filing of this decision. Mr. Bencal seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Luzinski, Mr. Charnas, Mr. Bencal. VOTING TO DENY: Mr. Hopper. GRANTED 18 Abbott St. - Raymond and Elberta Cloutier Petitioners are requesting a Variance to divide parcel of land into two lots, A & B, neighter lot having sufficient square footage to construct a single family dwelling on lot B. Mr. Charnas read the petition and letters from the Fire Marshal and the Planning Department. Attorney Robert LeDoux represented the petitioners. He gave • copies of the Assessors Map to the Board, explained the petitioners plan to the Board. The petitioner's daughter has recently separated and they want to build a house for her, it will be a single family dwelling. Most of the lots in that area are smaller than petitioners, any new lots would be larger than most of the lots in the neighborhood. Doesn' t think this will derogate from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Speaking in favor, Doreen Bedard, daughter of the petitioners, MINUTES - APRIL 27, 1983 page three 18 Abbott St. - Continued • said her parents were just trying to help her sister out, felt this would help the neighborhood also. John Corrigan, 16, Abbott St. , said he had signed the petition in favor, the Cloutiers had told him there would be no blasting, but he would like to see that a one of the conditions. In opposition, Judy Ferraro, 16 Maple St. , said her property abuts this property on the back and side, has a retaining wall, her property is two feet lower than theirs is, is concerned about water problem, she already has a problem and is afraid this will increase it. Bernice Murphy, 22 Maple St. , said she had wanted to purchase that lot a long time ago but was told it was not suitable to build, if it was not suitable then, it is not suitable now. Hearing closed. Att. LeDoux assured everyone there would be no blasting. Mr. Hacker asked about the neighbors water problem. Att. LeDoux suggesting contacting the Engineer for his expertise. Mr. Luzinski asked if the lot has been filled over the years. Att. LeDoux said no, it has been leveled. Mr. Hacker asked how they could protect the neighbors from runoff, Mr. Hopper said he felt this would be detrimental to the abuttors, does not see how they could put in sewer without blasting, the ledge is a problem. Mr. Bencal also concerned with the ledge. Mr. Charnas agreed with the other Board Members regarding the blasting and the runoff, would need some data from the City Engineer. Mr. Hopper felt there were too many problems. Capt. Goggin said he would be reluctant to give a blasting permit for more that five pounds, and did not think five pounds would be enough to handle the ledge. Mr. Hopper made a motion to deny the petition on grounds that this would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED . 70 Essex St. - Steven Kline, Ira Gorfinkle & Jeffrey Musman 1 Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert and existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling. They are also requesting a Variance from parking requirments to allow one space per unit. Mr. Charnas read the petition and letters from the Fire Marshal and the Planning Board. (on file) . Attorney Jeffrey Musman represented himself and co-owners. He explained to the Board that at one time this was a three family dwelling and had been a three family for the past few years. Was told by the Building Inspector that because it has not been used a a three family for a while it is no longer a three family. It is a three story structure, the neighborhood is zoned R-2, but in this area there are many multi-family dwellings. He said they would not need the Variance from parking, showed where there are five parking spaces behind the lot. Mr. Hacker asked how many cars are there now and where are they parked. Att. Musman said there are four cars and they park in the back. Mr. Bencal asked if there were any records showing this was a three family. Att. Musman said that when Mrs. Kucker purchased the property there was a small kitchen on the third floor. Mr. Bencal noted that some construction has already started. No one appeared in favor. In opposition, Mr. & Mrs. Peter Russell, 74 Washington Square, said that historically this is a two family dwelling, it is a two story house. The electric meter was a violation and the Building Inspector told Mass. Electric it should not be there, the meter was removed. Last week there were four to five cars parked there, there are no curb cuts, the driveway is one car width, construction was done even before the meter was put in. This is a very congested area, there is only one stairway from the third floor, the owners tried to rent without the proper permits. Derek Cavanaugh, 72 Essex St. , asked to see the plans, wanted to see where the parking •, was going to be. Thinks the area is too crowded. Capt. Goggin asked if there had been a Building Permit issued. Att. Musman said they had obtained a plumbing and an electrical permit. Capt. Goggin stated he saw no hardship and the Fire Dept. was definitely opposed, it is a very narrow street. Hearing closed. In rebuttal, Att. Musman said there are two stairwells tothe second floor, we applied ' MINUTES - APRIL 27, 1983 page four • 70 Essex St. - Continued for permits that were called for, we cannot control the parking thoughout the neighborhood. Mr. Hopper questioned the parking situation, saying they could not back out onto a street. Mr. Luzinski agreed with Capt. Goggin regarding the hard- ship, they new it was a two family when they bought it. Mr. Hacker did not like the idea of backing out onto a street. Mr. Bencal agreed with other Board Members, said this is very dense area. Mr. Charnas felt this would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to deny the petition because of neighbor opposition and because this would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED Mr. Hacker read correspondence from Mr. & Mrs. Paul Pizzello, Jr. , 37 Endicott St. , requesting the area be reestablished as a residential area. A letter from the Board will be sent to the Pizzello's explaining the zoning to them. He also read a letter from Diana Waterous Centorino asking whether a variance for 16 Hardy st. was necessary, a letter from the Board will be sent to her. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be May C8; 1983, at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk r— •, v �.coewl S s (di# of Salem, Aussar4use##s Poxrb of (�"rtt1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MAY 18, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, May 18, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , on the 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on May 4 and 11 , 1983. Abuttors and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present were: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Piemonte, Mr. Luzinski, Mr. Charnas and Associate Member, Mr. Bencal Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. James Hacker. It was noted for the record that Mr. Bencal would not be a voting member. Mr. Hopper made a motion to accept the minutes of the March 23, 1983 meeting, Mr. Piemonte seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 14 Nichols St. - Dolores Shea Mr. Charnas read a fetter from Dolores Shea, dated May 3, 1983, recieved, May 9, 1983, requesting permission to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant her leave to withdraw, Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE i 44 Jefferson Ave. - Thomas Boucher Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend non-conforming front setback and change from one non-conforming use to another. He is also requesting a Variance from setbacks and parking as needed to allow construction of an addition . Mr. Charnas read the petition, a letter from the Fire Marshal and a letter from the Planning Board (on file) . Mr. Boucher represented himself. He displayed plans to the Board, showed pictures of the existing buildings. Said he would like a 20 foot addition. It is a busy place and not suitable for residential use. He will use it for a machine shop, right now he as 2 employees but will eventually would employ 4. He showed a picture of a vacant lot where parking could be. He explained that this would be an automoti&,e machine shop, strictly engine repair. The engines are brought to him and they will be brought in the garage door, which he showed on the plans. His hours of operation are 8 - 5 Mon. through Fri. and 8 - 1 on Sat. Said he was presently located at 18 Margin St. Mr. Hopper asked him if it would be a problem for him to have the garage doors elsewhere so that people would not have to back out onto Jefferson Ave. He said that could be worked out. Mr.Hacker asked the audience if they were able to hear Mr. Boucher and if they had any particular questions to ask him. Mr. John Yarosh, 23 Calabrese St. wanted to know if they were going to do any blasting. Mr. Boucher assured him they would not. It was noted by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Mr. McIntosh, that this area was an R-1 district, not B-1 as put on the application. No one —\ appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Mr. Joseph Ingemini, Jr. , 48 Jefferson Ave. , said they pay taxes for living in an R-1 district and yet they have to put up with all these business, he mention several of the business in the area. He was concerned that if this was granted they would eventually be staying open nights. Also concerned about noise, did not think it would be fair to the neighbors to allow anymore business. Mr. Luigia D'Isso, 50 Jefferson Ave. , Mr. Louis Robicheau, 19 Calabrese St. , Mr. John Yarish and Mrs. Ann Yarosh, 23 Calabrese St. , Mrs. MINUTES - MAY 18, 1983 page two 44 Jefferson Ave. - Continued Rita Higley, 21 Calabrese St. (who was not present but had the Yarosh's speak for her) , all voiced the same concerns at Mr. Ingemi. In rebuttal, Mr. Boucher invited them all to come to his present shop to see his operation. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte asked if Mr. Boucher was not going to enlarge the building, would he need a Variance. Mr. Charnas said he would then need a Special Permit for use. Mr. Piemonte asked if the building is presently vacant and if it is wouldn' t this cause a hazard in regards to vandals. Mr. Hacker said it is vacant, he felt the objections were to the type of business. Mr. Charnas said he had difficulty finding any hardship. Mr. Hopper made a motion to deny the petition because of lack of hardship since the property has not been purchased, machine shop in a residential area is not in keeping with an R-1 Zone, and abutter opposition. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO DENY THE PETITION. 198 Lafayette St. - Aser Frisch Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing four family dwelling to a four unit condominium. He is also requesting a Special Permit to add a fifth unit. These requests were submitted on two separate applications, the Board asked if there was any objection to hearing them both at once. Petitioner had no objection. Mr. Charnas read the petitions, letters from the Fire Marshal and the Planning Board (on file) . He then read a petition signed by abutters in favor of this proposal. Attorney Mark Vershbow represented the petition. He stated, as regards the second application, it amends the first. He explained that for the fifth unit they would have add dormers. This would not be substantially . detrimental. Presently have 5 parking spaces, will have 10 spaces. There will be 2 spaces per unit. He explained that one tenant has signed the petition in favor, the other said she had no objections but did not want to sign, told the petitioner if she had any objections she would come to the hearing. The fifth unit will be four rooms. Parking and driveway is hot topped. The parking will be piggy back, but there has never been a problem with that type of parking there. Mr. Hopper concerned whether there was enough room for cars to turn around. Mr. Frisch said there was, said he had lived there and never found any problem. If necessary, the paved area could be extended. Showed on the plans where it could be extended. Mr. Frisch said that by law they only needed 71 parking spaces but he though it would be better to have two spaces per unit in case they had company. Mr. Piemonte asked how they came to the conclusion that this would not have any effect on the rental situation in Salem. Mr. Vershbow said it was a common sense determination, these are not low income apartments, they are $450 - $475 monthly. Mr. Hacker asked how much these units would sell for. Mr. Vershbow said they are aiming for the high sixties. Mr. Frisch said this was one of the newer buildings on Lafayette St. , only about 35 years old. Mr. Piemonte asked if they were going to do anything about soundproofing, Mr. Frisch said yes, they will insulate the common wall. There are closets on the common wall. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski asked if the dormers would be the only construction. Mr. Frisch explained there would be only the dormers and they would conform to the rest of the building. The third floor is presently an attic and it has never been used as an apartment. Everything there will be new. Mr. Hacker said he might be in favor or waiving the 6 months waiting period as long as it doesn' t interfere with the tenants still there. Mr. Charnas asked when construction would begin. Mr. Vershbow said they would like • to begin as soon as possible. MINUTES - MAY 18, 1983 page three 198 Lafayette St. - Continued • Mr. Piemonte said he does not like to give waivers because it puts pressure on the tenants. Mr. Vershbow said they were not going to move the present tenants. Mr. Hacker asked how long the tenants have to go on their lease. Mr. Frisch said they are tenants at will. Mr. Hacker suggested limiting the hours of construction. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition and allow the conversion of the existing four family dwelling into four unit condominium, also to allow petition to add an addition fifth unit on condition there will be not work done except between the hours of 8 -5 Monday through Friday, 10 on site parking spaces be maintained, parking area to be paved, Certificate of Occupancy & Use be obtained for all units. Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO GRANT THE PETITIONS 27 Daniels St. - Julianna Tache Attorney George Vallis, representing the petitioner requested a continuance as there had been a death in the petitioner's family. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to allow this petition to be continued till the June 15, 1983 meeting at which time this will be the first item on the agenda. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED CONTINUANCE UNTIL JUNE 15, 1983. 1A Parallel St. - Thomas Blackler Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to change from one non-conforming use to another. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Blackler represented himself, explainedto the Board what he proposed to do, • first he addressed the assemblage and told them that all the trucks they had seen parked at the site did not belong to him, the only one that belonged to him was the Pepperidge Farm truck. Said he would be refurbishing cars, does the work himself and employs one boy from the trade school. Presently has his business at 1 Lilly St. There is a window cleaning business at the site now, and one half is an apartment. Speaking in favor was George Louf, present owner, he explained he operated the window cleaning business and this new use will make less traffic than there was, said he operated the business in } and rented the other }, this is what Mr. Blackler proposes to do. Said at one time he employed 40 people, had a day and night crew. In Opposition, Councillor John Nutting; he said Parallel is off of Jefferson Ave. , it is a side street made up of one and two family houses, a nice little neighborhood. He wants to move from Lilly St. which is off Canal St. which is an industrial zone, these two neighborhoods do not compare. The neighbors are concerned about noise from the equipment and the air could become saturated from the fiblerglass, could also be danger from the flamables. This business would not be conducive to the neighborhood, this type business belongs in an industrial zone. The neighbors have said they already are bothered by noise from the industrial zone which is a couple of blocks away. Felt this would effect the quality of life in this neighborhood. Mr. Bruce Courage, 4 Parallel St. said he had small children and did not want them to come into contact with these fumes. He has just bought a pool and doesn' t want to listen to that noise . Suzan Sturtevant, 8 Parallel St. , we have to restrict the children as it is, we are all concerned about the traffic, he will be having cars going back and forth because of his insurance appraisals. Leo Bergeron, 10 Paralles St. , there is a Special Child on the street, and he could be injured, he does not hear and the • increase in traffic will be dangerous. Also concerned about noise and dust. This is a green, quiet neighborhood, would like it to stay like that. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte said a while ago we denied an application that is not as noisey as this one. Parallel St. is an even better neighborhood than the one we denied. Mr. Hacker said he did not think this would be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Luzinski agreed with Mr. Piemonte. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to deny the petition MINUTES - MAY 18, 1983 page four 1A Parallel St. - Continued as it would derogate from the neighborhood. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO DENY THE PETITION. 18 Summer St. - Richard Pohl Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to add a residential unit at 18 Summer St. Mr. Charnas read the petition, a letter from the Fire Marshal and the Historica Commission. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner. Said he would like to clear up the matter of zoning, whether it is a B-3 zone or something else. The Zoning Maps in the Office of the City Clerk, which is the official map, this is a B-3 district. Mr. McIntosh, Zoning Enforcement Officer, said it is an R-3 district. He explained to Mr. Vallis and the Board that the Council had amended the map in 1969• Mr. Vallis said whether it is a B-3 or an R-3 will not change his presentation. Said the building was non-conforming because there are four units in the big building, we are asking for an enlargement of nonconforming use. This will not be more detrimental to the existing use. The extra unit will be in the accessory building. There is more than enough parking. Dr. Pohl has his office on the first floor, he has improved the property greatly and would like to renovate the carriage house. Mr. Vallis then submitted favorable letters from Mary Smith, 8 Chestnut St. , Mr. & Mrs. William Cass, 16 Summer St. , and from Micheline Ryan, 2 Chestnut St. (on file) . The carriage house has been sitting idle for many years. This is the most appropriate use for this. Mr. Piemonte asked if we were dealing with two petitions, the office and the carriage house. Mr. Vallis said no, the office is already there. Mr. Piemonte asked if we should be dealing with the professional office at this time. Mr. • Charnas said no, not at this time. Speaking in favor, Diane Pabich, 5-7 Summer St. , said she though what Dr. Pohl has done to the property is wonderful. Margaret Busteed, 6 Chestnut St. , would be delighted to the the carriage house used. Dr. Pohl, 335 Essex St. said that the prior owner came to the Building Inspector when the property was purchased and was told it was a B-3 District, that is why I purchased it. Feels that a residential use is the best use for this structure, it is consistent with the neighborhood, and with urban renewal. He showed pictures of the building before and after. He said he thought the Board could see he does good work and he does what he says he is going to do. I think I have helped make this a better neighborhood. In opposition, Attorney Daniel Donovan, Elm St. , Danvers, representing John & Joan Kelley, 3 Cambridge St. , first requested a copy of the decision be sent to him. He said, if this was zoned B-3 and this was an extension of a nonconformity, it would not apply .to separate building, it would only apply to the four family building,. thinks this is against the law. He said he has researched this, he presented the minutes of the Council meeting of 1969, at that time it was attempted to change the zoning here, but it was defeated. This petition is in error, nonconforming use does not apply, the office was put in illegally, this would need a variance. This is an accessory use and to make it a principle use in not in compliance. Mr. Piemonte asked it they had any other objection other than the petition. Att. Donovan said the Kelleys have a pool right there and this would be a violation of their privacy. The Kelley's showed the Board, on the plans, where their property was located. Att. Vallis said he was not satisfied that this is an R-3 zone, would like to research it further. He asked for a continuance till the next meeting. Mr. Charnas moved to continue this petition until the June 15, 1983 meeting, Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY • GRANTED A CONTINUANCE TILL JUNE 15, 1983. MINUTES - MAY 18, 1983 page five 35-37 Ocean Ave. - Raymond & ElaineLandry, Peter & Mary Hooks Petitioners are requesting a Variance or Special Permit from density regulations, lot area, width, coverage, depth, side & rear setbacks, height & number of stories,. so the owners of 35 Ocean Ave. to convey a parcel of land two feet in width and seventy five feet in length to the owners of 37 Ocean Ave. to allow creation of a paved driveway to provide access to all areas of the property and for off-street parking. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Att. John Tierney, represented the petitioners. He would like to address the objection of the Fire Marshal, he assured Capt. Goggin and the Board that fire detectors would be installed. He explained this was an attempt by one neighbor to help another neighbor. By conveying this piece of property the Hooks would be enlarging a nonconformity. Mr. Piemonte said he was not clear on the advantage of conveying this piece of property. Att. Tierney explained this would give the Landry's room for a paved driveway, by doing this they will be increasing an already non- conforming lot. This might call for a Special Permit, but wanted to cover all bases. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a Special Permit from all density requirements as needed to allow petitions to convey parcel of land 2' wide & 75' long as shown on plans to be attached to decision on condition a Certificate of Compliance be obtained. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 2 Winter St. - Jan Rozen and Arnold Maloff Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow professional dental offices on the first floor of the property which is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and letters from the Fire Marshal and the Planning Board. Att. John Serafini represented the petitioners. He displayed plans and pictures, he • showed the proposal and the building as it is now. He explained the doctors have consulted with the neighbors, met with them personnally and had meeting with them here at One Salem Green. He submitted a petiton in favor, signed by the neighbors. He said the owners are sensitive to the feelings of the neighbors and if there had been any objections they would not go through with this petition. It has been used as apartments, it has become a little shabby because the present owners cannot afford to keep it up. If this continues it will become worse. Mr. Centorino has talked with us, he suggested we canvas the neighborhood, he thinks it should be part of the decision that the barn be maintained as is. There are presently 5 units, there will be 4 and the doctors will occupy the first floor. This building had been occupied by doctors until a few years ago, the architect is here and the doctors are here to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Piemonted asked for clarification of the barn. Thomas Macclean, architect, showe9 on the plans were the barn (carriage house) is. Attorney Serafini said this will remain as is, will be used for parking 3 cars. Mr. Charnas asked where the hard- ship was. Att. Serafini said it was economics, if it is allowed to stay the way it is, it will deteriorate further, it will be a betterment to the neighborhood, they are decreasing the residential units, it will have the same use as it did at one time. The architect explained the changes to the building. Serafini showed the parking, cars will enter from one side and exit from the other. No appeared in favor or opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Hopper asked if they would be willing to go to the Design Review Board regarding any signs put on the building. Att. Serafini said they would. Mr. Piemonte said he would like to ask Mr. Centorino if going to the Design Review Board would satify him regarding signs. Mr. Centorino said it would. Serafini said they would need a Variance from parking, they have 8 spaces. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition to • allow dental offices on the first floor of the structure and to allow parking for 8 cars on condition A.C. hardwired electrical detectors be installed, the MINUTES - MAY 18, 1983 page six 2 Winter St. - Continued heating be approved by the Fire Department, a Certificate of Occupancy and Use be obtained, prior to putting up any signs they will go to the Design Review —� Board, the barn (carriage house) be maintained at the present location and be used for parking, all work be in strict accordance with plans on file with the Board of Appeal. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Charnas told the Members of the Board that he had just purchased a home int Swampscott. He has reseached and found nothing that says a Board Member has to be a resident of the City. He is in hopes he will be able to continue to serve as long as there is no legal problem. He said he would be in touch with the Mayor to see how he feel about it. Mr. Piemonte said perhaps the Board could give him a vote of confidence. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , next scheduled meeting to be held June 15, 1983, at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk • (1Li# of "Salem, 'Mttssac4use##s Puxrb of �kp}teal �' •oeon,ma ohy MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - JUNE 15, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, June 15, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , on the 2nd floor,One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 1 , and 8, 1983. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. Hacker, Piemonte'`^,' Charnas, Hopper and Bencal. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes of the April 27 and the May 18, 1983 meeting. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 27 Daniels Street - Julianna Tache, Trustee TWN Trust ✓ Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing three family dwelling into three unit condominium. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney George Vallis, 1 Church St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. He displayed site plans and floor plans to the Board. He explained this is a three family dwelling and at the time of purchase there were only two tenants, one of the tenants has already vacated but has expressed interest in buying one of the units. The other tenant, Ms. Laurie Cabot is also interested in buying the unit she is presently occupying. This conversion will have no effect on low and moderate income housing or on persons living on fixed income. The rent is $600.00 monthly, but would be up to $700.00 a month for new renters. Nothing contradictory as regards the Master Plan. Would like the six month waiting period waived. Units will sell in the mid seventys. There is adequate parking, there are two sets of parking which would be piggy back, but there is no problem as they would belong to the same owner and they could control it. Mr. Piemonte asked about the governing, it the parking has already been established. Mr. Vallis said he had neglected to bring the condominium documents. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte was concerned about waiving the six months , he asked Mr. Vallis how long they would give the present tenant to find new housing should she decide not to but her unit. Mr. Vallis said they would give her at least six months. Mr. Hacker was concerned with the piggy back parking, does not like to see backing out onto a street. Mr. Vallis said most of the houses on that street have to back out. Mr. Hacker asked if there was any problem with putting parking in the rear. Mr. Vallis said they would be willing to parking further back so they could turn around. Mr. Piemonte has no objections as long as it is not effecting low or moderate income rentals, and as long as Ms. Cabot has the six months to make up her mind. Mr. Vallis said they are willing to have a restriction regarding the six months for the existing tenant. Mr. Hacker would like to limit the hours in which construction can be done, say .� 8 - 4 Mon. through Fri. Mr. Vallis had no problem with that. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit to convert to the existing three family dwelling into three unit condominium on condition that parking areas 1 , 2, & 3 on the plans submitted be moved to the area behind the structure, the existing tenant be a allowed six months to find housing, no work shall be done other than between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. mon. through fri. , A.C. Hardwired smoke detectors be installed, a Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained prior to selling. MINUTES - JUNE 15, 1983 page two 27 Daniels St. - Continued • Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 18 Summer St. - Richard Pohl Mr. Vallis respectfully requested permission to withdraw this petition without prejudice, would like the Building Inspector oK the Board of Appeal to give a legal opinion as to the zoning of this property, R-3 or B-3, perhaps contact the City Solicitor. Attorney Donovan, representing the Kelleys, 3 Cambridge St. , objected to the withdrawing without prejudice. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petitioners Leave To Withdraw Without Prejudice, Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE 24 Monroe Road - Robert Tina Petitioner is requesting Variances from frontage, square footage and side set- back. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Mr. Tina presented himself to the Board and explained that all they wanted to do was square off the lots. He would convey a portion of his lot to his neighbor and his neighbor would convey portion to him. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte asked if he had anything in writing from his neighbor. Mr. Tina said no, his neighbor was going to be here, but he had to work. Mr. Hopper pointed out that the Board's decision can only allow this, it is not the final sale. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for Variances from frontage, footage and side setbacks that will result when sale is ., made as shown on plans. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 8 Oliver St. - Raymond DiTroia The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear set- back another 6 feet to allow for kitchen enlargement and second floor bedroom. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Mr. DiTroia represented himself, he said he had the required smoke detectors. The Board advised him to get a Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Dept. Mr. DiTroia told the board to disregard the second story bedroom, he just wanted to extend and enlarge the kitchen as his family is getting bigger and they needed the extra room. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition and allow the construction of a 6' x 15' one story addition on condition all work be in strict accordance with plans on file. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 8 Glover St. - Carl R. Lavoie The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side set- back to construct a deck. Mr. Charnas read the petition an a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Mr. Lavoie represented himself. He explained the plans to the Board, this will be a 16' x 20' deck. Mr. Piemonte asked him how close to the abutter he would come. He told him it would be 5'711 , the stairs are existing and the walk is there. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing ` closed. Mr. Hopper asked if this would be a covered deck. Mr. Lavoie said he • \ may want a roof on it sometime. Mr. Hopper asked if it would cover the entire deck. Mr. Lavoie said he may want to screen it in for shade, will not cover the porch, Mr. Lavoie felt that whether it was covered or not was not the concern of the Board, they are only concerned with the setbacks. Mr. Hopper explained some of the rules of the Board, especially regarding advertising, this was advertised MINUTES - JUNE 15, 1983 page three 8 Glover St. - Continued • as a deck, not a closed in addition, think it should be opened. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition to allow the extension of the nonconforming side setback on condition that the deck, 16' x 201 , be an open deck and that a Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Dept. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 17 River St. - Robert C. Bramble Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and Variance to divide parcel of land into two lots, the first lot to contain the single family dwelling and the second lot to contain the two family dwelling, each lot having zero sideline setbacks. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Att. George Vallis represented the petitioner. He submitted plans to the Board and a petition in favor sign by the neighbors. He showed pictures of the property, one dwelling is brick the other has natural shingles. They were obviously con- structed separately. Has been an absentee owner. There is a Vietnam family living there now, Mr. Bramble has a purchase and sale agreement with this family to purchase this house at a low price, the financing is contingent on this decision. The two family will be owned by one person, the single family by another. The buildings are attached, but they are separate, the single family is vacant. Mr. Bramble has the property under agreement, will buy regardless, his purpose for buying is to sell separately. The buildings were definitely built at separate times, they have separate foundations, they are really two houses, just attached. They property would be divided, there would be no sidelines. Mr. Bencal asked about parking. Mr. Hacker said that whether this is granted or not, the parking • situation is still going to exist. Mr. Piemonte asked if there should be some kind of easement between them for maintenance. Mr. Vallis pointed out there is no land between them. Speaking in favor: Mr. Donald Hunt, 2 River St. , said he was one of the sponsors of this family, would like to see more owner occupied properties in the city. Catherine Willis, 4 River St. also in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition to divide into two lots as shown on plans and variance from parking requirements on condition a Certificate of Compliance be obtained. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 71 Leach St. - Graphic Realty Trust Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow the premises to be used as a printing business. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. He also read a letter from Robert Rouse giving a brief history of Compass Press, Inc. , the company which would be located at the site. (on file) Letters from Roberta Graffam, Robert's Party-Line, and W.G. haddress, president of Bramen Co. , both giving favorable testimonials, were place on file. Mr. Norman Talbot and Mr. Robert Rouse, Graphic Realty Trust, represented themselves. Mr. Rouse said they had no plans, they would be good neighbors. Mr. Talbot explained they would occupy the entire building, there would be no changes in the buildings. Mr. Piemonte asked about parking. Mr. Talbot said they were going to make arrangements for parking on Green St. , he then said it wasn' t Green St. , it could not remember the name of the Street. Capt. Goggin said that part of Pioneer Terrace was vacant, it was an automotive repair shop till a short time ago. Mr. Charnas asked how many employees there would be. Mr. Talbot said seven, there are • no plans to expand, we have six vehicles, two are company vehicles, the building has driveway which would take three cars piggyback, our delivery trucks are small vans and only come three or four times a week. Francis Gagnon, speaking for father, said this is a quiet operation, saw no problem, in favor of it. Capt. Goggin, said this was a repair garage and this type of operation if much better than that. MINUTES - JUNE 15, 1983 page four 71 Leach St. - Continued Speaking in opposition, Attorney William Lundregan, representing Donald Clark, 63 Leach St. , said this property had been foreclosed and is titled with Shawmut Bank. I have not heard anything about hardship, plenty of interest has been shown in making this residential, showed pictures of the site and the neighborhood, the grocery store in the neighborhood has been turned into a dwelling, this is a residential area, there is no parking in the area, they should have one parking space for company car and one per employee. Also concerned about noise, this is within 100 yards of Pioneer Village, elderly housing, this would have impact on them, thinks there will be storage of flamables and chemicals, would like to see a parking garage there. A letter of opposition from F. John Ponce de Leon was submitted. Still does not see any hardship. Albert Levesques, 77 Leach St. , agreed with Att. Lundregan, concerned with noise, chemical disposal. Councillor Martineau, 89 Leach st. , said he had mixed feeling about this, concerned with parking, hardship on neighborhood regarding deliveries, did visit the petitioners present business, no problem with noise. Not happy with some questions that have not been answered, parking and hardship. Would have to say I am opposed, hates to see it remain vacant. In rebuttal, Mr. Rouse referred to the testimonials which are available of anyone to see, the parking is no problem, we are working on it, Capt. Goggin could tell you we have no chemicals or flamables. The hard- ship is, we were forced to move from the Masonic Temple after the fire, if we do not get this, we will be forced to move from Salem, we cannot afford to rent the kind of property that is available, this is our last ditch attempt to stay. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker said this is definitely a residential neighborhood, would have difficulty voting for this, sees no hardship. Mr. Piemonte also had difficulty seeing the hardship, had mixed emotions, would like to see them stay • in this community but is concerned with the neighborhood. Mr. Charnas, hard time finding hardship, they have hardship, but not with the property. Mr. Hopper, inclined to vote against it, it is a residential neighborhood. Mr. Bencal, did not like the plans for parking, up in the air. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to deny the petition on the grounds there was no hardship, and to retain the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED. 24 Horton St. - Linda Baillie Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot area, coverage, width, and setbacks to construct a single family dwelling. Mr. Charnas read the petition and letters from the Health Dept. and the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney Larry Pigeon, 21 Front St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. He said the plans on file with the Board have been amended, he submitted new plans. He explained that Ms. Baillie received this property from her family. The petitioners lot is equal to other lots in the area. Some lots have even less square footage, for example: 36 Laurent has only 2,440 sq.ft. , less that i of the petitioners lot. He showed on the revised plot plan that the closed the house would be to Horton St. would be seven feet. This will be the last house on the street, New England Power owns the rest, it will improve the land, nothing else can be done with the piece of property other than a single family home, this is the hardship. Knows there have been some objections made by the owners of 22 Horton St. , which was previously owned by Ms. Baillie's father ( 1979) , first, the septic system, we have the approval of the Salem Health Dept. , second, the flood problem; this has been the wettest year we have had for a long time, the petitioner said that as long as she lived there (22 Horton St. ) they never had any water problem, this property is lower than others, water cannot flow uphill. Part of the problem is people are using this property and if it remains vacant they will have a nice yard. We have an expert engineer here to answer any questions, this will certainly be an addition to the community. He showed plans of the proposed dwelling. The assemblage MINUTES - JUNE 15, 1983 page five 24 Horton St. - Continued • looked over the plans. Linda Baillie said there was a natural runoff, the pictures shown at the last meeting were not of my property. Mr. Fred Forbes, Hancock Survey Assoc. , Danvers, said the problem with the first hearing was the tests taken were not of the right lot. Did the topogrophy, submitted plans for sewerage to the Health Dept. We dug three holes, 2 - 120 inch and a 130 inch, no water was encountered, the third hole, we encountered water, but it was deeper than the foundation will be. Speaking in favor: Robert Talbot, 5 Laurent Rd. , Richard Collaroni, 19 Station Rd. In Opposition: Robert Peck, Esq. representing William French and Kathleen O'Donnell, 22 Horton St. , submitted a petition in opposition, this would be the only property in the neighborhood with a separate septic system. We also got an engineer, Carter & Towers Engineering Corp. , Swampscott, (copy on file) . Mr. Charnas read the letter from the engineers. He said that Carter & Towers may have made some assumptions based on the preliminary plans that they had. Most homes in the neighborhood have the 15 foot front depth, this would derogate from the neighborhood. Leo Beaulieu, 27 Horton St. , have been living there for 40 years, sees water problem all the time. Has a sump pump which gets a work out. Pure water runoff from ledge, this is called ledge hill. Where they plan to put septic system is big rock, will not work in that area, the end of the sewer system is in my back yard. Mr. Hacker asked if they could hook up to it. He answered the street is to low, they would have to go down the street, doesn't think this should be built on. Fred French, 28 Briggs St. , has purchase agreement to buy the Emmerton property, concerned about the water. Suzan Cawley, 22 Butler St. , also opposed. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper felt there was no problem with septic system, and didn' t see any water problem. Mr. Piemonte, no problem with hardship, but concerned about water problem, don' t want to aggravate the situation but does not want to deny the Baillies. Mr. Beaulieu suggested getting the opinion of Tony Fletcher, City Engineer. Mr. Hacker would like to see them build but is concerned about water, would like to continue this till the next meeting and get the input of the City Engineer. Mr. Charnas, no problem with septic system but concerned about foundation. Mr. Bencal asked if anyone other than Mr. Beaulieu had water problems, yes, we all have pumps. Mr. Hopper felt the issue here is setbacks. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this until the next meeting which will be July 20, 1983, to allow the Chairman to consult with the City Engineer regarding sinking a foundation. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 20, 1983. 256-258 Lafayette St. - Lafayette Villa Associates Petitioners are requesting Variance from all density requirements to construct 14 Condominium units. Mr. Charnas read the petition and letters from the Planning Board, the Historical Commission and the Fire Marshal, all in favor. Henry Porter, esq. represented the petitioner. He explained that Attorney Bowes had entered the hospital this day, he may not be able to answer all the questions because of coming in at this late date. Regarding the objections raised at the last hearing the petitioners were at, a lot of concessions have been made. They have increased the parking, they will move the carriage house, landscape a larger area, letters from the Planning Board and the Historical Commission shows it would not be detrimental and would not derogate from the purpose of zoning. The hard- is on the property, the topography of lot. Anything less than 14 units would be a waste of land. Non-conforming use existed there for years. Petitioner has owned the property since February 1983. The carriage house will be moved toward • the front. Speaking in favor: Joe Lubas, considering buying a home in the neighborhood and thinks this will increase value. Walter Power, Chairman of the Planning Board, we would like to preserve Lafayette St. , this is consistent with the density, this is the first time we have had a developer try to preserve the character of the neighborhood, this would bring more ownership into the city, MINUTES - JUNE 15, 1983 page six 256-258 Lafayette St. - Continued overall, the project will enhance the neighborhood. In opposition: Attorney Justin Remis, 10 Chestnut St. , Peabody, representing the Petrashkevitch, 260 Lafayette St. Gave a history of the homes, showed some articles from historical books, read excerpts from "Architecture in Salem", also read from "Essex Institute Historical Collections" and "House Beautiful". Disagrees with density as stated by the Planning Board letter. Already crowded neighborhood. Even eight units is too much, although they realize eight can be built and they accept that. The entrance will be on Laurel St. , this is a dangerous condition, this is already over burdened with traffic. This is a narrow lot, no way to get into it, surprised the Fire Dept. is in favor, no way to bring fire equipment in that area. This property was recently purchased, they new at the time it was zoned for 8 units. They are offering cosmetics to satisfy the Historical Commission, no single person will be responsible for anything, there will be 14 separate owners, clients are very concerned about the large number of people, the tremendous influx of traffic, difficult fire protection, insurance rates, prospect of continued derogation of the neighborhood. These houses are architectural gems, unlike any in the country. Surprised at the Salem Historical Commission approves, the fact that there is window dressing there is no reason to allow this area to be over built. Andrea Segal, Lafayette Trust, located across the street, concerned about the fact that there will be no garages, will be temptation for vandals, even with garages we have a vandalizm problem. Councillor Martineau, opposed, they will exit on to Laurel St. , this will increase traffic flow just because they have decreased the number of units, the issues are still there. Strongly opposed. Henry LeTourneau, 13 Linden St. , has a couple of questions, doesn' t hardship have to be shown for a Variance, doesn't understand why the Historical Commission is involved, can' t see them agreeing to make this into condominiums, there will be added traffic on Laurel, this is hazardous, we have elderly in the neighborhood and we don' t need the addied traffic, it's a very narrow street, this will not be any benefit to the neighborhood. Yousif Petrashkevitch, 260 Lafayette St. , the Historic Commission got involved because of me, I asked them for their help, also concerned with traffic, crime rate, pollution, afraid of setting a precedence, there will be more traffic, more condo's. Mr. William A. Tracey, 1 Laurel St. stated: the general public hopes for protection from the City, this is one of the most beautiful victorian areas in the country, I have been there 61 years, the reason the old timers have stayed is because we like the way it is. He presented pictures of the area to the Board. He read from the application, as far as hardship with the land, it doesn' t exist, the only hardship is with the owners who can' t make enough money with 8 units. Refering to the petition of opposition, he said 40 people have signed it. Hardship must be with the locus. There is traffic problem one Laurel St. Was once a member of this Appeals Board and was proud to be one. Felt the owners knew they could not get the original 18 units so they came back with this application for 14 and thinks the city owes them something. If this is granted I will take every step I can to stop it, owners knew when they bought it just what was allowed, these people are entitled to 8 units, they can either make money with the 8 or lose money, if they make money more power to them. Bob Hussey, 3 Laurel St. , takes exception with the Historical Commission report, the Commission said all they are concerned about is design, no with density, at the second meeting heard them say they it would be good to move the carriage house, at that point I left. It is not just how it looks from the street, it is people that matter, they are only investing money, we live there, we are investing our lives. See no reason they cannot make a profit from 8 units. Laurel St. is a one car street, very narrow, two cars cannot pass, parking is problem. n MINUTES - JUNE 15, 1983 page seven 256-258 Lafayette St. - Continued • Marie Connolly, 13 Laurel St. , Webster Bloom, 12 Laurel St. , Maryann Dwyer, 54 Laurel St. , Russell Hussey, 315 Lafayette St. all wanted to go on record in opposition. In rebuttal: Attorney Porter, takes exception to remarks regarding his clients money tactics, the Planning Board has responsibilty for protecting the city would not agree with this if it was not good for the city. David Jacquith, Architect, very upset with allegations they are using a cosmetic approach. The problem of cars is already there, if we do 8 units, there will be 12 cars, does not see a substantial difference. Where to move the carriage house was discussed at length. We have put in a great deal of work on this project. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte took exception to Mr. Tracy's remarks regarding this board and the petitioner, they were uncalled for, does agree regarding hardship. Does not think Mr. Maguire would put up bad buildings. Mr. Bencal also took exception to some remarks, agreed traffic would be a problem. Mr. Hacker asked the purchase price, Mr. Maguire said $138,000, also said these units would sell at a higher price than his previous plan. Mr. Hopper said he was impressed with the plans and with the work the petitioners have done with the Planning Board and the Historical Commission. Mr. Charnas, impressed with historical character argument, concerned about traffic, on the other hand, some- one could start a business on Canal St. which would increase traffic, real problem is with hardship, the plans are good, can' t find hardship. Mr. Piemonte said he felt the same way. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to deny the petition on the grounds there was no hardship. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED After a brief discuss�ion_� the Board unanimously agreed to hold two hearings in July and take the month of August off. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be July 20 and July 27, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted ,�� Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk Qli#g of "Salem, Alsour4use##s a r` , �uxrD Df �1p}teul MI4Mf MINUTES BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JULY 20, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, July 20, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , on the 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on July 6 and 13, 1983. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. Hacker, Hopper, Charnas and Bencal Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 15, 1983 meeting. Mr. Charnas seconded the motion. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 24 Horton St. - Linda Baillie This petition was continued from the June 15, 1983 hearing. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot area, coverage, width, and setbacks to allow construction of a single family dwelling. At the June 15th hearing the Board unanimously voted to continue this to allow the Board to consult with the City Engineer regarding sinking a foundation. Mr. Hacker read the communication dated June 24, 1983 from the City Engineer (on file) . The Board then looked over plans of the proposed septic system. Mr. Hopper felt the issue now is _ whether the Board wants to allow a house that size on a lot that small. Mr. Charnas said it had been agreed that most of the lots in that area are similar. Mr. Bencal, reading from the minutes of the June 15th meeting, cited an example of an even smaller lot, 36 Laurent St. which has only 2,440 sq. ft. Mr. Hacker was concerned that even though the letter from the Engineer said this would not increase flooding, the people who live in the area say there is a flooding problem. Mr. Hopper said the Board asked for expert opinion and we have it. Mr. Bencal said he was comfortable with it, the abutting land is owned by N.E. Power so there can be no growth there. Mr. Hacker, problem granting this due to undersize lot, may create a future problem, not sure there is a hardship, if there is, it may have been created by the petitioners father who chopped up the land, would like to see the 15 foot frontage, asked Mrs. Baillie if that was possible. She said it was not possible because of the septic system. At this time Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition, Mr. Charnas seconded. Mr. Hacker said that before they voted he would like to allow the petitioners to withdraw without prejudice. He explained to the petitioners that as there were only four Board Members present, 'it would take a unanimous vote to grant this and while he did not want to be. the fly in the ointment he was not comfortable with this petition at this time. The petitioners asked if they could continue this rather than withdraw. Mr. Charnas said that because of the time factor they could only withdraw or have a vote tonight. Mr. Hopper moved to withdraw his motion, Mr. Charnas seconded the Board .voted unanimously to allow the motion to be withdrawn. Mr. Hopper made a motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice, Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE MINUTES - JULY 20, 1983 page two At this time Mr. Hacker advised the assemblage that as there were only four �) members present it would take a unanimous vote to grant a petition, they all had the right to withdraw at this time. No one withdrew. 27 Ord St. - Peter & Francine Hinchey Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to continue the use of an existing three family dwelling. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Attorney Alfred A. Dobbs, 208 Essex St. , Salem, represented the petitioners. He told the Board this is a three family dwelling and has been since about 1900. In 1955 Mr. Mootafian purchased lot B and became common owner of both lots. In 1964 Mootafian received a building permit to build on lot B and he did so. Ten years later he sold lot B and that left Lot A as it was originally, a three family dwelling. The bank wants ratification of this as a three family, we are here just to get that ratification. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Charnas moved to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED / 10 Philips Street - Joseph Levesque Petitioner is requesting Variances from frontage and lot size to construct duplex structures, one on lot 1 and one on lot 2. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Charles Goutzos, the builder, spoke for the petitioner. He explained the petitioner had a deal with the city to purchase this land, it is contingent on the granting of this petition. He displayed plans of the project to the Board and to the assemblage. Mr. Hacker asked if any one wanted • to speak in favor. No. In opposition. Mr. Jay Levy, 10 Irving St. , not really in opposition, wanted to know just where the buildings were to be located, he was shown on the plans. He stated he was not opposed. Mr. Edwin Freeman, 20 Irving St. , wanted to know how many families and how long it would take to build them. Mr. Goutzos, told him there would be a total of four families, two in each building. It would only take about 90 days, these are modular homes. He stated he was in favor. Mr. Hacker then asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor, again no one. He asked if there was any opposition, none. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas asked what the hardship was. Mr. Levesque explained how the city had taken the land and this would be in the best interest of the city. Mr. Hopper and Mr. Charnas both agreed they could see no hardship. They explained that the hardship must be proved that they cannot feasibly put anything else on the land. Mr. Hopper asked how much they paid for the land or will be paying. Mr. Levesque said it would be $15,000 for both lots. Mr. Hacker felt this was a good thing for the neighborhood, it was a leather factory, Salem Suede which the city tore down. It is now a vacant lot. Mr. Charnas still saw no hardship. Asked Attorney Keilty if single family dwellings would not conform to the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Hopper asked why not have two single family homes. Mr. Goutzos said it would be better for the working man to buy if it is a duplex. Mr. Charnas, in favor of this but doesn' t see the hardship. Mr. Hopper said he could see two single family homes there. Mr. Hacker asked what the rents would be. Mr. Goutzos said these would not be for rent, they would be for sale for about 90 thousand dollars. Mr. Bencal said he was torn on this, he liked the project, but agreed with the lack of hardship. Mr. Hopper made a motion to deny this petition on the grounds there is no hardship. Mr. Charnas seconded. VOTING TO DENY: Mr. Charnas, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper. Mr. Bencal abstained from voting. PETITION DENIED •i MINUTES - JULY 20, 1983 page three 7 Linden St. - David and Nancy Guy •) Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend non-conforming side and rear setbacks in order to replace an existing garage with a larger garage. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. David Guy represented himself. He explained his plans, he is replacing an old metal garage with a larger two story garage, this will improve the property. Speaking in favor, Mike Petrashkevitch, 260 Lafayette St. , this will improve the neighborhood. Leo Chretien, 9 Linden St. , will be better than the old garage. Dorothy Cohen, 5 Linden St. , not opposed but wanted to ask a few questions, where will garage be located. Mr. Hopper showed her on the plans. The garage will not be any closer on side or rear, will actually be further away on the side, the old garage is 20' x 18' and the new garage will be 24' x 241 . She was concerned about the height, this new garage looks large enough for an apartment on the second story. The new garage is about 18 feet high. Asked if a restriction could be put into the decision regarding no living quarters there. Not opposed to the garage but wants to make sure there will be no apartment there. Mr. Guy explained this was just for storage, he has no room for any storage in his house. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Bencal asked why the garage had to be bigger. Mr. Guy explained the present garage does not have room for two cars comfortably, and needs room for lawn mower, snowblower, etc. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition on condition: no part of the garage be used for human habitation, all work be in strict accordance with plans of file, a Building Permit must be obtained and a Certificate of Compliance must be obtained from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • 155 Federal St. - Raymond Buso and Martha Jarnis Petitioner is requesting a variance from side and rear setbacks and lot coverage to construct a wood deck. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Buso represented himself. He submitted a letter from Dale and Glen Yale, 153 Federal St. in favor of this project. He explained the plans to the board and explained the problem with elevation. The deck would be about 8" above the ground. He has a problem with dampness, there is a large shade tree in the yard and the yard tends to remain damp. The yard is overgrown and it is im- possible to grow anything there because of the tree, our only choice is to build the deck or to raise the elevation which would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Hopper felt the hardship was with the topography. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 25 Proctor St. - Thomas Brophy Petitioner is requesting a variance from side and rear setbacks to construct a one car garage. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Brophy represented himself. He explained the plans to the Board and explained the parking situation. The only there right now is a foundation and it is in bad shape. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker asked if he had agreement with neighbors about parking. Just a gentlemens agreement. He can use my land for parking. Capt. Goggin told the Board that 50% of this land is ledge, he would be hard pressed to build anything else there. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Hopper seconded. • UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - JULY 20, 1983 page four 127 Derby St. - Robert Bramble Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing three family dwelling into a three unit condominium. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner. He told the Board there would be no additional construction all work will be strictly cosmetic, new bathroom, kitchen, general rehabing. There is adequate parking. The house is vacant. The papers have been passed and Mr. Bramble now owns the property. Would like to have the six months waiting period waived. Mr. Hopper asked if this was in the Historical district. Yes, but there will no changes to the exterior. Mr. Bencal said the work has already been started. Mr. Vallis said it had. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Hacker said he was not in favor of the waiving the six months waiting period. It seems that the renters of apartments mysteriously move out just at the time when condominium conversion is taking place, very coincidental, feels very strongly about this. Mr. Hopper said perhaps he was concerned with setting a precedence. Mr. Vallis said the tenant did not move out because he was forced to, he moved out at his own will. Mr. Hacker, still seems to be a coincidence of people moving out. Mr. Charnas made not of the fact that the tenant had moved prior to the filing of the application with the Board (May 31 , 1983) . He suggested continuing this until the next meeting so Mr. Bramble could answer questions regarding the tenant, also would like the tenants name. Mr. Hacker said there are just too many incidences of people moving just about the same time as these applications come to us. Mr. Charnas moved to continue till July 27th meeting, Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE 105 Derby St. - Robert Bramble • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a two unit condominium. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner. Explained there would only be cosmetic work done. The house is vacant, the owners live on the first floor, they are present here tonight. The last tenant moved out about eight years ago, that was the owners sons. It is in the Historical District, there will be no exterior work. The third floor is common space, there are two parking spaces on site. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas moved to grant the petition and to waive the six months waiting period on condition that any outside work be approved by the Historical Commission, A.C. Hardwired smoke detectors be installed, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. The Board had a brief discussion regarding 24 Horton St. , Mr. Charnas made a motion to waive the filing fee and to have the Board pay for the advertising when Mrs. Baillie re-petitioned the Board. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO WAIVE FEES FOR MRS. BAILLIE. Mr. Hacker read a letter he had received from Prescott B. Wintersteen, 6 Broad St. , Salem, regarding a building permit which had been issued for the creation of a new apartment at 2 Broad St. Mr. McIntosh explained to the Board that this is an R-2 zoned district and these buildings were on two separate lots. A letter will be sent to Mr. Wintersteen along with applications and fee schedule. MINUTES - JULY 20, 1983 w,,,,• page five The Board discussed the problem of having to take time off from there jobs to go to court. Mr. Hacker had to take two days from work on the case of Tri-City Sales. •, Mr. Hopper made a motion, if any member of the board has to take time from work for \ court appearances they should receive financial reimbursement, subject to the \ approval of the Board. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED IN FAVOR The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. , next schedule meeting will be held July 27, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk • 0�,�.coNorr4� _ ('gi#v of "itt1em, Ansoadjuse##s Poxrb of �k"vd •tOb11N6� MINUTES BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JULY 27, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, July 27, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , on the 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on July 6 and 13, 1983. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. Hacker, Hopper, Luzinski and Bencal The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member and acting secretary. Mr. Hacker then advised the assemblage that as there were only four members present it would take a unanimous vote of the Board to grant any petition, therefore, anyone wishing to withdraw for that reason should do so now. 61 Ward Street - John D. Spinale Attorney Bowes, representing the petitioner said he had planned on withdrawing regardless of the number of Board Members present. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW 127 Derby Street - Robert C. Bramble Petitioner is requesting s Special Permit to convert an existing three family dwelling into a three unit condominium in the B-1 district. The petition was continued from the July 20, 1983 meeting. This had been continued because Mr. Hacker was not satisfied with the reason for the tenant moving out, he wanted to be sure the move was voluntary. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner. He told the Board that the tenant had moved voluntarily and submitted a letter from Frances Bona, the previous owner to that effect. He explained that this tenant had lived in that apartment on and off over the past ten years. ( Mr. Hacker explained to Mr. Luzinski, who had not been present at the last meeting, his con- cern regarding the waiving of the six months waiting period. He is very concerned about the possibility of tenants being forced out. Mr. Luzinski said he was familiar with the property and kew the owners were intending to sell it for the past couple of years. This was low income property, knows that people were not paying high rents there, so it would be cutting into low housing. Agreed with Mr. Hacker regarding the six months waiver. Mr. Hacker, felt we should put these developers on notice that we are not going to waive the six months, seems Mr. Bramble buys property and the tenants disappear. Mr. Vallis took exception, said the last time Mr. Bramble was here, the place was fully occupied, Mr. Bramble gave the tenants financial help with their moving expenses. Mr. Hopper agreed with the other members regarding the six months waiver, however, felt this tenant had voluntarily left. Mr. Hopper then made a motion to grant the petition and allow the conversion and to waive the six months waiting period on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit and that A.C. Hardwired smoke detectors be installed. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - JULY 27, 1983 page two 96 North St. - Arthur Chalifour Mr. Bencal requested the following statement be entered into the record before the Board proceeded with this petition. "I have from time to time, on an irregular basis, been a patron of Leslie's Retreat, also known as 96 North Street. I do not feel that this fact, nor any relationships with the staff or management which may have developed because of my patronage at this establishment will influence by decision on this matter in any way, shape or form. Should the Chairman, or any of the members present have any questions regarding my relationship with this establishment, I will be glad to answer them for you at this time." Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the use of a loading dock (Variance for loading dock granted 12/17/80) for outdoor dining in this B-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal. He also read letters of opposition which had been received by the Board from Ernest Robichaud, 7 Foster St. , Richard Butler, 10 Forest St. , and Daniel & Theresa Saffer, 94 North St. (all letter on file) . Claire Chalifour, wife of the petitioner Arthur Chalifour, presented the case to the Board. She showed the Board the minutes of the Licensing Board hearing October 1982. Mr. Hacker asked her why they needed to use this area for dining. She responded it would help business wise, on the weekends we do a big breakfast business, we have good people coming in. Mr. Hopper asked what the hours of operation for this outdoor dining would be. She said 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Speaking in favor was James Fleming, Councillor Ward Six, he told the Board he had represented the petitioners previously, but was not representing them tonight, in favor of this as Ward Councillor, all they are asking for is a change in use, they • went to the Licensing Board in October 1982, it was there job to decide if there would be any impact, they granted this extension of use subject to approval of the Board of Appeal, all loading is done in the rear now instead of the front. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Fleming why he is in favor. He explained, this used to be a hell hole, it was a haven for motorcyclists, since the Chalifours took over it has been a family type restaurant, a possitive asset. The flavor in Salem is toward outdoor dining, it would be a nice thing and would enhance the neighborhood. I have talked with abutters and except for the three in opposition, the rest of the neighbors are in favor. Attorney Philip Moran, Essex St. , representing Antonio and Patricia Lenares, 94 North St. , stated, at the time of the original Variance, there were violations, he quoted from the 1980 decision: "The Petitioner has requested a Variance for the property at 96 North St. to obtain the Board's approval for two existing and unauthorized additions previously added to the property as well as to authorize the proposed construction of a loading dock and and a proposed extension of a nonconforming front yard setback." The Chalifours built a fence which is presently in dispute as well as the boundary, which is still in dispute. The yard is fenced in, no trucks can get to the loading dock, the yard is filled with tables and chairs. There is a substantial detriment to the public good. Mr. Fleming was stretching it when he said 57 abutters where in favor, there are only these four abutters who are effected. This petitioner has a history of doing something and then coming for permits, he builds then comes here to correct errors, I think if the City of Salem allows this you are telling people to go ahead and do it and then come here and we will rubber stamp it. Mr. Staley McDermet, 30 Dearborn St. , when this Variance was granted we were assured it would only be used as a loading dock and it has never been used as a loading dock. If this • expansion is allowed to continue I see a real hazard to the neighborhood, it was planned to be a loading dock and I don' t see why it shouldn' t be a loading dock, why should they be rewarded for expanding and then coming for approval, also problem with parking. Mr. Hacker asked if Mr. McDermet if he had ever seen this used as a loading dock, McDermet said once, a small truck. He asked if anyone present had noticedtrucks unloading on North St. Mr. Gerald McCarthy, 92 North St. said MINUTES - JULY 27, 1983 page three 96 North St. - Continued ' yes he had seen trucks unloading on North St. Tony Lenares, 94 North St. said he had seen truck unloading on North St. just today. Mrs. Chalifour, in rebuttal, explained that only the beer deliveries are made in the front, all others in the rear. This is done because of the walk in. Mr. Bencal asked why there is a fence and a gate there. She answered it looks better. Mr. Luzinski said this was defeating the original intent to use it as a loading dock. Mrs. Chalifour stated they did comply with the previous variance, but there is still a dispute regarding the boundary of the fence. Att. Moran said there was no dispute, the fence is on four feet of the Lenares land. Hearing was closed. Mr. Luzinski asked Mr. McIntosh, the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building Inspector, if everything had been complied with in regards to the loading dock. Mr. McIntosh said the dock had been built without a permit. Mr. Bencal questioned the hardship, it was built for loading dock and it is not being used as such, is concerned about the abutters, they deserve some consideration. Mr. Luzinski agreed, they wanted a loading dock and then they never used it as such. Mr. Hacker, there are seats and benches and it is being used for dining, was in favor of the loading dock, that is what we granted and that is what it should be used for, if they don' t want a loading dock they should get rid of it. We have to draw the line with regards to them coming for permission after something has already been done. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to deny the petition and confirm the original variance granting them a loading dock, this is to be used as a loading dock and any other use is a violation, the Building Inspector will police this, the petitioners also failed to establish any hardship. Mr. Bencal seconded. The Board voted unanimously to deny the petition. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED •' 2 Thorndike St. - Joseph & Diana Cosgrove Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the Fire Department was opposed for failure to obtain a Certificate of Compliance, and approval of smoke detectors. Mr. Cosgrove represented himself. He state they had smoke detectors. Mr. Hacker told him to contact the Fire Department, they may have them, but the Fire Department does not know about them, he also told his that with a three family dwelling it would be necessary to have hardwired detectors. Mr. Cosgrove submitted plans, showed the Board where the existing stairs are and where the proposed stairs would be, also showed the parking. Mr. Hopper asked if Mr. Cosgrove lived there now. He answered yes, my brother and I both live there, we presently have room for four cars. Mr. Hopper, referring to the plans for parking, asked what was there right now. There is grass there now. Mr. Bencal asked if the third floor was presently being occupied. Mr. Cosgrove explained there are no live circuits up there, his brother sleeps up there, would like to set it up so he could live up there. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski asked how long it has been occupied. Mr. Cosgrove said the previous owner lived there, but did not know how long, there is a gas stove, shower and toilet there, it is rough and unfinished, he rented the other two floors. Mr. Luzinski asked if there are other three family homes in the area. He said there were some, but most of Bridge St. is business. We have owned this for two years. Mr. Hopper said he would like it to be owner occupied. Mr. Hacker said he would like to see five parking spaces. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to convert to a three family dwelling on condition five parking spaces be maintained, it must • remain owner occupied, A.C. Hardwired detectors be installed, plans to be submitted to Building Inspector, and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - JULY 27, 1983 page four 29 Andrew St. - Paul & Jan Ricard Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a four family dwelling a a Variance from minimum parking requirements. Mr. Bencal read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal opposing the conversion because of the lack of smoke detectors. A letter from the Planning Board was also read stating their opposition because of the parking and the congestion of the area. Both letters on file. Mr. Paul Ricard, represented himself to the Board. He stated that originally he wanted a four family, but has decided he would like a three family instead, it had been used as a three family at one time but has not been used as such since purchased about five years ago. There is only one set of stairs now, but will put in a second set, he explained where the stairs would be. He showed the Board on the plans where the parking will be, said there is neighborhood parking problem, would like to add only four spaces instead of the required four and a half. Ann Pelletier, 25-27 Andrew St. , speaking favor, said her main concern is parking, there are many apartments buildings in the area that have no parking, the Ricards have made a good plan as far as the parking and that satifies me, thinks it will be good for the neighborhood. Catherine Harper, tenant at 29 Andrew st. , also in favor. Mr. Chalupowski, 30 Andrew St. , as long as Mr. Ricard can provide parking he has no objections. Councillor James Fleming, if this plan can meet the parking requirements he has no objection, parking should be a big consideration. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Ricard said he has some green area in his yard and would like to keep it, Perhaps sometime in the future would like to put in a garage. Mr. Hopper asked if he would object of this being condition upon owner occupancy. Mr. Richard has no objection to that. Mr. Hopper felt he should maintain five parking spaces, the Board should grant the Special Permit but not the variance, • let him handle the parking situation. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow him to convert to a three family dwelling on condition it remain owner occupied, a Certificate of Use and Occupancy be obtained, A.C. Hardwired smoke detectors be installed, he also move to deny the Variance from minimum parking requirements. Mr. Luzinski seconded. SPECIAL PERMIT UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED - VARIANCE UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 10 Hardy St. & 11 Bentley St. - Hardy Bentley Street Realty Trust Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing five family dwelling into a five unit condominium in this R-2 District. Mr. Bencal read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the Fire Department is in opposition because the owner has failed to comply with Salem Fire Code. Attorney John Tierney represented the petitioners said that as far as the Fire Department is concerned it will be up to code when the time comes, he submitted a copy of a letter to the Salem Housing Authority stating their intention of conversion. He stated this was a five family and could have been a six family, it will continue as a five family. These apartments would rent for about $800.00 a month so it would not derogate from low rental units. Displayed the plans to the Board, have reduced the number of bedrooms so there will be less people occupying them. Mr. Hopper has the selling price, He told him the TownHouses will go for seventy nine nine and the other units will be in the low 60's and up. Mr. Tierney then submitted a petition signed by abutters in favor of the conversion. Property was purchased through a foreclosure for $123,000.00. The parking is no problem because we are not going to increase, it will be used as it has been used. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. • Hopper said he had no problems with this. Mr. Hacker asked if there was anyway to get more parking. Mr. Bencal said there was parking only on the Hardy St. side. Mr. Luzinski asked how they arrived at the $800 a month rent figure. Att. Tierney explained the investment price plus the cost of rehabilitation. Mr. Luzinski asked if with condominium units they didn' t have to provide parking. Att. Tierney said there was no legal obligation to provide it, there is only room for two cars, very _ MINUTES - JULY 27, 1983 page five 10 Hardy St. & 11 Bentley St. - Continued • close to the neighbors yard, it would look better with a green yard. Mr. Hacker asked hour long it has been vacant. Att. Tierney said since April 1982, also said that even if it is not condominiums it would be rental property and the parking problem still exists. Mr. Hacker asked if there was any place in the area to park. Mr. Luzinski told him there is a parking lot in the neighborhood. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the Special Permit to convert to a five unit condominium, to waive the six months waiting period, waive the parking requirements; a Certificate of Use and Occupancy must be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 105-107 Essex St. a/k/a 4 Union St. - Stoll Associates, Inc. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert to a seven unit condominium and a Variance from parking requirements. Mr. Bencal read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections. Attorney Arthur Goldberg represented the petitioners. He explained that in 1981 the condo- minium documents were recorded, in 1983 they went to sell units and the present Building Inspector, correctly, would not issue a Certificate of Occupancy because these had not come before the Board. All we want to do is legitimize these units. Mr. Hacker asked how many units there were previously. Att. Goldberg said it was the same, seven units, three commercial. Mr. Kenneth Stoll, of Stoll Associates, went on record as being in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski said he couldn' t see any change, there has never been parking there, and the business have been there for years. Mr. Hopper asked if this project was started before the Condominium Ordinance was put in effect. Att. Goldberg said yes, at that time Mr. Gauthier, the Building Inspector, said it would not be a change of use, • however, it was recorded after the Ordinance, but we had not knowledge until we were unable to get a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Bencal asked if because of the time if this could be considered "Grandfathered" . Mr. Hacker said no. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to allow the seven condo- minium units and the three commercial uses, also to grant the Variance from parking requirements and to waive the six month waiting period on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. NEW BUSINESS Discussion regarding 50 Balcomb St. On April 27, 1983, the Board granted a Variance to John Martins to convert from a two family to a three family dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements. On July 19, 1983 Councillor James Fleming presented a signed petition regarding this property to the Zoning Enforcement Officer requesting the construction of a fire escape be stopped. Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that as a courtesy the Board would listen but could not take any official action as this has not been properly presented to the Board and has not been advertised. Councillor Fleming, speaking for the neighborhood, stated that by reason of the Board's decision something else has occurred. He showed pictures of the fire escape. Also said he was concerned with the notification procedure, said some people were not notified. First received complaint about a year ago, went to Mr. McIntosh who sent a Cease and Desist letter to the owners who then came to the Board of Appeal, parking was the big issue at that meeting. What the Board did not act on was the egress being outside. Because the Board did not act on this, the neighbors are noir stuck with this outside egress. Felt the Board • could at least order the Building Inspector to require the owner to relocate this egress where it would not have an impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Hacker once again reminded him that this is not a public hearing and the Board could not hear the abutters. Mr. Hopper asked Mr. Fleming to show him on the pictures where the fire escape is. Mr. Fleming pointed it out to the Board, part of this is staging. Mr. Hopper asked the Building Inspector if there was a permit issued for this. Mr. MINUTES - JULY 27, 1983 page six New Business - Continued • McIntosh said there is a permit. Mr. Hacker mentioned the fact that no abutters came to the April hearing. Mr. Fleming said no one was notified. He was shown the abutter list, it was explained how the abutters are notified, the Clerk sends to the Assessors for a list of abutters only persons on this list are notified. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. McIntosh what could be done now. Mr. McIntosh said he did not want to rescind the permit. Mr. Fleming said it is an eyesore. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Fleming where else the egress could be located, Fleming said he did not know, perhaps it could be put in the rear of the house. Mr. Hacker suggested they get together with the owner and the Building Inspector to see what could be worked out. Mr. Fleming remarked that the owner could not be reasoned with, would like to Board to give directions to the Building Inspector. Mr. Hopper felt this was a matter for the courts. Mr. Hacker said the only time the Board can take this type of action would be if the Building Inspector was derelict in his duty and this is not the case here. Mr. McIntosh stated that before he would revoke any permit he would get an opinion from the City Solicitor. Would talk to Mr. Martin and see if it can be relocated. Mr. Hacker suggested to Mr. Fleming he go with the Building Inspector and talk to Mr. Martin, the Board cannot do anything tonight. Mr. Fleming agreed to get together with the Building Inspector to what can be worked out. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be September 21 , 1983 as the Board will not hold a hearing during the month of August. Hearing will be held on the second floor, One Salem Green at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk L V '♦ �r.00vorf /� t o e alitu of 'Sttlem' 'Mttssar4u$e#t$ 4 �Mivac� MINUTES OF 'THE BOARD OF APPEAL - SEPTEMBER 21 , 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, September 21 , 1983 at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening ;News on September 71 14, 1983. Abutters and other interested person having been notified by mail. - Present ail. "Present were: Messrs. , Hacker, Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by the Chairman James Hacker. As Mr. Hopper had not yet arrived, Mr. LaBrecque was appointed a voting member. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes of the July 27, 1983 meeting. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 12 Carpenter Street - Wendy Pruitt Tr. Carpenter Realty Trust Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal saying a Certificate of Compliance must be obtained. Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , represented the petitioner. He presented plans and a copy of the deed to members of the Board. Prior to five years ago this was a two family, people on third floor were related. The former owners lives there. In 1979 the Pruitts moved in and they occupied the third floor. They had intended to convert to three family over a year ago but met with opposition. They then tried to sell it as a two family. It was advertised as a three family. They have now decided to stay there. This would be owner occupied. Mr. Vallis then showed plans of the building, the first floor has 1500 square feet of living space, the second floor has three bedrooms. There is no problem with parking, there is more than enough room for five cars. The Pruitts have put a lot of money into the property, they will make exterior repairs, with the permission of the Historical Commission, this is located in the Historical District. Mr. Vallis passed out to the members of the Board copies of the Assessors Map and indicated on it the multi family dwellings in the area, said this would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He again stressed that it would be owner occupied, it has been used as a three family since 1979• He then submitted a copy of a page from the Polk Directory showing multi-family dwellings in the area. Mr. LaBrecques asked about egresses. Mr. Vallis told him there were egresses, there is a fire escape from third floor. Mr. Piemonte asked if the dormers were new and if they were the reason the Building Inspector had them cease and desist. Mr. McIntosh, the Building Inspector, said it was because of the three family, had complaints from the neighbors. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Councillor Frances Grace, said she has never met the Pruitts and it was too bad this had to happen. Wanted the Board to be aware that these neighbors were not opposing ` just for the sake of being in opposition. This goes back to when John Powers was Building Inspector, building was being gutted without permits. Lytle Smith, 10 Carpenter St. , lived there for 24 years, it has been one continual problem with that house. No one lived on third floor until this man moved there. The Building Inspector gave us no satisfaction, said he could not get in there, I have a single family next door, there are no multi-families on that street. I MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21 , 1983 page two 12 Carpenter St. - Continued came home from work one night and saw a for sale sign on the house, I called the Realtor and was told it was a three family. Paul Cregin , 5 Carpenter St. , called Carlsons Real Estate and was told it was a two plus dwelling and could be an investment property. Letters regarding the withdrawing of previous petitions on this property were submitted, one in 1973 and one in 1978 (on file) . Also submitted was a letter dated April 25, 1983 to Richard McIntosh and signed by abutters regarding the property being used as a three family. A petition of opposition dated 9/21 /83 was submitted and a letter from the Electrical Dept. (all on file) . Chris Hagger, 6 Carpenter, have single family dwelling which is large enough for multi-family, but Carpenter Street is a small street, if we all changed to multi-family it would change the whole neighborhood. Gaye Gaudrault, 4 Gifford Court, had problem with them parking on Gifford Court. Amy Burbott, 8 Carpenter St. , the area is very congested, this would not promote the health , convenience or safety of the neighborhood. Donald Hunt, Planning Board, read a letter from the Planning Board stating their opposition to this plan, we must control the zoning or we will lose the character of our city. Attorney Vallis in rebuttal, said he was unaware of prior petitions, but these were from absentee landlords, this is not the case here, it would be owner occupied. The way the house is set up you could only rent to someone with a large family if it remains two family, this would be an increase in density. If this is denied tonight it will cause a hardship to the neighborhood as well as the petitioners. As far as the parking is concerned there is room for five or more cars. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas said he could see the neighbors point of view as far as starting a trend. Mr. Charnas made a motion to deny the petition as it would be detrimental • to the neighborhood. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 24 Horton Street - Linda Baillie Mr. Hopper was appointed a voting member, Associate Member LaBrecque will not be voting on this petition. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot area, coverage, width, setbacks, to construct a single family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections. Attorney Stuart Rosnick of Danvers represented the petitioner. He stated to the Board he was successor council, Ms. Baillie was not represented by council the first time she appeared before the Board and someone else was council the second time so he is not familiar with what happened at the previous hearings. Mr. Hacker explained that because the petitioner withdrew without prejudice that what happened at the previous hearings had no bearings on this hearing, this is to be treated as a new petition. Mr. Rosnick then presented plans to the Board. The problems before seemed to be the septic system, it was continued so that the Board could get an opinion from the City Engineer. The Baillies went to the expense of having plans done by engineer. Displayed plans showing the septic system and approved by Mr. Fletcher, the City Engineer and Mr. Blenkhorn, the Health Agent. He then read a letter from Mr. Blenkhorn approving construction of the septic system. He also presented a copy of the deed and a petition approving the petition. He noted that many of the people who signed the petition in favor also signed the petition in opposition. The • lot is over 5,000 square feet so this home would be in conformity with the neighborhood, this would be the last house on the street. This lot has more land than most of the lots and will have more frontage than most. Speaking in favor: Robert Talbot, 5 Laurent St. Councillor Fleming speaking for Mr. Ingemi, read Mr. Ingemis opinion, that as far as the water control in that area with or without a house there that lot will not effect the runoff, with this in mind he is in favor. Also in favor Annette Tache and Norman Tache 12 MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21 , 1983 page three • 24 Horton St. - Continued Chandler Road. In opposition: Robert F. Peck Jr. , Esq. , representing William French and Kathleen, 22 Horton St. , stated this petition in essence constitutes the third hearing on this matter within the past few months, after a full hearing but before a vote was taken, Linda Baillie was given permission to withdraw, she filed again and after a full meeting it was continued to allow Board to get an opinion from the City Engineer, before a vote was taken she again was allowed to withdraw, Mr. Peck said he felt the Board was going a little too far in allowing three full hearings in about five months, he then voiced a procedural objection. Mr. Charnas asked if he was saying there was any thing in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the number of meetings. Mr. Peck said no, there is nothing in the Ordinance. He submitted an affidavit from Kathleen O'Donnell stating she measured the front setbacks in the neighborhood and this indicates quite clearly that the closest setback is 19 feet, the Baillies will be only 7 feet, quite a substantial difference. He then submitted an aerial phot of the neighborhood. Some individuals who spoke in favor did not live in the neighborhood. The original plan showed this being set further back which is perhaps why they signed in favor but then changed their minds. There is no hardship, this plan derogates and is in direct conflict with the ordinance. Today in Superior Court a civil complaint was brought against the Baillies and any decision tonight can be academic. The title is in question and there may have been earlier violations when this was subdivided. Leo Beaulieu, 27 Horton St. , heard there has been a lot of political handball, is opposed to this because it is an undersized lot, does not like the septic system, has lived there for 26 years and has always had water in the cellar, also opposed to the setbacks, it will not conform, it will only be 7 feet from the street. Mr. Hacker asked him about signing both petitions, one in favor and one opposed. Said he signed in favor last winter, Mrs. Baillie came to my house and I showed her my basement. She became haughty and I changed my mind. Ernest Panneton, 10 Laurent St. , opposed. Edward Boren, 29 Horton St. , also signed original petition, it was done in a hurry without thinking, changed my mind. Hector Pelletier, 25 Horton St. , opposed. Frederick French, Lot #33 Horton St. , father of William French, 22 Horton St. , am in the process of buying land, am concern with the water problem, drainage, need two sump pumps to take care of the water. In rebuttal, Attorney Rosnick stated that as far as them being taken to court, they have not been served and thinks this is dirty pool to mention this tonight. There is no procedural problem, there is nothing in the ordinance regard- ing number of hearings. These people are asking you to ignore the reports from the City Engineer, Health Department, etc. Why do we have these people if we are going to ignore them. The best use for this property is a single family home, it will not derogate from the neighborhood. The main concern is the septic system and we have done all we can about that, we have given you reports from the city Engineer and from the Health Dept. , also from professional engineers. He submitted an affidavit from the parents of Linda Baillie regarding the purchase of the property. There has been no politicking by my clients. There are some homes in the area setback further, but on the whole they are all close to front. Mr. Boren has water problem but his property is the lowest point in the area. William French and Kathleen O'Donnell want to keep the land for their back yard. Hearing closed. The Board discussed the plans which have been approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Charnas said he felt compelled to follow the opinion of our City Engineer, we should decide now whether the seven foot setback will be detrimental. • Mr. Hacker said he objected to the seven feet especially as it is on a curve. Also concerned about the septic system, they have been known to overflow from time to time, seems like a step backward going to a septic system, also does not see any hardship, the land was purchased for one dollar. Mr. Hopper said he felt there was a hardship, would go with the City Engineers opinion, as far as the setback, there are plenty of houses with no frontage. Mr. Piemonte concerned about the MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21 , 1983 page four 24 Horton St. - Continued • water problem. Asked hoer expensive it would be to connect to City sewerage, if they only paid one dollar for the property they could perhaps handle the expense of hooking up. The expense, according to a letter from Richard Swenson, Asst Civil Engineer, would be prohibitive. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition in strict accordance with plans on file. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Charnas, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Luzinski, Mr. Piemonte. VOTING TO DENY: Mr. Hacker. GRANTED 2 Pioneer Circle - William Goreham Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot area and side line setbacks in order to construct an 8' x 10' pool shed in this R-1 District. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the Fire Dept. had no objections. Mr. Goreham represented himself. He explained the topography of his land, it is hilly and area he is going to put the shed is the only place it can be put as it is the only level place. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to grant the petition on condition the shed be used strictly for storage of pool supplied and equipment. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 22 Forest Ave. - George & Rita Pothier Petitioner is requesting a variance to allow the premises to be used as a three family dwelling instead of the present two family dwelling plus store in • this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. had no objections. Attorney James Peterson, 81 Washington St. , Salem represented the petitioners. He submitted copies of photos of the property to the Board. Explained this was built by the petitioners parents in 1912 with a store, in 1970 a Building Permit was issued to convert the store to living space but through an over site no Variance was obtained. This was done at the time the parents owned it, they are now deceased. The petitioners are here tonight to legitimize this living area. This has not been a store since 1970. He then submitted a petition in favor. Mr. Hopper asked about the parking. He said there was a paved area which could hold four cars, two more could fit in the driveway. Mr. Charnas questioned there asking for a Variance rather than a Special Permit. If you go for the Variance what is the hardship? Mr. Peterson said he thought the hardship would be financial plus the mix up that occurred years ago. Mr. Charnas still felt this only needed a Special Permit. Mr. Peterson agreed and changed from request for Variance to a request for Special Permit. Speaking in favor. Councillor John Nutting, said this is quite a human interest story, his parents built this house back in 1912, these people are still residents of Salem. My father lived in this house when he was a boy. These people maintain the property, now retired and would like to sell but can' t because the bank wants them to obtain a Special Permit. There is a parking lot across the street if they needed to use it, but they don' t need it. Ray Michaud also spoke in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper asked if this was up for sale now. Not at the present but it is possible it will go on the market. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition on condition a Certificate of Compliance be obtained. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY • GRANTED MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21 , 1983 page five 16 Hardy St. - Diana W. Centorino • Petitioner is requesting a Variance from density and setback requirements in this B-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. had no objections. Ms. Centorino represented herself, she submitted plot plans to the Board. She explained that when the property was purchased in 1979 they were told it was clear and marketable. However, the property had been subdivided and no variance obtained, the sub- division was granted in 1978. Wanted to sell the property in 1982 but the bank wanted a Variance as the house does not comply with today's zoning. The house has been there since 1870. Speaking in favor, Bob Clayton, 16 Hardy St. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant this petition as requested. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 94-96 Boston St. - Steve Spanios Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend non-conforming building by allowing the construction of a greenhouse in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. opposed this because there has been no Certificate of Compliance for smoke detectors issued. Attorney John Serafini Jr. , 65 Federal St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. He told the Board the smoke detectors will be put in. He explained the petitioner wants to put in a greenhouse, they do not have archi- tectural drawings, but showed the Board a pamphlet showing a picture of the greenhouse. It will not be a large one, just used to store his flowers. It is a nonconforming building, this structure would not be visible from the street. • This will have to be slightly detached, about 11 feet, if snow were to set there it could cause the the greenhouse to collapse. This will not be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Hopper said this greenhouse is flamable and it will be right up next to the building, thinks it is a violation. Mr. Charnas said he felt a variance was needed because the structure will be detached. Mr. Serafini said he felt it did not need a variance even if it is detached, it is an accessory building, not classic structure. Mr. Charnas said he still felt it required a variance. Mr. Serafini said a variance would be fine with them, the hardship would be economic and the size of the lot. Mr. Hopper said it should be withdrawn and resubmitted. Mr. Serafini felt there was not need to withdraw as there has been fair notice of this petition. Mr. Hopper still thinks if it is a variance that is needed the Board should not hear this case till it has been advertised. Speaking in favor was George Ahmed. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this till the next meeting which will be held September 28, 1983, this petition will be the first item on the agenda. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE TILL SEPTEMBER 28, 1983. 106 North St. - George Ahmed Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming structure by constructing an addition to the existing office in this B-1 District. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections. John Serafini Jr. represented the petitioner. He explained there is already a small addition that is presently being used for a file room and they want to make an addition to that. This will be used for . office space and will meet the parking requirements. They could find a way to go onto Foster St. rather than backing out on to North St. He displayed plans to the Board. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Staley McDermet, 30 Dearborn St. , opposed to businesses on North St. , does not think this is a Special Permit, thinks it should be a Variance. Councillor Fleming, concerned about the impact on Foster St. Mr. Ahmed has already built a fence which creates a MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21 , 1983 page six • 106 North St. - Continued tunnel effect, the visibility at that intersection is bad, this will cause a hazardous condition. Foster St. is a residential zone. Mr. Charnas asked if a file room would increase traffic. Answer, the small file room that is already there will not, but the big addition could be used for office space and more employees. Staley McDermet said he would like to see parking plans. In rebuttal Mr. Serafini said they meet the parking requirements, they are not expanding the use. It makes sense as far as safety goes to exit on to Foster St. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper felt the parking is critical but sees no alternative. Are we being asked to validate the small file room and allow an addition. Yes. How many employees? Presently there is one full time and one part time. Mr. Charnas made a motion to ratify the existing 11 x 7$ foot building, height not to exceed prior building, to be used for office use. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TO RATIFY EXISTING 11 x 72' foot building. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to grant petitioners Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice the petition for an addition. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE application for addition. 57 Loring Ave. - Arthur Valaskatgis Petitioner is requesting a Variance to construct a commercial business in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections. Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , represented the petitioner. He displayed plans. Stated that he would not usually come to the Board with this type of request, however, this neighborhood • is not characteristically residential. In this location no one would want to build a single family dwelling. The Housing Authority is there, the college, a dentist, a garage, etc. It has been vacant for 15 years. A Variance was granted in 1979 but it was not acted upon. It is presently used for parking. The hardship is the zoning, this is not an R-1 neighborhood it is clearly business. All set- back requirements are met. He then showed a drawing of the proposed building. Will do any landscaping required by the Board, this will be a very attractive building, will have a brick fascade. Mr. Hopper asked if the design was different. No, it is just about the same as it was when the variance was granted. My client was anxious to start at that time but the finanicial conditions years ago were prohibitive. When he purchased the property there were two barns and a house there that were condemned, he had them demolished. Mr. Hacker asked how the deliveries would be made. In the rear. There is sufficient parking. Speaking in favor was Paul Valaskatgis, run business already, would like to expand, this will be for retail sales of automotive parts and supplies, as far as delivery is concerned, the biggest truct would be a van. Councillor Nutting, this would have been developed except for the economy. Outside light will be shaded if there were going to be any, but there is not. Parking will be strictly for business, there is a fence out back. Speaking in opposition was Donald Hunt, Planning Board, submitted a letter from the Planning Board stating their opposition as this is an R-1 district. Mr. Hunt however, said he felt this was a good plan and wished the Planning Board had seen it before they wrote their letter. In Rebuttal, Mr. Serafini just wanted to make it clear that this will be for whole- sale, some retail, auto parts and the owners use wagons not trucks. Hearing closed. Mr. Charna made a motion to grant the variance on condition the property will be landscaped, a 5 foot high screening, compact evergreens on side and rear with green area between side walk and parking, parking will be as shown on plans. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21 , 1983 page seven 22 Crowdis St. - Joseph Piemonte • Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member for this petition. Mr. Hopper and Mr. Piemonte will not be voting. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming structure and to encroach on side setbacks in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating there is no Certificate of Compliance. Mr. Piemonte represented himself, he displayed plans and pictures of the property. He explained he wanted to extend his roof to cover the stairs and the patio, the roof will come to within 7 feet of the side boundary line, the 8 ft. carport will extend beyond the patio. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 10:50 p.m. , next sceduled hearing to be held Wednesday September 28, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk ' e�wcov of Salem, efflttssar4use##s •�, ,� Poxrb of '4PV l MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - SEPTEMBER 28, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, September 28, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on September 14, 21 , 1983. Abutters and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Hopper, Luzinski and Piemonte Hearing was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by the Chairman Mr. Hacker. 94-96 Boston St. - Steve Spanios This petition was continued from the September 21 , 1983 hearing. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend non-conforming building by allowing the construction of a greenhouse in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the Fire Dept. was opposed because there has been no Certificate of Compliance issued for smoke detectors. John Serafini Jr. , Esq. , 65 Federal St. , Salem, represented the -� petitioner. The concern at the last hearing seemed to be the flamability of the plastic on the greenhouse, he submitted letter from the manufacturer con- taining reports of flamability. Stated they would have no objections to having this approved subject to the approval of the Building Inspector and the Fire Department. This will be strictly for storage. Mr. Hopper said it was still flamable and they are building right on the property line. Mr. Serafini felt this was the jurisdiction of the Fire Department. Mr. McIntosh said this would not contribute a lot of fuel if it was on fire. Mr. Spanios said it would burn itself out. Mr. Serafini said it was not self igniting material. Mr. McIntosh said there is less flame than wood. Mr. Piemonte felt it was fire retardant. Mr. Hacker said it could be granted subject to approval of the Fire Department. Mr. Charnas asked if they could submit a new plan. Mr. Serafini, yes if that is what you want. Mr. Hacker, can' t we leave it up to the Building Inspector. Mr. Serafini, the only difference will be the 1} feet between the buildings, as this will not be attached. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition on conditionAat new plan be submitted to the Board showing the dimensions of the proposed greenhouse, specifically showing it will not be attached to the existing building, also reflecting the material of the greenhouse, said plan to be approved by the Salem Fire Marshal. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Charnas, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Luzinski, Mr. Piemonte. VOTING PRESENT: Mr. Hopper. GRANTED 25 Peabody St. - Massachusetts Electric Co. Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the lease of the premises for use as a parking lot in this Industrial district. Mr. Charnas read the petition • and letters of opposition from: Carol Gorman, 56 Peabody St. ,Carlotta Oddi, j 56 Peabody St. , June Knowlton, 56 Peabody St. , Carol Logan, 56 Peabody St. , Councillors Grace and Centorino. Attorney Barry Plunkett, represented the petitioners, Mr. Cullen from Mass. Electric and David Bigda representing the company wanting to lease the premises. He showed plans to the Board, explained, they had been before the Board in 1978, were granted Variance to allow part of C MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 18, 1983 page two 25 Peabody St. - Continued this lot to be used for parking lot and it has been used as such since. Showed on the plan the area they now propose to use, Massachusetts Electric would lease this piece of land. It is not used in its present state, was the former site of coal storage when they used coal. This will provide relief for the city as far as the parking problem in the area of Pickering Wharf. Off street parking allowed in this type zone only as it relates to principle use. Pickering Wharf is in B-5 district which has no parking requirements, by adding this parking lot, we would be adding up to 32 parking spaces. There is a 15 foot chain link fence which runs around the boundary line, then there is a section of 7 foot chain link fence. We will remove the 7 foot section. Mr. Bigda said they would probably end up with only 15 parking spaces, there are a few trees there, the area is grass covered and will remain grass covered, this will be used only for additional parking. Mr. Hacker asked how long the lease ran, Mr. Bigda said 5 years, it will run out in 1984. Mr. Luzinski asked if it was open to the public. Mr. Bigda said only at night, it will be manned till about 11 :00 p.m. , will remain open till about 1 :30 a.m. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Carlotta Oddi, 56 Peabody St. , submitted a petition in opposition signed by neighbors. Stated most of the abutters do not own the property, the only owner occupied building is ours, condo- miniums. It is not locked after 1 :30, has never been anyone there manning it. It is very noisy, we have to put up with cars screeching, glass breaking at all hours of the night, we feel we should not have to put up with 15 more cars. We have called police because of the noise, they say they have no jurisdiction there because it is not city owned. The area is not policed. Mr. Hopper asked it changes were made would you still be opposed. Ms. Oddi said yes, did not feel any changes would help the noise. Mr. Hopper asked her about the light. She said it • was not a big issue. Mr. Piemonte asked when the attendant was there. She said till about 9:00 p.m. Mr. Piemonte asked if part of the condition was that they keep an attendant on duty would this help. Mr. Oddi said no, would like to see police there. Councillor Martineau, there have been a lot of people move into condominiums in that area, they have made a serious committment to that area. They feel it would be an added hardship to the situation that already exists. I would like to put more restrictions on that lot. The concern should be with the people who live there. I join my fellow Councillors in petitioning this Board not to grant this petition. Don Borchaud, 24 Peabody St. , Salem Harbor Development. definitely opposed, I see no hardship, I have heard no argument that these 15 extra spaces will be worth the trauma, I am not interested in a compromise. In rebuttal: Attorney Plunkett, as far as the hardship is concerned, it is a matter of this piece of land is such that it is unusable in its present state. Mr. Charnas asked if the lease has been signed. No. Mr. Luzinski asked if the substation would always be there. Yes, I can' t see it ever moving. We will be relieving a serious parking problem in that area. Mr. Charnas asked how many spaces are there now. About 140. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski felt it was ironic that this was once a coal pile and now that it is changed to parking, people are objecting. Mr. Piemonte, we are talking about 15 spaces, can' t we address the problem of insisting on conditions, we could insist it be kept locked. Councillor Martineau said most of the complaints are about activities that take place after midnight, I think it would be impossible to have someone patrolling after midnight. We would not be in favor of these conditions, a security guard will not be interested in taking on someone who has been drinking, not for the money they make. Mr. Charnas did not feel 15 additional spaces would make much difference in the parking problem. Mr. Hopper said he was against it the way it stands. Mr. Hacker, if it was voted against, they could come back with a different application. I find it hard to believe that a company as large as Mass. Electric would come without proper plans. Mr. Luzinski, feels we have an MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1983 page three 25 Peabody St. - Continued opportunity to better the situation in that area. Mr. Hacker asked the petitioners if they would make concessions regarding the policing of the area. Mr. Bigda, we are trying, that is why we are manning this lot later that we were. We are trying to be good neighbors, it would be nice to have police down there, we have a standing request for police to be on duty there but we are not getting the coverage that we ask for. As far as lighting goes, we are responsible for providing parking. Mr. Piemonte said he was not impressed with their attitude. Mr. Plunkett requested leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant Leave to Withdraw, Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT LEAVE TO WITHDRAW: Mr. Hopper, Mr. Luzinski. VOTING TO DENY LEAVE TO WITHDRAW: Mr. Charnas, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Piemonte. Request to Withdraw denied. Mr. Charnas made a motion to deny the petition, Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO DENY. 91 Orne St. - Carlton G. Lutts Petitioner is requesting a variance to allow the construction of an additional single family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he had no objections and requesting plans prior to granting of Building Permit. Attorney William Donaldson represented the petitioner. Property was purchased from the parents of Carlton Lutts, they would like to put a house, showed the Board on the plans just where the house would be located. The Lutt's will continue to own this land, the house will be for their daughter and her husband. There are presently four houses and one barn on the property. He submitted a picture of the site. This has been perked • and approved by the Health Dept. , the Fire Dept. has no objection, there is City water, there will be a septic tank. He submitted a petition in favor. He showed plans of the house, it is a two story single family home. Mr. Carlton Lutts said he and his wife Nancy live there, he has lived there about 35 years, my daughter, who will live in this house got married about two years ago. Bob Strom, Mr. Lutts son in law, explained about the solar heating they were going to have. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas asked Mr. Donaldson what the hardship was. Mr. Donaldson said this was a 30 acre lot, if you can' t build houses on it for your family, what good is it. This is a logical use for it, there will be no change in ownership. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to grant the Variance in strict accordance with plans on file on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained prior to occupying dwelling. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 81 Highland Ave. - Salem Hospital Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a trailer to be maintained for office space in this R-1 District. Mr. Charnas read the petition. Mr. Kenneth Thompson, Manager, Facilities Department, Salem Hospital, represented the petitioner. He explained that this request was exactly as the request for a Special Permit that was granted in 1981 . This will be just for office use. All we are really asking for is an extension of the 1981 decision. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition on condition the trailer may be used for office use only, this Special Permit will expire two years from date this decision is filed, all terms stated in the original decision remain in effect. Mr. Charnas seconded. • UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1983 page four 67 Dearborn St. - Joanne McManus • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow conversion of an existing two family dwelling into a two unit condominium in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and an attached copy of a Building Permit issued November 26, 1980 granting the conversion. He also read a letter from Robert Gauthier, the Building Inspector at that time, stating the property can be converted into condominiums under the Salem Zoning Ordinance. A letter from the Fire Marshal was read which stated the Fire Department had no objections on condition a Certificate of Compliance be obtained. Mr. Hopper withdrew from hearing this petition as he is a resident of Dearborn St. and a friend of the petitioner. Mr. Hacker explained to the petitioner that as this is now a four man Board they would have the opportunity to withdraw without prejudice. The petitioner said she wanted to be heard tonight. Attorney George Atkins, 301 Lafayette St. , represented the petitioner, he gave a brief history of the dwelling, it was at one time part of the old children's hospital, the petitioner purchased the property in 1961 and has lived there ever since, at that time she kept an apart- ment there for her mother. In 1980 she was faced with the increase in upkeep of this dwelling, she then applied for a permit to convert, the plans were approved. There is no additional construction to be done. At the time she got the permit to convert, interest rates were so high, she did not file the condominium documents, instead, she continued to lease the apartment. The financial climate is better now and she wants to file these documents, she intends to remain there. There is one tenant whose lease terminates this year, he submitted copy of the lease, this lease gives tenant first option to buy. He submitted copy of document signed by the tenants stating they were aware of the proceedings. He assured the Board these tenants would be given plenty of time to find housing. • This conversion will have not impact on rental units for low and moderate income persons as the rent is now $850.00 monthly. There will be no impact on the neighborhood as the use will not change and there will be no change to the build- ing. There is at least two on site parking spaces per unit. Both parcels of land will be considered part of the condominium. He submitted condominium documents and a letter to the Housing Authority advising them of this application. Mr. Piemonte reminded Mr. Atkins that the Ordinance requires tenants be given six months to vacate. Mr. Atkins said that was fine. He submitted a petition in favor, signed by neighbors. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Mr. Gallant, 68 Dearborn St. , this was never a multi-family home, this was nurses home, the kitchen upstairs was for the nurses us@, Mr. Hacker told him that according to the Ordinance this is a legal two family. In rebuttal, Mr. Atkins said this has been nonconforming since 1961 . Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker said he would like to see the six month limit be put on the conditions and to let the petitioner know that any attempt to make these people move will make this decision null and void. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow the conversion to a two unit condominium on condition the conversion not take place until six months from the date this decision is filed or until the tenants have voluntarily vacated the premises, lots A & B merge into one lot, Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for both units. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 75 Webb St. - Helen Doherty Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow her to keep an already existing • deck which violates the side setback requirements in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they had no objection. Neil Hourihan, Esq. represented the petitioner. He stated the petitioners did not intentionally circumvent the Board of Appeal. This is an exterior wooden patio. Mrs. Doherty's husband James is very ill, he submitted letters verifying this fact from Dr. Shannon. This patio was to facilitate his MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1983 page five 75 Webb St. - Continued • being able to go out without going up and down stairs. 77 Webb St. was also owned by Mrs. Doherty until recently, one of the tenants who is opposed at one time was a tenant of the Dohertys, her objection is more personal that anything. He submitted letters in favor (on file) . The Doherty's now reside mostly in Florida. Submitted petition in favor signed by neighbors, also submitted letter from the State Fire Marshal and from Inspector Dansreau, Fire Prevention Bureau stating the deck is not a fire hazard. The lots in this area are small lots. This deck was constructed in 1980, does not feel it effects the neighbors. Mr. Hacker said the deck was definitely a violation, asked what the hardship was. Mr. Hourihan said it was topographical. Mr. Charnas asked what the square footage was. Mrs. Doherty said she did not know exactly. Mr. McIntosh said he would look it up. Speaking in favor: Amy Nurse, 35 Briggs St. , does not see any reason the deck should not be there. Jannette Parker, 35 Briggs St. , never any problem with noise, etc. In opposition: Attorney William DiMento, Swampscott, repres- enting Dawn Driscoll and Norman Marcus of 77 Webb St. This deck was built in 1981 without any Building Permit, I have been involved with this since last year. My clients wrote to the Building Inspector asking for enforcement, this has been going on for months and months, it is now a court action. The sideline is about one foot and there is 90% lot coverage. Any hardship that is self inflicted cannot be granted by this Board. This is detrimental to the neighborhood. The actions of the applicant are why we are here and it took a couple of letters to the Building Inspector and a court action to get them here. He showed pictures of the deck. Mr. Charnas asked if any modifications would please his clients. He said no. Mr. Charnas asked him to define substantially detrimental. Att. • DiMento said that if this kind of structure were allowed everywhere in Salem there would be not place to walk. Mr. Charnas asked about a barrier. Mr. DiMento, absolutely not, this is a clear case of infringement, there is no hard- ship that has not been self inflicted. Mr. Piemonte said he was curious, the house next door was bought in 1979, the deck was built in 1981 , was there any objections at that time. No, they were not aware it was a violation. Kathleen Wilkins, tenant at 77 Webb St. , lives on first floor, when they are on the deck they can look into everyone of my windows, it most uncomfortable. The number of stairs has not changed, it is still five. Mary Woods, 77 Webb St. , second floor tenant, moved there about 1980, I have no privacy, they can hear everything. In rebuttal: Attorney Hourihan, Attorney DiMento said his clients did not know about the zoning and obviously mine did not know either. The reason for the deck is so Mr. Doherty can go right out from the kitchen, he does not have to use the stairs, to remove the deck would be a hardship. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte did not understand why these tenants had no objections when the deck was built. Att. DiMento, ignorance of the law is not excuse, they presumed the City of Salem was protecting them. Mr. Hacker, I have problem on both sides of the fence, this is clearly a violation, the man does have problem with health, this has been documented, that is a hardship. Mr. Luzinski felt the hardship was with the land. Mr. Piemonte thinks it invades neighbors privacy. Mr. Hopper felt this was a serious invasion of privacy. Mr. Charnas, sympathizes with the Dohertys but also felt this is invasion of privacy. Mr. Piemonte suggested perhaps a compromise, something that would alleviate this invasion of privacy. Mr. Hacker felt both parties were adamant, does not think removing the deck will alleviate the problem, felt that even if the Dohertys were just sitting in there • yard they would be able to see in the windows. Mr. Hopper made a motion to deny the petition as it is substantially detrimental to the public good. Mr. Charnas seconded. VOTING TO DENY: Mr. Charnas, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Luzinski. DENIED BY A VOTE OF THREE TO TWO. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1983 page six 272 Highland Ave. - David Cohen, Tri-City Sales, Inc. • Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit to allow parking in this B-1/R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition. Mr. Piemonte said he would like to withdraw from hearing this case due to conflict of interest. Att. Mary Harrington, Assistant City Solicitor, there has already been litigation on this, Attorney Nicholas Decoulas, attorney for the Zambourases who are abutters, requested his petition be held till October. What ever happens tonight will moot his petition, I am concerned because his petition was filed first. Mr. Hacker said Mr. Decoulas petition would have been heard last week, he requested it be postponed till October. Felt we should hear this petition. Gave the petitioners the option to withdraw as there is only a four member board or perhaps continue till the next meeting. Attorney John Serafini Jr. , representing the petitioner asked there would be the same problem next hearing, just a four man Board. Mr. Hacker said there would be five. There was concern that by continuing this it would become an automatic grant because of the time limit. Att. Serafini said they would be willing to waive the time limit. Mr. Hopper felt we should not continue, should let them withdraw. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this till October 19, 1983, Mr. uuzinski seconded. VOTING TO CONTINUE: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Cnarnas, Mr. Luzinski. Mr. Hopper voted not to continue. CONTINUED TILL OCTOBER 19, 1983 by a vote of three to one. Hearing adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held October 19, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. • Respectfully submitted, f Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk • e (gi#g of "Salem, Attssar4use##s 9 PIIHTD O{ ,,ApVPMI MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - OCTOBER 19, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, October 19, 1983 at 7:00 o.m. on the 2nd floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on October 5, 12, 1983. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Member Bencal Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting members. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes of the September 21 , 1983 meeting. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 37-39 Appleton St. - Philip & Velma Oliver Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 zone. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. was opposed because no Certificate of Completion regarding smoke detectors is on file. Mr. Charnas also read a letter from the Planning Board stating they were opposed � because of the parking and traffic problems in the area. Velma Oliver represented herself. She explained to the Board that they wanted the third apartment for their daughter Patricia who is pregnant and has had difficulty finding affordable housing. She told the Board she has smoke detectors. Mr. Hacker explained that she had to notify the Fire Department, so they can certify that she had them. Mr. Hacker asked if there were any other three family dwellings on Appleton St. She said not on Appleton, but there were others in the area. Mr. Charnas asked if she would be opposed to a condition that if the petition be granted, the apartment could only be occupied by her daughter. Mrs. Oliver asked if that meant she would have to come back to the Board should her daughter move out. Mr. Charnas told her she would, she could not rent to anyone else. She said that was fine with her. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Councillor James Fleming, Ward Six, if you recall, I was hear when the Liberty Hill Ave. petition was granted, I was opposed to that also, this is basically a single family neighborhood, while there may be some two family in the area, I don' t believe there are any three familys in this section. I. feel that these petitions are going to create a trend here that will change the character of the neighborhood. That would derogate from the Zoning Ordinance. Lovene Maloney, 14 Fairmount St. read a petition from the neighbors expressing their opposition, she then submitted the petition to the Board. She also expressed her . concern with congestion. Ruth Quinn, 18 Fairmount St. , five years ago a neighbor had a petition to add a third floor, at that time we had a petition of opposition, he withdrew, she submitted a copy of the petition. Mr. Charnas asked if the Special Permit was limited to the unit only being \ occupied by the daughter would you still be opposed. Yes, because what would 1 happen in a few years, the daughter could move out, the house could be sold and the new people would say, this is a three family. Councillor Fleming said the feelings of the neighbors were they definitely do not want three family, even if it is owner occupied. James Quinn, 18 Fairmount St. I am surrounded by three family homes now, one by Mrs. Maloney is owned by an absentee landlord who does not care about the upkeep of the property. Concerned if one three family is MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1983 page two 37-39 Appleton St. (Continued) .; allowed there would be more. Mr. Hacker asked if there were a time limit put on this, say two years, would you still be opposed. Mr. Quinn, yes, would like to see area remain one and two family. Also concerned about parking. Henry Grabowski, 32 Nursery St. , I own a two family duplex which could easily be con- verted to a four family, but to protect the character of the neighborhood, I prefer to keep it a two family. Thinks this should be restricted to a two family neigh- borhood. Mrs. Charles Sinclair, 43 Appleton St.opposed. Luise Moser, 33 Nursery St. , concerned with absentee landlords. John Monahan, 19 Liberty Hill Ave. , Value of houses, plus there is no parking. Rebuttal. Mrs. Oliver, I don' t know why they are opposed, there are three family homes in the neighborhood, why weren' t those opposed. Patricia Oliver asked if she could speak, I am the one who will be living there, I already live in the house now, I have a car already so there will be no increase in congestion. Just a matter of a kitchen and bath. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas asked Mr. McIntosh how hard it is to police if this were granted with the stipulation that only the daughter live there. Mr. McIntosh said it was quite difficult. Mr. Piemonte felt that as the daughter is presently living there we would not be expelling her, perhaps it would be best to leave it the way it is. Difficult decision. Mr. Luzinski asked, should this be denied could they put in another bathroom. Yes. Mr. Charnas made a motion to deny the petitioners request for a Special Permit because of neighborhood opposition and it would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 1 Pierce Rd. - Randall Wieting Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot line requirements in order to construct a porch in this R-1 zone. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they were in violation regarding smoke detectors. Mr. Wieting represented himself. He submitted a copy of a Certificate of Compliance from the Salem Fire Dept. dated October 19, 1983. He displayed plans to the Board and explained what he wanted to do. Porch will extend 9' from paper road. There is no sidewalk or curbing. Will not obstruct view. Showed the Board on the plans where the wetlands are. Felt the hardship is the placement of the building and the way the house is constructed. He submitted a letter from Clayton Smith in favor of the petition. Speaking in favor: Steve Salvo, 25 Raymond Ave. , not in favor or opposed, would like to see the plans, I am buying the property adjacent to this land so I just want to see whats going on. Mr. Wieting explained the plans to him. Albert Dumas, 16 Buchanan Rd. , lived there since 1930, can' t see where this would hamper any values in the neighborhood, it would tend to beautify the area. Councillor Jack Nutting, there is no Pierce Road, it is just a paper street, his house is one of the first built on the street, there are no houses on the other side of Pierce Rd. There is no potential to build on the other side of the street. This would improve the area. He showed how the land is on the Assessors Map, Mr. Wieting gets to his property from Buchanan Rd. Mr. Salvo said he would like to go on record as being in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition in accordance with plans of file. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1983 page three 95-99 Federal St. - David Rifkin (Petitioner) Rhonda Preman (Owner) tPetitioner is requesting a Variance to allow first floor to be used for law office and to convert an existing 8 room apartment on the second floor into two four room apartments, third floor will remain as is. This is an R-2 zone. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating this residence has the required smoke detectors, but a business use would require changes, he recommended plans be submitted to the Fire Dept. for approval. Mr. Charnas also read a letter from the Planning Board opposing this petition because of the density and concern with preserving the residential quality of the neighborhood. Mr. Rifki represented himself. He wanted to make the Board aware that this would be owner occupied. Has lived in Salem for many years and presently has a law office at 60 Federal St. Not a large law firm, himself, his wife and one other person. Maintains a residence now at 60 Federal St. , but needs a larger place as his family is growing. I have an opportunity to buy a beautiful building and restore it. It has a large yard. It is presently being used as a three family. There will be no structural change. Right now there are several unrelated people occupying the first floor and several unrelated people occupying the second floor. Financially we would need to have three apartments, the heating cost alone is prohibitive. There is plenty of parking, enough for 10 cars. There will be no added congestion, there will be less people using the residences. We would be improving the building, restoring room by room, ceilings, woodwork, walls, etc. Mr. Luzinski asked which apartment they would occupy. He explained they had not decided as yet, may take one of the second floor apartments, or possibly a couple of rooms on the first floor, there are seven rooms there, more than is needed for law firm. I want to make it clear that this is not a full time residence. I have always maintained a residence in my law office in Salem, we do own a home in . Ipswich but it is a long ride from there, especially in the winter. This would be compatible with the neighborhood, there would be no transients. Mr. Charnas asked what the hardship would be. Felt it was because this is an oversized build- ing with oversized rooms. Attorney Schultz, representing Mr. & Mrs. Preman explained that this was once a nursing home, because of the configuration this building could not be used as a two family. About four years ago a Variance was granted to allow this to be used as a Mental Health Center, it was appealed and eventually overturned because of a technicality. Mr. & Mrs. Preman came and got permit to use as three family. Because of the configuration and the way the rooms are laid out, I think therein lies the hardship. Mr. Rifkins plan is the only sensible one, building is unusable in its present condition. It is financially unfeasible to use it as a two or three family, feels the Board should grant the petition. Also speaking in favor. Jean Arlander, 93 Federal St. , lives right next door, this place has been maintained as an uncontrolled boarding house, I was here three years ago when the Board gave the Premans permission to have three family dwelling , we in good faith thought they would try to maintain it, but it has been one incident after another. Mr. Rifkin's plan sounds good and I have to put my faith in his character. Lance Arlander, 91 Federal St. , there has been no way to control what is going on there, we hope this will change.if the Rifkins buy the building. Would like some assurances there would not be multiple law offices. Florence Gelin, 88} Federal St. I supported the Premans three years ago. I am hopeful with the smaller apartments there will not be as many people. Kenneth Concord, 94 Federal St. wanted to be recorded in favor. Connie Arlander, 91 Federal St. , I am in favor of it, but would like to have family defined, would like it written down and enforced. We have trouble with transients, drugs, we have complained, does no good. Mr. Piemonte said he felt if it was going to • be used as a professional office it would be maintained with more professionalism. MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1983 page four 95-99 Federal St. - (Continued) Speaking in opposition. Joanna Peabody, 6 Federal Ct. , read and submitted a •l letter of opposition. Mr. Charnas asked Ms. Peabody if she would prefer it to remain the way it is. Mary Peabody, her daughter, also living a 6 Federal Ct. , anwered saying they would prefer the status quo. Richard Mintern, 106 Federal St. , respectfully ask the Board to deny this request. I have been asked by 30 neighbors to speak for them, he submitted a petition of opposition signed by 27 neighbors. There is no hardship, Mr. Rifkins plan would increase the density by adding law office and still having three family dwelling. There are alternatives without changing the use. Sees no way to guarantee it would be owner occupied. There are inherent problems with mixed neighborhoods, residences and professional offices. Very strongly opposed. Chris Cabot, 123 Federal St. , agreed with Mr. Mintern. has no objection to a lawyer and his family clearly living there, but not when he just has a place to sleep when it is too late to go home. Clint Griffin, 14 Beckford St. , Agrees with Mr. Mintern. Dale Yale, 153 Federal St. , agrees with previous opinions. John Casala, 8 Beckford St. , commercial establishment will increase the safety problems in the neighborhood. Paul Cragin, 5 Carpenter St. , would like to see it remain residential, this would undermine the integrity of the neighborhood. John Carr, 7 River St. , we do not want to see the rest of Federal St. become like some parts of Federal St. , mainly the area between Wash- ington and North Streets. Not only change of use but also a change in density. Betsy Burns, 22 Federal St. , would like to be recorded as opposed for all the reasons mentioned. In Rebuttal: I have maintained a home in Salem since moving here in 1972, the house in Ipswich is by the beach, many people own more than one home. There will not be an increase in density, plenty of room for parking. The hardship would be the physical structure of the building and is incompatible with the present use. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal, I still have several points I am confused about, the residence or proposed residence of Mr. Rifkin should we grant the petition. Mr. Piemonte, thinks we have to look at this as it is going go be, a law office and three apartments. I agree regarding the building, it is an economical anachronism, but the danger is we could be opening the area up to further professional use. Not quite sure as to the direction I want to go till I hear from the rest of the Board. Mr. Luzinski, this is one of the biggest lots, I don't think there is another lot there that would induce anyone to come and open another office. I don' t see a problem. Mr. Hacker, I have a problem with this . being a primary residence. Clearly the only people in favor are the petitioner and the owners, the neighborhood has demonstrated they don' t want this. Mr. Piemonte felt it should be left as it is, he made a motion to deny the request. There was no second. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant the petition on condition it must be owner occupied. Mr. Charnas seconded. Voting to grant: Mr. Luzinski. Voting to deny: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Piemonte, Mr. Bencal. Mr. Charnas abstained. VARIANCE DENIED. 272 Highland Ave. - David Cohen (Tri-City Sales) Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit to allow parking in this B-2/R-1 zone. Mr. Charnas read the petition, there was no other communication. Attorney John Serafini Jr. , 60 Federal St. , represented the petitioner. He dis- played plans to the Board. He explained the business has been there since 1958, in 1969, it was expanded. They obtained a Variance in 1968 for warehouse use. • MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1983 page five 272 Highland Ave. - Continued He showed the zoning boundaries on the plan he submitted, quoted from the Zoning Ordinance which states that when the boundary line divides a lot, the less restricted portion may extend not more than thirty feet into the more restricted portion. They came for the Variance because warehouse use was not an allowed use, however, according to their interpretation, the shoe outlet is an allowed use. We requested both a Variance and Special Permit, we feel however that it is a Special Permit that is needed, an extension of a nonconformity regarding the parking. The parking in front is inadequate because of the increase in volume of business, if it is a variance that is needed, the hardship would be financial. Mr. Charnas asked if any studies had been done regarding the other lot owned by Tri-City. Mr. McIntosh explained that this lot was wetlands. Mr. Serafini explained that as far as safety was concerned, it would be better to have the parking on the side of the building. Mr. Charnas felt it was a variance that was needed. Mr. Serafini felt the nonconformity was the parking, all of the building is within the B-2 district. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Nicolas Decoulas, Esq. , representing George and Linda Zambouras, 18 Marlborough Rd. , gave history of what is going on there. The building was originally con- structed in 1958 for a retail business in a area that is zoned for retail. In 1968 variance was granted for warehouse uses. The building was constructed and is there for warehouse use, so the building is not a nonconforming use, it is an illegal use. It is our contention that this is not nonconforming use but a variance. In 1980 or there abouts, Tri-City bought the lot adjacent to warehouse. Proceeded to use it without any permits for business use and it is in a residential zone. We also contend the zoning line is not where it is located on the plan submitted by Mr. Serafini, thinks it's about forty feet off. Showed on his own map where he felt the line should be. He explained the case had gone to court but was sent back to the Board because of a technicallity. We want you to enforce the Zoning Ordinance, also, the fact they originally got variance for warehouse and it is now being used for retail. We contend there are two violations. Mr. Hacker asked when Decoulas map was made. In 1983. It was not done by a registered engineer. Mr. McIntosh agree with the map submitted by Mr. Serafini, he calculated the boundaries for the Board. Mr. Zambouras disagreed with Mr. McIntosh's measurements. Mr. McIntosh explained that before he saw Mr. Serafini's map, he had scaled the Assessors Map. Mr. Decoulas, referring to the map submitted by the petitioner, noted there were no points of beginning, no monuments on the ground. In rebuttal. Mr. Serafini, not aware of any requirement to put monuments on the plan, felt there plan was adequate. Mr. Charnas asked if he could give us some degree of hardship. He explained the parking on Marlborough Rd. You have cars extending substantially down Marlborough Rd. Right now there is a terrific need for additional parking. As far as the dispute on the map we feel confident our measurements are correct. Once again referred to the plans. Regarding what the previous variance did, his argument was that it rendered lawful and illegal use of the land in a sense that is correct. A variance makes something conforming what would otherwise be an illegal use, but I think he is saying that by getting the variance we were limited to that use. We feel the extension doctrine applies with regards to parking. In referring to a letter from the Building Inspector dated August 8, 1983, it states we may be in violation, it does not say we are. I feel we have shown we are not as far as use. What parking has been going on is for employees, about four cars, no customers. We contend that what has been used has been as an accessory use. Mr. Bencal stated he had been by the property and observed the barrel had been moved so that cars could get in and out, there were • about four cars there at that time. Because of the traffic on Marlborough Rd. there has been employee parking there from time to time. I think the issue becomes moot depending on what is decided now. I think this will alleviate a potential hazard along this road. Employee parking would be allowed along this strip as MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1983 page six 272 Highland Ave. - Continued • an accessory use. In a B-2 zone you can do parking as an accessory use. Mr. Charnas asked to hear from Mr. David Cohen in regards to hardship. Since our business began we have fortunately grown, parking has become a distinct hardship on our business, we are not a shopping center where people come to us to brouse around, they are coming specifically to do business with us. For them to come to us, we need place for them to park. Employees represent about twenty parking spaces. Having these twenty spaces for employees leaves minimal parking for customers. This puts an undue hardship on the store, without the parking, people would go to the shopping centers. The State took six spaces from us when they put in the traffic lights. We felt by buying this lot and having parking there it would alleviate a safety problem on Marlborough Rd. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker said he agrees the traffic was a problem, if we grant this I would like to see some restrictions regarding lighting, would like to face inward. Mr. Piemonte agreed. Without this parking it would be detrimental, to deny it could exacerbate the problem, I would support the petition. Mr. Bencal felt the hardship is with the topography, they are unable to use other lot because of the wetlands. This parking would be an asset, I have no objection. The only neighborhood opposition is from Mr. Zambouras, would like to see some evergreens for a noise barrier. Mr. Piemonte agreed this would be a good idea. Mr. Charnas, I feel a variance is needed rather than Special Permit, sees no problem with the hardship. Mr. Luzinski felt this might apply to the section of the Ordinance dealing with parking lots, which allows parking for 400 feet. Mr. McIntosh said he felt that applied to same lot and same zoning district. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance on condition a solid wall or fence or compact evergreen screening five feet high be erected along all property lines abutting residential • uses, any lights used to illuminate said parking area shall be so arranged as to reflect light away from adjoining premises and street. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 18 Marlborough Rd. - George and Linda Zambouras Petitioner is requesting enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the use of the premises by Tri-City Sales, Inc. Mr. Charnas read the petition. Nicholas Decoulas, 248 Andover St. , Peabody represented the petitioners. This is nota moot issue, there will be an appeal. It is an obvious violation taking place here right now. The Building Inspector has done nothing about this. Thinks the Board should be telling him to do his job. There may have been a variance granted tonight, but there is still an appeal period and it is still in violation. The fact that you granted the variance first in an attempt to make this moot does not sit well with me. Mr. Charnas asked what relief he would like. Mr. Decoulas said he was going to get a restraining order. Mr. Charnas asked what relief he wanted from the Board. Tell him to do his job. There is a section of the stature that says something about grossly negligent in doing your job, when I see five men hear knowing that there is a violation and not telling the Building Inspector anything, my hair stands on end. It is your obligation to enforce the Zoning Ordinance when the Building Inspector doesn't. We want the Ordinance en- forced as we have been asking for the last year. We have also filed petition regarding Dunham shoes. Rest assured we are going back to Superior Court and we are going to ask for damages if you people don' t enforce the Ordinance. Mr. said he would .like to hear from the Building Inspector. Mr. McIntosh said he had sent a letter to David Cohen informing him there is a violation and to discontinue it. I went by there, talked with him, he put barrels up and a sign. Showed picture of sign. I spoke with Mr. Decoulas and asked him what he thought I should do and his suggestion was I should go there and physcially put fence, rope of a cable to prevent parking lot from being used, I don't think I have that authority. OL MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1983 page seven 18 Marlborough Rd. - Continued �J Mr. Charnas read from the letter sent by the Building Inspector to Mr. Cohen, J dated December 15, 1982, telling him to Cease and Desist immediately. He also described the picture taken 7/19/83, 11 :00 a.m. Mr. Bencal said he was there today and the sign is still up. Mr. Hacker asked if anyone was in favor of non- enforcement by the Building Inspector, or does anyone want to speak in favor of the Building Inspector. John Serafini Jr. , 63 Federal St. , Salem, Mr. Decoulas is begging the question, the question is whether there has been a violation, he assumes there has been then he complains because nothing has been done about it. Should look at the plans again. It is our contention that if our argument about where the zoning line is is correct and if the argument projecting off that line is 30 feet is correct then we are entitled to use, by right, an area existing within the strip of land which projects 30 feet from that line for parking or any other use allowed in B-2 zone. Does not think Mr. Decoulas has established there is a violation. Mr. Decoulas said the Building Inspector has done nothing about it, the testimony is clear, Mr. Cohen was asked not to park in the area that is in the R-1 and Mr. Cohen did that. What little parking has occurred has been from employees, and that has been next to the building. Does not believe the proper. steps were followed when Mr. Decoulas' first appealled to the Board. Rebuttal: Showed pictures of the parking lot taken from Mr. Zambouras's kitchen. Also pictures from Tri-City. I did tell the Building Inspector to put cables but also told him to enforce the Zoning Ordinance and have the City Solicitor get a restraining Order. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte felt the Building Inspector made an hones:: effort and for the next twenty days will enforce the Ordinance. Mr. Hacker felt the Building Inspector did not have the authority to barricade the land, according to the City Solicitor. After the initial stages there have been no violations that I have seen. Mr. Charnas felt the Building Inspector did all he could do short of going to court. Mr. Charnas made a motion to deny Mr. Zambouras' petition on the grounds that Mr. McIntosh has done everything reasonable short of going to court and shall continue to take effective action until such time as the Variance granted to Tri-City goes into effect. Mr. Bencal seconded the motion. PETITION UNANIMOUSLY DENIED Hearing adjourned at 9:50 P.M. , next scheduled hearing will be held November 2, 1983 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respec fully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk J . f Ctv of "Salem, Answr4use##s s �axr� of ��ettl pip/llryg P'" MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - NOVEMBER 2, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, November 2, 1983 at 7:00 P.M. on the 2nd floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on October 21 , 26, 1983. Abutters and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Hacker, Hopper, Luzinski, Piemonte and Associate Members LaBrecque and Bencal The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member, and Acting Secretary. Mr. Hopper made a motion to accept the minutes of the October 19, 1983 meeting. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED Mr. Hacker asked if anyone presented wanted to Withdraw Without Prejudice at this time. Attorney Arthur Goldstien, representing Paul A. Sudenfield petitioner requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a muffler shop at 468-474 Highland Ave. , asked for Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. He explained the petition had been submitted prematurely. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petitioner Leave To Withdraw Without Prejudice. MR. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE 84 Highland Ave. - Ugo DiBiase Mr. Hacker withdrew from hearing this petition and turned the meeting over to Mr. Piemonte, the Vice Chairman. Mr. Hacker manages a store located in the suject building which constitutes a conflict of interest. Mr. Piemonte appointed Mr. LaBrecque a Voting Member. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from a previous Variance which required single ownership of this complex. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the fire alarm system located at Colonial Village must be updated prior to any sale of any portion of the real estate. The letter also cited inadequate maintenance and violations. Attorney Peter Beatrice, represented the petitioner. He requested a copy of the letter from the Fire Marshal. He explained to the Board they were here to request Section 5b (now section 5bb) of the Special Permit granted August 23, 1971 be stricken. This section limits this to common owner- ship. Felt this was an illegal condition. Everything else in the Special Permit would remain the same. The petitioners want to sell this one building, the building which houses the commercial stores plus residences on the top two floors, only asking to remove this one item which we think is unconstitutional, nothing is going to change, the neighborhood will still be commercial: Mr. Piemonte asked him to identify the building on the plans, the building which houses Colonial Market, Light & Lovely, the Drug Store, etc. , there are 12 apartments there also. Mr. McIntosh, Building Inspector, pointed out that all l the Commercial uses are there by Board of Appeal, this is an R-3, so the residential uses are allowed. Mr. Beatrice said part of that area was zoned for commercial, we came to the Board and they gave us a Special Permit to have commercial uses. Mr. Hopper asked for clarification, you are asking us for a Variance from a Special Permit that we already gave, it that correct. Mr. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1983 page two r 84 Highland AVe. - Continued • Beatrice said all we are asking for is to strike one section, the one pertaining to single ownership so the building could be sold. Mr. Hopper, if this is sold separately, would it still conform to the zoning, is this presently two lots. No, it is one lot, we want to sell the entire building, the residential units in back are separate lots, all we want to sell is this one building, the way the Special Permit is written, we cannot sell it, this is the only building with special use. Mr.Luzinski asked if they had any intention of selling the other lots in the future. Mr. Hopper, if we strike this section, would you be able to sell the other lots individually. Mr. Beatrice said the Special Permit only applies to this one building, the other uses are conforming, all other conditions would remain the same, same rules would apply. Mr. LaBrecque felt the Board should send this to the City Solicitor for his opinion. Mr. Piemonte, all they want to do is sell this building, it doesn' t affect the other buildings. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. LaBrecque said it should be sent to the City Solicitor because at the time if fell into two zones. Have him advise us if we can change the ownership, it may have to go to the Council. Mr. Bencal agreed with Mr. LaBrecque, if it is sold will the new business have to come for a Variance regarding parking, I would like to see us get opinion from City Solicitor. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue the hearing till November 30, 1983 to allow the Board time to get an opinion from the City Solicitor regarding parking, Mr. LaBrecque seconded. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to amend Mr. Bencal's motion adding a request of the City Solicitor regarding making sure all other conditions previously adopted in the 1971 Special Permit will stay in affect. Mr. Bencal Seconded this motion to amend. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY AMENDED. PETITION UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED TILL NOVEMBER 30, 1983. • 15 West Ave. - Jerrold and Ann Houghton Mr. Hacker resumed his seat as Chairman. Mr. LaBrecque will norbe a Voting Member. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot size, density, frontage, setbacks and a variance to allow use of a two family dwelling on Lot #1 and from all density requirements as it relates to existing garage on Lot #2 in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating this dwelling was not in compliance regarding smoke detectors. Mrs. Houghton represented herself. Displayed plans to the Board, she explained they had been to the Planning Board to change three lots into two lots, the two family dwelling to be on Lot #1 and the single family dwelling with the garage to be on lot #2. Mr. Hacker asked if there were any other two family dwellings in the area, she said yes. She showed a letter from the electric company stating there are two meters there, this has been a two family since 1948. We will put an easement agreement in the deed. In favor: Pat O'Connell, buyer of the two family, just wants it clearly a two family because of the banks. Theresa Brownley, 9 Central Street, Nahant, wanted to be recorded in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Luzinski, I don' t see any problem. Mr. Hacker, we should give Variance on both lots. Mr. Bencal, the easement should be written into the decision. Mrs. Houghton said that would be put on the deed anyway. Mr. Hacker explained to Mr. O'Connell that if they grant this, they will not put an easement condition, it would be up to him to make sure when he buys this that it is on the deed. Mr. O'Connell said he would, but right now they were just concerned with making certain this is a legal two family. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to grant the petition, granting a Variance to Lot #1 allowing the two family dwelling and also to lot #1 variances from density requirements, frontage, side and rear set- backs and to grant variances to lots # 2 & 3, now combined into a single lot, lot #2, from density requirements, frontage, side and rear setbacks. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1983 page three 1 Milk St. - Roger Rotondi • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and the addendum. He also read a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated that on Aug. 10, 1983 this occupancy was sold as a two family, but the third floor was occupied. A Certificate of Compliance was obtained for a two family. Mr. Rotondi, representing himself, said he would like to have this case continued, he just learned there was a good deal of opposition and would like some time to work it out with the neighbors. Mr. Hopper felt it would be awkward to continue this without hearing it first. Mr. Rotondi explained there was no egresses on the third floor and wanted to take care of this. Mr. Hacker explained to him that perhaps he should withdraw without prejudice, this would give him time to take care of everything that needs to be taken care of. He asked the Board of Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant Leave To Withdraw Without Prejudice, Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE 401 Highland AVe. - Joyce Nelson and Gloria Kefalas Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow an office for the purpose of electrology in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating that A.C. Hardwired smoke detectors will be required. Attorney James Peterson, 81 Washington St. , Salem, represented the petitioners. Stated, this is a single family home in an R-1 district, but most of the area is commercial, this is near Rich's Department Store, by Bob's Clam place. There • will be not exterior changes, will be some interior work, have parking for four cars. Normally there would be only one patient there at a time, the appointments will be scheduled every 15 minutes. This will be in harmony with the neighborhood. Joyce Nelson will be living there. He showed the Board, on the plans, where the parking will be. Mr. Bencal asked if people would have to back out onto Highland Ave. No, there is room to turn around. Mr. Hopper asked what electrology was, he explained it was method of hair removal. Ms. Nelson will be the only employee at the present time, however, the Ordinance says they can have one employee and they would like that so she could maybe hire someone in the future. An employee could block the owner as far as parking is concerned. There are presently four parking spaces, but could make five. Mr. Hacker asked about having them maintain five spaces and defining how they will move onto Highland Ave. Attorney Peterson explained that there is a telephone pole separating the driveway, which is entirely cut, this would serve as a natural entrance. Mr. Hopper felt it might be better not to define it, could do more harm than good. Speaking in favor: Gloria Kefalas, 401 Highland Ave. , would like to see her get this, this is a commercial area and with this type of business she can' t have more that one person at a time. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker said he had no problem with this, but would like to see entrance and exit defined. Mr. Piemonte felt the telephone pole should be used as the marker, the curb cuts are already there. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition on condition five parking spaces be maintained on site and enough room be left to prevent backing out on to Highland Ave. This Special Permit will remain in effect only as long as Petitioner's own and operate the business and it remains owner occupied. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1983 page four 165 Boston St. - Nicholas S. Gianareles (Petitioner) , M. Tavis, E. Verrett (Owners) Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the sale of used automobiles in this B-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter of opposition from the City Engineer. Also read a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections. The letter from the City Engineer stated his concern regarding the use of the Public Way for parking and as a travel way. Nicholas Gianareles, represented himself. This will be an owner occupied business, meaning, I will own and operate the business myself, I will not be an absentee landlord. Mr. Piemonte asked to see where the cars would be on the lot, and how many cars he would have. He said about ten cars, there could be two to three in the front, depending on the size of the cars and the rest would be toward the side and rear. Mr. Hopper asked what the most number of cars he could have there and still maintain his business. He said ten, maybe nine. Speaking in favor: Elaine Verrette, 28 Crowdis St. , Salem, present owner, submitted two letters in favor. Mr. Hacker read the letters and they were place on file. We maintained a small engine repair business there with no problem. Ted Charles, business at 167 Boston St. , residence at 8 Janes Rd. , Boxford, in favor, it is a hazard now. George Wadliegh, business at 167 R Boston St. , residence, 199 Locust St. , Danvers. in favor. In opposition: Nicholas Tgettis, 14 Aborn St. , the traffic in this are is endless, it is a disaster as far as traffic is concerned. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper agrees there is a traffic problem and felt this would compound it. Mr. Piemonte said this is a business area and any business is going to add to it. He asked Mr. McIntosh why this had to come to the Board for a Special Permit. Mr. McIntosh told him it was a change from one nonconforming use to another. Mr. Hopper asked if the Board could put a time limit on this if it were granted. Mr. • Hacker, not sure what we are afraid of here, there will not be many cars. He explained to Mr. Gianareles what the time limit would mean, they could say it was granted for five years, then he would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Gianareles said he could not accept that. Mr. Piemonte suggested allowing them to withdraw. Mr. Hacker said this is a business district, could have worse there, it could revert back to a gas station. Mr. Piemonte did not feel there would be that many people coming for used cars that it would increase traffic much. Mr. Luzinski asked if the Board could limit the number of cars. Mr. McIntosh said yes, but he thought the Licensing Board did that anyway. Mr. Hacker, referring to the letter from the City Engineer, concerned that no parking be allowed on the Public Way. Mr. Bencal said Councillor Grace had made it known there has been a problem in the past regarding this. Mr. Hacker, if this is granted a condition should be made that no flamables be on site, light must face inward, away from residences, might also consider hours of operation. Mr. Luzinski, concerned about the number of cars on the lot. Mr. Hopper made a motion to deny the application. He then withdrew the motion. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition on condition, no flamables be kept on site, no vehicle repairs other that minor emergency repairs be made, lighting to face inward and away from residences, must meet Fire Code, no parking on the Public Way, no more that ten (10) vehicles on the premises and subject to approval of the Licensing Board. Mr. Piemonte seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Messrs. , Hacker, Luzinski, Piemonte, Bencal. VOTING TO DENY: Mr. Hopper. GRANTED MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1983 page five 18 Summer Street - John & Joan Kelley (Petitioners) Richard Pohl (Owner) Petitioner is requesting an appeal of a Building Permit issued for 18 Summer St. Mr. Bencal read the application. He suspensed from reading the attached brief because of its length. Attorney John Tierney, 133 Washington St. , represented the petitioners. He stated that when a person is aggrieved because of a Building Permit they have the right to appeal this permit. The area in question, according to the map that was certified in 1965 is R-3, since 1965 there has been no amendment, in effect, this small section remains R-3. In September of 1969, the City Council voted to change that area to B-3 but that vote specifically excludes this small area. There was an attempt at that time to make this jog an R-2, that failed so it remains R-3. He submitted a Certified Copy of that amendment (on file) . He also submitted a Certified Copy of a letter from Josephine Fusco, City Clerk, certifying that the only official zoning map filed and on record since 1965 are the zoning maps adopted and attested by the City Clerk in 1965• This map shows the jog to be R-3, he submitted a Certified Copy of the area. The Building Inspector based his decision on the opinion of the Richard Stafford, City Solictor. In a letter to Mr. McIntosh, dated July 18, 1983, the City Solicitor mistakenly said this was B-3. The Planning Board gave their approval to subdivide this property, we are appealing that decision also. Mr. Tierney read the 1969 amendments which changed the area to B-3, excluding the jog. Mr. Hopper asked if the Building Permit was issued for a use that is not allowed. Mr. Tierney said yes, it was issued for a professional office. Mr. Hacker asked the assemblage if there was anyone who concurred with the petitioners. Joan Kelley, 3 Cambridge St. , the petitioner, explained why she thought the jog was left residential at the time the rest was changed to B-3. Mr. Hacker asked if there • was anyone present who disagreed with the petitioner. Robert Peck, Esq. , 1 Church St. , he explained that his law firm represent Dr. Richard Pohl, owner of the subject property, when he originally came to the Board of Appeal. His petition was withdrawn at that time. The petitioners are alleging that the Planning Board, The City Solicitor, and the Building Inspector are all wrong. It is our contention that up until recently there was another map on file. He displayed a zoning map dated 1971 which indicates the subject property is B-3. When Dr. Pohl applied for a Building Permit, a request was made of the City Sol- icitor. He submitted copies of the Zoning Ordinance, Section III, and read the last paragraph which says the map on file in the office of the City Clerk shall be the final authority. What matters now is what map was on file at the time the building permit was issued. He submitted copies of a letter from the City Solicitor which stated it was his opinion this area is B-3. In a B-3 district, a professional office is allowed, the Building Inspector issued the permit accordingly. According to Mr. Stafford's opinion, as of July 1983, the official map for the City of Salem showed this to be B-3. After the permit was issued it went before the Council and subsequently was changed . At the time of Building Permit however, it was B-3. He showed the Board before and after pictures of the property. We respectfully request the Board of Appeal uphold the decision of the Building Inspector. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. McIntosh if the map Attorney Peck had was the official map. Mr. McIntosh said it was the map in the office when he became Building Inspector and this is the map the City was selling. It was my ooinion that this was an R-3 zone, so I wrote to the City Solicitor asking for his opinion, he responded by saying it was a B-3 zone. The permit was issued as a result of this opinion, the new map shows the area as R-3 but at the time it was subdivided and the permit issued it was B-3. In rebuttal: Attorney Tierney, • in all due respect, City Solicitors are not infallible, this is an R-3 zone and 1 MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1983 page six • 18 Summer St. - Continued never was changed from R-3. This 1971 map was never attested to. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. McIntosh what the carriage house was presently being use as. Mr. McIntosh told him Dr. Pohl wants to put in a residence there, at the time of the subdivision both lots conformed, if the subdivision holds up it is legal. Mr. Hacker, would like to run this by the City Solicitor. Mr. Piemonte, felt the Board needed legal council. Mr. Hopper, which map is the official map. Mr. Luzinski, the question is, did the Building Inspector act properly or not, they are saying he is wrong. Mr. Hacker, they want the permit revoke, we should get a legal opinion. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this matter to the Nov. 30, 1983 meeting to allow the Board to get an opinion from the City Solicitor. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED TILL NOVEMBER 30, 1983. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be held November 16, 1983 at 7:00 P.M. , 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall • Clerk •r e (.9i#v of "quIrm, � n95nr4U9rt#s Pnxrb of �kpveul / 9�O1NIM6 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - NOVEMBER 16, 1983 A Public Hearing f the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, November 16, 1983 at 7:00 P.M. on the 2nd floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on November 2, 9, 1983. Abutters and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Hopper and Piemonte The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James B. Hacker. Mr. Piemonte made a motion to accept the minutes of the minutes of the September 28, 1983 and the November 2, 1983 meetings. Mr. Hopper seconded. VOTING TO ACCEPT: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemont. VOTING PRESENT: Mr. Charnas. MINUTES ACCEPTED Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that as there were only four members present, it would take a unanimous vote to grant any application, he asked if anyone present wished to withdraw at this time and come back when there was five members present. No one asked to withdraw. 43 Essex St. - John Collins/Ralph Schiavone Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend non-conforming use by allowing the sale of used cars in this r-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Planning Board and the Fire Marshal. The Planning Board expressed their opposition saying this use is not compatible with the neighborhood and would exacerbate the parking problems already existing. The following letters in favor of the petition were read into the record: Ward 1 Councillor George Nowak, Conjetta & John Hale, Bobby Keaton, and a petition in favor signed by nine abutters. Letters from the following in opposition were also read into the record: The Salem Historical Commission, Robert J. Metzger, Thomas J. Zoretich, Alan & Helen Loiney. Councillor George Nowak asked to speak on behalf of the petitioners. He said he was very much in favor of this, the petitioners have done a lot of work on the property, he is asking the Board to consider their request. Mr. Ralph Schiavone, co-owner of the property,explained they had a used car license they want to transfer it to this location. The pumps have been removed and we will remove the tanks. Would like to have four cars on the premises. John Collins, co-owner, we are just looking to sell about four cars. Speaking in favor: Councillor Nowak, I have not received any com- plaints about these fellows. Mr. Hacker asked if this property was in the Historic District. It is not. Speaking in opposition: Ron Miller, 42 Essex St. , must be concerned about the revitalized Salem, this should not be allowed to happen, could cause a demographic shift, the Board should consider property values. Mr. Piemonte, this is already a service station, would this be better, they have removed the pumps and will remove the tanks. Mr. Miller said they accept the service station but don' t want anything more. Mr. Charnas asked if the Board had them plant shrubs would they be willing to accept that. No, that would not help, we accept the service station because it serves the neighborhood, used cars do not. Nancy Jeton, 42 Essex St. , the neighborhood is residential, the street is narrow, there is quite a bit of traffic. The owners did remove the pumps. There is currently a lot of cars there and many remain there at night, this has already put a strain on the situation, any increase would be detrimental. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1983 page two 43 Essex St. - Continued • Daniel Benson, 44 Essex St. , agrees with all these objections, many times this garage is operating well into the evening. There isn' t any room there as it is, it is very noisy, any increase in use would cause additional suffering. Also opposed for the same reasons: Pat Miller, 48 Essex St. , Bob Welles, 42 Essex St. Derek Kavanaugh, 72 Essex St. , Bert Karanish, 64 Essex St. and Walt Ratar, 42 Essex St. In Rebuttal: Ralph Sciavone, to keep with the Historical aspect of the neighborhood, we went to great expense to renovate, we are willing to get rid of the tanks which will save on the fire insurance that the neighbors pay, all we are asking for is four cars, we have let the neighbors use our lot for parking when they needed to. During the day we park our trucks across the street. John Collins, I have come to work many mornings and have had no place to park. Mr. Hacker asked about the cars they are working on, are they on the street. Mr. Collins said sometimes if we have no room on the lot. Councillor Nowak, I have had only one complaint and that was taken care of, these fellows have done a good job. I am sure if you asked Mr. McIntosh, the Building Inspector, he could tell you he has never had any complaints. Mr. McIntosh said he did have one complaint about parking but it turned out not be them. Mr. Piemont, the garage is already there, isn' t it possible to keep your own equipment on your own lot. If we were to accept this, would like to see some restrictions, such as not parking truck on street. Mr. Charnas, not sure we can do that. Mr. Hopper, they don' t have enough parking for the business they are doing, to increase this is not a good idea, not compatible with neighborhood. Mr. Hacker, this encroaches on the neighborhood. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition. Mr. Piemonte seconded. VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION: Mr. Charnas, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper. VOTING PRESENT: Mr. Piemonte. PETITION DENIED. • 44-46 Jefferson Ave. - Augusto DaCunha (Petitioner) Ernest Fratangelo(Owner) Petitioner is requesting a Variance/Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a Donut Shop/Restaurant in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they had no objections as long as the Fire Code was met. Mr. White represented the petitioner, we are here to substitute one non-conforming use for another. This is under a Purchase and Salem Agreement, if it is granted it will comply with all the codes. Mr. DaCunha showed pictures of the property and explained the renovations he plans to make. There will be parking for approximately ten cars, will have about twenty two seats. Will have six employees plus two bakers, three employees and one baker per shift. Mr. Charnas told him he need a minimum of eight parking spaces. Mr. White explained they may run into problem because of the ledge, no sure how many we will be able to get. Mr. DaCunha said the dumpster will be in the rear of the building. Some of the neighbors said there was a rat problem there at one time. The hours of operation would be 6 to 11 . Speaking in Favor: Charles Dubrow, 14 Puritan Ave. Marblehead, I have driven through that area for years, there are many businesses there, this would be compatible. Ernest Fratangello, owner of the property, tried to sell the property for a Machine Shop, that was denied, the Donut Shop will be good in the neighborhood. Speaking in opposition: Gerry Yarosh, speaking for her mother Anna Yarosh, 23 Calabrese St. and for Rita Higley, 21 Calabrese St. , there is a ledge problem, I lived there for many years, the rat problem did exist, it does not exist now. Any blasting will cause problems, this is not the area for a donut shop, concerned about the odors from the donut shop. In rebuttal: • Mr. White explained the bakers set there own hours, the doughnuts could be baked perhaps three or four in the morning. Hearing closed. Mr. Piemonte, concerned about the waste that could attract rats, also concerned about the parking. Mr. Charnas asked what happens should there turn out to be a rat problem, what does the health department do. Mr. McIntosh explained about baiting. Mr. Hacker, this is a residential zone, but there is a lot of businesses there. I don' t think they will be able to get ten parking spaces in because of the ledge. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1983 page three 44-46 Jefferson Ave. - Continued • Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition, Mr. Hopper seconded. VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION: Mr. Charnas, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Piemonte. PETITION DENIED Off Dove Ave. & Jefferson Ave. - Shaughnessy Hospital Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow area at the intersection of Dove Ave. and Jefferson Ave. to be used for parking. This is an R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application. Mr. Al Levesque, Chairman of the Building and Space Department of Shaughnessy, represented the petitioner. He explained the hospital wanted to lease this area from New England Power Co. to take care of the overflow of parking. People have been parking on Dove Ave. and Jefferson Ave. , this is a problem, Dove Ave. is very narrow and it interfers with the fire lanes. This will just be temporary, they are hoping to get something permanent, but will not be able to before the snow comes. We are hoping to get a couple of dozen cars. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Mr. George Gagnon, 17 Bertuccio Ave. , what guarantee do we have there would be no noise. Mr. Hacker asked how close their property was to this area. About 20 - 50 feet. Mr. Levesque explained most parking will be during the day, we would be willing to limit the hours, it would be from 6 to 6. Mr. Piemonte asked if they restricted them to no night hours if that would satisfy their objection. Mr. Gagnon asked about access. Mr. Levesque said the access would be from Jefferson Ave. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition and allow this area to be used for parking on condition it be used only between the hours of 6:00 a.m and 6:00 p.m. seven days a week, to be used only by out-patients and hospital staff, only good • as long as the hospital leases the property, no improvements, especially paving, are to be done on the property. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 3 River St. - Anthony Scoglio Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a two unit condominium in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Attorney John Tierney represented the petitioner. He explained,many renovations have been done and the property has been upgraded. This will have no effect on low or moderate income persons. The house is now vacant, it is a two family and will remain two family. The tenants moved our in December 1982. There are two parking spaces available. We will comply with the Fire Code. Mr. Scoglio showed on the plans where the parking spaces were located. Speaking in favor: Paul Willis, 4 River St. , the work that has been done is good, I am concerned about the Historic Commission's conditions. Mr. John Carr, 7 river St. , member of the Historic Commission, said the Commission wants them to put wood shutters, there are some other conditions,which are Public Information, but could not recall them all right now. This building does seem to be occupied now, this does not effect my support. Carol Willis, 4 River St. , would like to see the house finished, I am in favor. Carol Caron, 7 River St. , they have done a tremendous job, but it should be completed. No one appeared in opposition. Attorney Tierney explained that the house was not occupied, the people they think live there are only security people. Mr. Carr, for the past ten years this has been a single family, it may have been two family prior to that. The parking is piggyback, the first floor was occupied till about a month ago, this still has nothing to do with my support. Paul Willis, the tenant down stairs lived there till about a month ago, there is someone living upstairs now. Mr. Charnas, I am concern whether there is a tenant there, I am concerned whether proper notice was given. Att. Tierney, there are no tenants, they are security people. Mr. Piemonte asked if they could submitted a notorized statement to this affect. Mr. Hacker, in view of this, would like to continue this till this next MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1983 Page four 3 River St. - Continued • meeting. Mr. Piemonte, in view of there not being any opposition, couldn' t we get the statement instead of continueing this. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this until the November 30, 1983 meeting. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED 6-8-10 River St.- Robert Bramble, Allyn REalty Trust Applicant is requesting a Variance and Special Permit to demolish a two family dwelling on lot B and to construct a two unit condominium, also to resubdivide three lots into two lots and to convert an existing two family into a two unit condominium in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the petition and a letter for the Fire Marshal and the Historical Commission, both in favor. Attorney Richard Daly, One Church St. , represented the petitioner. He explained they are looking for a Special Permit regarding the Condominiums, a Special Permit to subdivide into two lots, Variance from side line and rear setbacks. At the time my client purchased this property it was three lots, an existing building was on lot C, no building on lot B, and a building on lot D. Building on lot C has been demolished, presently only one building there, this is 6 River St. , the proposed building will be #10 River St. Number 10 was gone before my client purchased the property. He submitted statements from tenants stating there was no problem with them regarding moving. Client has complied with all the codes, and all regulations. Regarding parking, there is one space on one side and a parking space on the other side, it is possible to piggy two cars on one side. There will be no front setback, the proposed new condominium will be adjacent to the side walk, the same as the other house. This will be an asset to the neighbor- hood, even with the piggyback parking, it will alleviate some of the problems in the neighborhood. Special Permit is needed to subdivide three lots into two lots, Special Permit for Condominiums, Variance required for parking and setbacks . Mr. Charnas asked what the hardship was. Mr. Daley said it was financial. In favor: Carol Carr, 7 River St. , she read a prepared letter stating the reasons for being in favor, copy of this letter was not submitted to the Board. John Carr, 7 River St. , stated he was a member of the Historic Commission but was speaking as a private citizen, has lived in the area for 10 years, this was three lots with two buildings, one has been demolished. Mr. Bramble has spent great deal of money to renovate. Right now, there is a big gaping hole where the building was and the view is not attractive, it is not what we'd want to look at, this lot could remain vacant and become overgrown and an eyesore, do not think a single family is feasible, does not think parking will be a problem. He submitted a petition in favor signed by neighbors. Pamela Burns, 12 River St. , we appreciate Mr. Bramble's work. Cathy Willis, 4 River St. , does not think a vacant lot will improve the quality of the neighborhood. Parking is a problem, it has always been a problem and always will. Laurie Kadala, 15} River St. , thinks it is a good plan. In opposition: Ann Knight, 11 River St. , parking situation is bad. Margaret Hill, 13 River St. , concerned about the parking, there is no room for people to turn to get into the parking spaces he has proposed, when Mr. Bramble bought the lots, he said he was going to put a single family, now he wants two condo units. Elizabeth Hunt, 2 River St. , parking. Donald Hunt, 2 River St. , parking and density, would like to see parking lot or single familty dwelling, don' t see any hardship. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Bramble if the design could be changed to make more parking. David Jacquith, Architech, explained the plans and possible changes • in the plans. The possibility of withdrawing until different plans could be presented was discussed. Mr. Bramble said he would like to have the Board act on the existing condominium and withdraw the proposed condominium, also would like the Board to act on the subdivision. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1983 page five 6-8-10 River St. - Continued Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow the subdivision of Lots B,C, & D into two lots as shown on plans, to grant the Special Permit to convert existing two family dwelling into two unit condominium and a Variance from side line requirements on existing dwelling as shown on plans. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Charnas made a motion to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice his petition to construct a two unit condominium with the understanding that the granting of any portion of this application in no way obligates the Board to act favorably on the second lot. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 101-10117 Mason St. - Joseph & Albertina Vargas/Michael McKinnon It was noted for the record that Mr. Luzinski was present and he would be a voting member. The Petitioners are requesting Variances from all density and setback requirements and to subdivide into Parcel A & B to correct a title defect. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Inspector of Buildings making the petitioners aware of the violations of the Zoning Ordinance. He also read a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department was opposed because no Certificate of Compliance has been obtained for either dwelling. Phil Durkin, Esq. , represented the petitioners. He explained the Mr. Vargas had purchased the property in 1970, about two years ago he tried to sell both parcels as one, Mr. Little, the Real Estate Agent, said that was not feasible, he then went to the Planning Board in 1981 to divide, he thought he would then be able to sell. He sold 101} to Mr. McKinnon. He tried to sell 101 but was informed he could not do so because he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Regarding the smoke detectors, they will be put it. The lot lines will not change, the only thing that will change is they will be put in separate ownership. The house at 101 is a two family and always has been. Mr. Piemonte asked where the parking will be after it is sold, they now have a common driveway. Mr. Durkin said it will stay as is, it will be recorded as such on the deed. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variances as requested. Mr. Piemonte seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 132-134 Derby St./16 Bentley St. - John Hamilton, TR Petitioner is requestinga Special Permit to convert the premises to six condo- minium units and three stores, also a variance from minimum parking requirements. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Historical Commission endorsing the petition, also a letter from the Fire Marshal in favor of the petition subject to all work conforming to all codes. He read three letters from the tenants of 16 Bentley Street, stating their support for the project and saying the new owner will be paying all relocation expenses. A letter from Thaddeus Wlodyka, 137 Derby St. was read into the record, Mr. Wlodyka, while pleased that a developer was interested in this property, was opposed to Mr. Hamilton's plan. Mr. Hamilton represented himself, he explained the property was under a Purchase and Salem Agreement. He said he had spoken to Richard Stafford, the City Solicitor, and was advised by him that not having the Condominium Documents would not create a problem with the City. The apartments are becoming unfit for habitation, there is parking for one or two cars, our plans are for four cars, could fit six cars . piggyback. Major construction is needed to rehabilitate the premises. He showed pictures of the property. To reduce the number of units will effect the return on the property. There will be three small townhouses, one bedroom, on the Derby MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1983 page six 132-134 Derby St./16 Bentley St. - Continued • St. , one additional unit on the Bentley St. This will have no impact on low income housing. Stores will not be condominiums. There has been many conversions where there is no parking. Speaking in favor: Robert Gauthier, when I was Building Inspector for the City of Salem I tried to get this place torn down, it is in bad shape, this is a major undertaking, will certainly improve the neighborhood. David Jacquith, Architect, it has been a problem getting this property released for sale. He explained what the plans were architecturally, said they would be working with the Historical Commission, will bring this back to the 1870 period. Speaking in opposition: Thaddeus Wlodyka, 137 Derby St. , lived on Derby St. about 70 years. Have a problem getting in and out of my parking lot, he submitted a plan of his lot. There has always been two stores there, never three. Very con- cerned about the parking situation. Mr. Hacker asked him what he would like to see done with this property. He said he would like to see it become a parking lot. Francis Hancock, 10 Bentley St. , too many units. Walter Pecevich, 15 Daniels St. There are four liquor places there. I have a three family with ample parking, but I am constantly blocked, there is never any place to park. Councillor Nowak, concerned about the density. Judy Dore, 12 Bentley St. , parking. Mrs. Swiniuch, 14 Bentley St. , would like to see it fixed up, but six condominiums and 3 stores are quite a lot, where are they going to park. In rebuttal: Mr. Hamilton, even if the number of units were decreased, the number of bedrooms would increase, that would not make any difference as far as density is concerned. It is not financially feasible to have less units, it is not a simple project. Mr. Hacker asked if there was anyway they could change the plans to help the parking situation. Mr. Hamilton said they would be more than willing to try to find parking on the street. Right now, don't know what else to do. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski said he felt this was an over ambitious plan, to put store fronts there when there are already vacant stores in the area. Mr. Charnas agreed. Mr. Hopper, the parking is quite a problem. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition. Mr. Hopper seconded. On a roll call vote, the Board voted unanimously to DENY the petition. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. , next scheduled meeting will be November 30, 1983, 7:00 p.m. , One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk f • 'CONogA stl a (1.Tty of Sate tt, ::Mttssachusetts Poxrb of '4PZ sl 0�1MINE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - NOVEMBER 30, 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, November 30, 1983 at 7:00 P.M. , on the 2nd floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on November 16, 23, 1983. Abutters and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting members. 3 River St. - Anthony Scoglio ✓ This petition was continued from the November 16, 1983 meeting. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a two unit condominium. Mr. Hacker told the assemblage that this case had been continued to allow the petitioner to get an affidavit regarding the possibility of tenants residing in the dwelling. At the last meeting, Att. John Tierney representing the petitioner, stated the building was vacant and the people there were security people. Mr. Tierney then addressed the Board, told them he was • unable to obtain the requested affidavit and asked for leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Hacker told him the case had already been heard and he could not withdraw at this time. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition, Mr. Hopper seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion was defeated by a vote of four against, Mr. Bencal voted present. DENIED 14 Franklin St. - William Linskey Petitioner is requested a Variance to construct a Timber Column Building for the housing and repair of construction equipment in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections. Mr. Robert Gauthier, 52 Bayview Ave. , Salem, represented the petitioner. He explained, three years when he was Building Inspector for the City of Salem, he asked Mr. Linskey to take down the building. He displayed pictures of the property, what it looked like at that time. This is zoned R-2 but really should be a business zone. Mr. Linskey runs a large construction company. Showed picture of what the proposed building would look like. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Councillor James Fleming, this would derogate from the neighborhood, it is an R-2 zone, the Council when they changed the zoning in 1965 wanted this to be an R-2 zone and to hopefully be developed as an R-2 zone. Eventually this area will be cleaned up. There has been the presence of dogs on the property since Mr. Linskey has owned it. Can- not continue to derogate from the ordinance. This could be good waterfront property. I am sure that once the junk yard is gone it will never be used for junk again. Albert Pitcoff, Dearborn St. , Ward 6 has been neglected, there should be no further developement for construction use in this area. Hopes it • will be denied. Staley McDermit, 30 Dearborn St. , we have been trying to upgrade this area, this is an R-2 and hope it will become R-2. Mr. Hacker asked if he saw two family housed in this area. He answered no. In rebuttal: Mr. Gauthier MINUTES - NOVEMBER 30, 1983 page two 14 Franklin St. - Continued • said, 18 years ago the Planning Board changed this to R-2, businesses are still there and will most likely remain there. Mr. Linskey is trying to improve this property. I forced him, three years ago to tear down the buildings, now he wants to construct a nice building. Yes, there are dogs on the property, if he had a building there, the dogs would be inside. No one will buy this property if it can' t be used for commercial, not with the junk yard right there. They are being taxed for commercial use, they certainly want to use it for commercial use. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. McIntosh is he has had any problems with the petitioner. Mr. McIntosh said the only problem he's had is with a trailer on the property. Mr. Bencal said he noticed the trailer on the site, which is illegal. There are guard dogs but they are registered. The property right now is a pigsty. I am concerned about the property becoming to developed. Mr. Charnas asked what is being done on the property now. It is used for construction, heavy trucks. Mr. Hopper, don' t want to encourage anyone to spend a good deal of money on this, I am against it. Mr. Charnas, I can see a hardship but I have trouble condoning use of heavy duty equipment in a residential neighborhood, but this is better than what is there. Mr. Hacker, concurs with Mr. Charnas, this could give the neighbor- hood a chance to be cleaned up and be a plus to the neighborhood, cannot judge this as strictly an R-2 district because of the businesses in the area. Mr. Hopper felt the present use of the area is detrimental. Mr.Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Bencal seconded. Voting to grant: Mr. Charnas, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Luzinski. Voting to deny: Mr. Hopper, Mr. Bencal. DENIED • 14 Lathrop St. - Peter Cempellin Petitioner is requesting a Variance to use the premises as a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department was opposed to the granting of this petition. Attorney Gary Sackrider, 19 North St. , represented the petitioner. He explained the petitioner recently purchased the property and thought it was a three family, they learned after the purchase that it was a two family. There will be no changes. The hardship is financial. Regarding the parking, he showed on the plan where there is room for three cars in the back and there is a driveway. There is a commercial building with plenty of parking. The area is heavily commercial, it is near Bridge St. Would not derogate from the ordinance. The petitioner went around the neighborhood and found no objections. There is a fire escape from the third floor already. Mr. Hopper asked if it was owner occupied. No. Mr. Bencal asked if they were planning to live there. No. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Sally Gouvousis, 16 Lathrop St, concerned about parking. This has been a two family since I have been there. People do not use the rear for parking. In Rebuttal: Att. Sackrider, the people on the first floor do not own a car, the petitioner would make sure that all tenants used the rear for parking. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas, does not see any hardship. Mr. Bencal, just because the people on the first floor don' t have a car now does not mean they never will. Mr. Hacker, the problem I have is, this is strictly a business venture, the applicant will not be living there. The applicant may have a case against the seller if it was sold as a three family. Mr. Bencal, there are only two electrical meters, this indicates it has been a •` two family for quite awhile. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition, } Mr. Charnas seconded. On a roll call vote the motion was unanimously defeated. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED MINUTES - NOVEMBER 30, 1983 page three 20 Raymond Road - Gerard & Patricia Salvucci Petitioner is requesting a Variance from density requirements in order to construct an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections providing a Certificate of Compliance be obtained. Mr. Salvucci represented himself. He explained he wanted to put in a small deck about 13 feet long, he explained there was a porch there that was torn down because it was in such bad condition, he will replace that making it a little larger and it will be enclosed. The deck will then go to the end of the house. The sidelines will not be affected, neither will the rear setbacks. The only thing affected is the density. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance from density and allow the construction of an addition in strict accordance with plans submitted. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 47 Summer St. - Margaret Marchand Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow two rooms on the first floor as a decorating and craft store in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department has no objections provided a Certificate of Occupancy and Use be obtained. He also read a letter from the Planning Board stating they were opposed to a commercial use in a residential area, also concernced with parking problems. Margaret Marchand represented herself, she explained the type business she would be operating. She would hold classes in ceramics in one room and have one room to display merchandise for sale. There would not be more than five people in class at a time. She explained she is a single parent with three children and needed to earn extra money without having to leave the children. There is no parking problem at night, this will be at night. There will not be swarms of people coming in. May have a small sign, about 20" x 20" . Mr. Hopper asked if there will be any employees. She said she did not think so. She explained it is a one family home now, at one time it was two family. Mr. Hopper asked if she had any plans to make it a two family. She said no. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper said he was concerned about the parking but felt if it was limited to a one family that would take care of it. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit on condition the house remains a one family dwelling so long as the business is there, the size of the class is to be no more than five individuals, there be no more than one employee, must meet all fire codes, must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy and Use. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 37 Cabot St. - Tanin Sasaluxanon Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a third apartment in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections provided a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Sasaluxanon represented himself. The house is in bad shape, I have made improvements. Parking is no problem, can park three or four cars. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal asked if there were any facilities on the third floor. No, but it is very big. Mr. Hopper asked if the third floor was vacant now. Yes. Mr. Hopper explained to him it would be necessary for him to provide five parking spaces. He said he could do that by taking more of the yard. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit and allow a third floor apartment. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - NOVEMBER 30, 1983 page four 207 Highland Ave. - Hallman Chevrolet • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to expand the present nonconforming use in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections. Scott Salisbury, Architect, represented the petitioners. He displayed plans to the Board. He explained they wanted a 6600 ft addition in the rear and wanted to increase the showroom 2200 ft. This would conserve energy. There will be an addition in the front and the rear. Auto Body work will done in the addition, it is dirty work and it is better to separate it. There is no density or setback violations, just for use. Mr. Bencal asked about the storage of volatiles. Mr. Salisbury explained that what they have are mostly paint and paint products. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit as requested in strict accordane with plan submitted. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 18 Summer St. - John & Joan Kelley (Petitioners) Richard Pohl (Owner) Continued from the November 2, 1983 meeting. Petitioner is requesting an appeal of a building permit issued for 18 Summer St. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from Richard Stafford, City Solictor. Mr. Charnas was not present at the November 2nd meeting. Mr. Hacker explained to him what took place. A Building Permit was issued to Dr. Pohl on July 29, 1983 for interior alterations for the carriage house at 18 Summer St. Because of the confusion regarding the zoning of the property, the Kelleys feel the permit should not have been issued. Mr. McIntosh issued the permit after received a letter from the City Solicitor stating this area is in a B-3 zone. Since that time, the zoning map has been updated and the area in question is in an R-3 zone. The question the Board is faced with now is whether the Building Inspector acted properly in issueing this permit or not. This was continued to allow the Board to contact the City Solictor regarding his opinion at the time. In his letter, dated November 30, 1983, he states he has not changed his opinion. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the appeal, Mr. Luzinski seconded. Voting to grant: Mr. Bencal, voting to deny: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper and Mr. Luzinski. Mr. Charnas voted present. PETITION DENIED 84 Highland AVe. - Ugo DiBiase Continued from the November 2, 1983 meeting. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from a previous variance which required single ownership. Mr. Charnas read the application. Mr. Hacker brought Mr. Charnas up to date on this application which was continued to allow the Board to contact the City Solicitor for an opinion. He explained that a Variance was granted to Mr. DiBiase on August 23, 1971 . Paragraph (b) of said decision states the ownership title to all of the buildings and all of the land is to be held in single ownership by the petitioners. Mr. DiBiase now wants to sell the front building which houses the commercial businesses plus apartments. The Board was concerned whether the granting of this would affect the parking situation. The City Solicitor, verbally, said it would not. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested, all other conditions on the August 23, 1971 decision to remain in effect. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held December 21 , 1983 at 7:00 p.m. , 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Respe tfuully submitt d, � Brenda M. Sumrall, Clerk Ctg of obttlem, 'Mttssar4use##s Pnttrb of '4}rettl 4 �41M6 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - DECEMBER 21 , 1983 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, December 21 , 1983, at 7:00 p.m. , 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on December 7, 14, 1983. Abutters and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal. The meeting was called to order by James Hacker, Chairman, at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member. Mr. Bencal made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 16, and November 30, 1983 meeting. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 7 Crombie St. - Crombie Street Congregational Church, James Stewart, Petitioner Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the premises to be used as emergency shelter for the homeless. Mr. Stewart, Assistant Pastor and Petitioner requested this be continued until the January 18th meeting. Mr. Hacker asked him, if the �• \1 Board did continue this would he be .pilling to sign a waiver regarding the time / element. He agreed to do this. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this case until the January 18, 1984 hearing. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED 382 Highland Ave. - John Keane Petitioner is requesting a dimensional variance from the 30 foot sideline require- ments in order to construct a warehouse in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Fire Department which stated they had no objections and a letter from Donald & Gladys Fontaine, 3 Ravenna Ave. , stating they . were opposed. Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. He stated, if ever there was a classic case of hardship, this is one. In a B-2 district the requirement for a lot is 12,000 square feet, this lot is less than 200 square feet short. We are asking for a variance from square foot density. This is a triangular shaped lot, it has been a lot since before the zoning ordinance. Mr. Keane has made every effort to satisy the neighbors. The neighbors don' t want anything there, but felt his client had a right to this. Mr. Keane is willing to be reasonable, he then read from a list of demands the neighbors wanted. (List of file) He did say that an 8-10 foot fence was unreasonable but they would be willing to put in a 6 foot fence. He also felt a sidewalk on Ravenna Ave. was not feasible. Willing not to have dumpster on site. The neighbors do not want construction equipment on the property, he has agreed not to store heavy equipment. Mr. Keane is not happy with the demand as far as the hours are, would like it to be 7 to 7 rather than 7 to dusk. Construction has already begun, with a building permit, the foundation is already there. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Councillor Frances Grace, speaking for the neighbors. She explained •' they have had a meeting in the Council Chambers, she submitted a letter from the �_ Assessors and copies of Registered Land Court plans 11802E and 11802W which MINUTES - DECEMBER 21 , 1983 page two 382 Highland Ave. - Continued • according to the determination of Richard'S� aplon, City of Salem Engineering Dept. , shows the lot to be 11 ,812+, Because of this difference in the square footage, the neighbors feel they have been deceived, Mr. Keane is stuck in the middle. As far as hardship, he created his own hardship. The neighbors are all opposed, however, they do not want to go to court, it would be very costly, therefore they have agreed to these concessions and would like to put into the conditions. As far as the 8-10 foot fence, this could be negotiated, the other conditions, we are standing tight on. These people bought their homes in good faith and they feel they have been deceived. Do not hold it against Mr. Keane. Steven Turner, 6 Ravenna Ave. , submitted a petition of opposition signed by about 100 abutters. Feels Mr. Keane created the hardship himself, the lot was clearly not 12,000 sq.ft. , the neighbors feel the quality of their life will be affected. Will increase truck traffic, there are many small children in the area, this is hazardous, also increase crime, concerned about vermin if there is a dumpster, would this petition either denied or meet our concessions. Mr. Hacker asked if the neighbors wanted this denied or if they would go along with the concessions. Mr. Turner again said they wanted it denied but would go along with the concessions. Mr. Hopper asked about concession number 6, the type of windows. Mr. Turner said they could not agree on the type windows, they want to make sure they are good looking. Louis Mambro, 1 Ravenna Ave. , agreed with Mr. Turner and would also like to make sure the building remained dead storage building used only for storage. Barbara Noble, 1 Savonna St. opposed, Ann Turner, 6 Ravenna Ave. , Opposed; Jeanne Gillespie, 5 Ravenna Ave. , Gilbert Gillespie, 5 Ravenna Ave. , Allan Harmon, 19 Madeline Ave. , Lucille Ciriello, 3 Savonna St. Mr. Hacker asked if all these people who have spoken and those who are waiting to speak had all signed the petition. Councillor Grace said they had, they were all opposed but would accept conditions. In Rebuttal: Attorney Vallis said Mr. Keane bought the property in good faith, was represented by an attorney, got a mortgage and at the time was not aware of zoning problem, Mr. Keane did not deceive anyone, he is caught in the middle. The Board of Appeal is here to grant relief when the requirements are too stringent, we are here because he does not have the required 12,000 sq.ft. , if we meet all the con- cessions, the cost would be prohibitive, we would like a Variance from the square footage, would also like variance from side line requirements, but would take just the square footage, as far as the concessions are concerned, don' t see the necessity for sidewalk on Ravenna Ave. , no objection to the building be only one story, no objection to fence but do not think its necessary to have it 8 - 10 feet high, no objections to shrubs, he will landscape, no objections to the building being natural stained shingle or clapboard, no dumpsters on site, no heavy construction equipment stored or parked on site, will be no obstruction coming out of intersection of Ravenna and Highland Aves. , We do object to the hours being from 7:00 a.m. till dusk, would like hours to be from 7 to 7, Mr. Bencal asked if they would object to condition Mr. Turner mentioned, that the building be used for dead storage. Mr. Vallis responded that this building is being built as a warehouse and could never be used for much else. Continuing on with the list of concessions, Mr. Vallis said they had no problem as far as advertising signs being posted on site, did have a problem with number 12 concerning the surface run off, did not feel this was necessary as there is no problem there. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal said he had problem with some of the concessions, if they put sidewalk, will it have to be handicap accessible. Yes it would. If there is no dumpster, where will trash be put, and are the hours 7 to 7 okay with the neighbors. Mr. Hacker asked why have a fence completely around the property. Councillor Grace said they could live with a 6 ft. fence, but need fence because this is a school bus stop. Mr. Turner showed the Board on the plans where they wanted the fence, they are concerned with security. Mr. Charnas made a MINUTES - DECEMBER 21 , 1983 page three • 382 Highland Ave. - Continued motion to grant the Variance as requested on the following conditions: 1 . The building be only one story on top of the existing foundation, the sidewall being no more than 10 feet above the foundation, no more than 30 units be in the building and used for storage only; 2. The fence be 6 foot high (green vinyl coated) chain link, be maintained around the perimeter of Ravenna Ave. and the Northern tip of the property; 3. That 4 foot high shrubs to screen the building be placed inside of fence; 4. The exterior of the building be natural stained shingle or clapboard; 5• No dumpsters be allowed on the property; 6. No heavy construction equipment be stored or parked on the property at any time; 7. No obstruction by bushes or fences coming out of intersection of Ravenna and Highland Aves. ; 8. The hours include no Sundays and that Monday - Saturday hours be 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. 9. No advertising signs be posted on the property; 10. Any lighting be arranged as to face inward and away from residences; 11 . That anticipated surface run off water problems be determined by the City Engineer, and that the Engineer make adequate provisions for either dry wells on the property sits, or a street catch basin for water containment if necessary. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 160 Loring Ave. - Margaret Hartt (Petitioner) Patsy & Josephine DeFrancesco (Owners) Petitioner is requesting a Variance from sideline requirements, square footage and frontage to divide a parcel containg 32,759+ square feet into two lots, Lots 1 & 2, Lot 1 having square footage of 9,968+ and lot 2 having square footage of 22,791+ in order to construct a single family dwelling on lot 1 . Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Marshal and the Planning Board. Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , Salem, represented the petitioner, he displayed plans, submitted copies of the Assessors map, he noted this is the largest lot in the area, it con- tains over 32,000 sq.ft. , the petitioner proposes to divide this into two lots, both lots would still be larger than most of the lots in the neighborhood. He submitted a favorable petition signed by 20 abutters. Mr. DeFrancesco has owned this land for many years, bought in two parcels, at that time all they needed was 6,000 sq.ft. There is some ledge on the southerly portion. This will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He showed pictures of the house they want to put there, (. house will be for Mrs. Hartt, his daughter, he will give them the lot. Mr. Charnas asked where the hardship is. Mr. Vallis said the property as a whole contains more square footage than is required by law, however, it does not contain the necessary • MINUTES - DECEMBER 21 , 1983 page four 160 Loring Ave. - Continued • frontage, needed the side setback because of ledge. Speaking in favor: Councillor John Nutting, the neighborhood is in favor, there does not seem to be any opposition, there will be no encroachment on the neighbors. He explained that Mr. DeFrancesco is the son of DeFrancesco who ran the produce market. We are happy to see Mrs. Hartt stay in Salem, I am definitely in favor. Mr. Donald Gleason, 9 Moffatt Rd. , wished to be recorded in favor. Councillor John Giardi, neighborhood has no opposition, the lot size is good, they are a young couple and are good people. Charles Frederickson, representing the Planning Board, explained the letter of opposition from the Planning Board, he said that the Planning Board did not have all the facts. Margaret Hartt, petitioner explained that her father was giving her the lot, and the house would cost about $50,000, if this is not granted, they could not afford to build. Mr. DeFran- cesco, owner, when I bought the land, it was all trees and trash and a brook, I cleared it out and have maintained it for 24 years, I keep it landscaped, having the family with me will help as far as my health problem. Capt. Goggin, explained the letter from the Fire Department, he said the intent of the Fire Dept. is not to be opposed, the reason they send the letters is because there are no smoke detectors in the existing structure. He was assured they were there. Capt. Goggin told them to see him to get a Certificate of Compliance. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance as requested. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 150 Canal St. - McDonald's Corp. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow a recreation area as an accessory use in this (I) district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter • from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. had no objections. Attorney Barry Feinstein, Peabody, represented the petitioners. He explained they had taken into consideration some of the suggestions made at the previous hearings from which they withdrew. Regarding the safety aspect, we have changed the location from the front to the side and we have made some modifications. Mr. Sisson, the Engineer, showed the plans, he explained there will be a fence, 6 foot steel fence. Speaking in favor, Councillor John Nutting, I am quite pleased to see this application, they have come in twice for this, we did not want to lose the landscape area and we were also con- cerned about the safety of children, I am very pleased to see this change, they have taken into consideration our recommendations, would like to see the brick solid filled. Mr. Sisson assured him it would be. No one appeared in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Charnas, concerned about the 6" high curb, would like to see higher curb or a bumper. Mr. Sisson said they could put a guard rail (wood) . Mr. Hopper said these wooden guard rails are substantial. Mr. Hacker said he wanted the exit gates to be used as an exit, not an entrance. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition in strict accordance with plans filed, on condition there be wood guard rails around the perimeter of the play area and that the exit is not to be used as an entrance. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 10 Phillips St. - City of Salem Petitioner is requesting variances from lot size for lots 1 & 2 so they may be sold as buildable lots in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have no objection. Mr. Richard T. McIntosh, Director of Public Property for the City of Salem, presented the petition for the • City. He explained the plans to the Board, before lots can be subdivided and sold to the neighbors, we need to get Variance. Mr. Charnas asked what the hardship was. Mr. McIntosh said that this lot is bigger than the others in the neighborhood. Mr. Hopper said if they wanted to put single family homes there they would have to come to the Board for density, etc. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested on condition J • MINUTES - DECEMBER 21 , 1983 page five 10 Phillips St. - Continued they get Planning Board approval for subdivision. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 1 Brooks Court - Zolotas Bros. , Inc. (Petitioner) John Bakas (Owner) Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot size to allow conversion of single family dwelling into a two family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal and a letter from the Planning Board. Attorney John Mihos, Lynn, represented the petitioners. He explained this is a derelict building and the petitioner will be improving it. This is an allowed use, but the Ordinance calls for 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit so a variance is needed from lot size. Mr. Bakas, the owner will be living there. The majority of homes in the neighborhood are two family or more. Mr. Bencal asked if there was plumbing already there, Mr. Mihos said only on the first floor. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Johnes Moore, 8 Milk St. , this is a small house, it is derelict but it has historical value, concerned with the character of the neighborhood. The quality of my life will be effected, concerned with the traffic problem. Kathleen Ternes, 16 Pickman St. , concerned with density. Vincent Kennedy, 11 Andrews St. , density, traffic, drainage. Rebecca Kennedy, 11 Andrews St. , also concerned about traffic, density, drainage. Krystyna Czapla, 13 Andrew St. , concerned about parking. Gary Sturgwell, Andrew St. , this is not a derelict, it is the most beauti- ful in the neighborhood, would have no objection to a single family. In rebuttal, Mr. Bakas said he could not afford to have a single family, would like a two family and rent to sister in law. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker did not like the parking situation, Mr. Hopper, problem with the density. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition. On a roll call vote, the Board voted unanimously against the granting of this petition. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 78 Beaver St. - Harry Eng Petitioner is requesting a Variance from setback requirements and a Special Permit for use in order to construct a two family duplex and a garage, bringing a total of four dwelling units in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department. Mr. Eng, 34 Boston St. , represented himself to the Board. He told the Board he bought a burned out building on Beaver St. , displayed plans to the Board, wants to put two, two car garages and a duplex which will be attached to the existing duplex. He showed pictures before and after of the property, submitted a petition in favor. Speaking in favor: Jerry Girard, 74 Beaver St. , this will be a quality dwelling and will help the value of the neighbor- hood, will be better than what we have to look at now. In opposition: Elizabeth Dullea, 5 Safford St. , this is very narrow street, concerned about the fire aspect, the traffic and safety, also parking. Mr. Joe George, 81 Beaver St. , said he signed the petition in favor, but thought it was going to be a single family dwelling, not in favor of two family because of traffic and parking. Jane Fronki, 5 Safford St. this is a narrow street, very concerned with safety as far as fire goes, does not think the fire trucks can get there. In rebuttal: Mr. Eng said there was no problem regarding parking, as far as fire is concerned, a fire can happen any where. Mr. Hacker asked Capt. Goggin to look at the plans. Capt. Goggin said there was no problem, he has the room the fire department calls for. Mr. Eng said he could put 5 or 6 parking spaces in the other area. Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage • about the extra parking spaces Mr. Eng was willing to put in. At this time Mr. Eng requested Leave to Withdraw to give him time to work this out with the neighbors. Mr. Charnas made the motion to grant petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. The Board voted unanimously to grant the motion. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN. MINUTES - DECEMBER 21 , 1983 page six 394 Highland Ave. - Mike Stasinos (Petitioner) Nicholas Fiore (Owner) Petitioner is requesting a Variance to construct 216 cluster residences in this B-2, R-1 , R-C district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the following: The City Engineer, saying he could not favorably respond to this given the information presently available to him, the Planning Board also is not favorably inclined due to lack of information available. The Fire Department has no objections. He read a letter of opposition from William Slison, no address given. Mr. Charles Fredrickson, representing the Planning Dept. , said there appears to be a violation of the wetlands act. Attorney George Vallis, 1 Church St. , representing the petitioner addressed the Board, thinks this is simple, I am not here before the Planning Board or the Conservation Commission, we are here before the Board of Appeal. We have applied to the Planning Board with a preliminary plan. He displayed plans showing the zoning, we could come under the PUD program, seems before we can go before the Planning Board we have to come to this Board. There will be a small shopping area. This is a piece of scrub land, to develope this we need a variance, I am sure the people here will address the traffic problem and the problem regarding schools. We dre here because of the cluster zoning. Mr. Charnas said he was reluctant to act on this at this time. Mr. Vallis said he would like to be heard tonight. Mr. Charnas said, as a courtesy to you, I will tell you that I am going to abstain, you will need to carry the rest of the Board or you will lose. He suggested the Board notify the Planning Board and requested Mr. Vallis withdraw for at least 60 days to give the Planning Board time to act. Mr. Hacker felt the Board should at least hear the presentation. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Councillor Frances Grace, speaking for the residents, all of them. I am annoyed with the timing of this petition. If this is voted tonight, I can compare this with the midnight raise of • the State Legislature, we are very very concerned. Access roads for one. She sub- mitted a Council Order dated August 18, 1983 regarding the city's capability in handling the present water delivery system, and other municipal services, to service the projected future building in the Highland Avenue area. Would like to see houses, but not on this massive a scale, would like to see the petitioners withdraw. Mr. Hopper said he agreed with Mr. Charnas, would like to see them withdraw. Mr. Bencal suggested a hearing be set for this case only. Mr. Vallis said he would like to continue. Charles Frederickson, explained that the petitioner did file a prelim- inary plan and it was scheduled for November 27, 1983, however, they did not show up. Until the other day, the Planning Board had not heard from him. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this case until February 8, 1984, Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL FEBRUARY 8, 1984. Hearing adjourned at 10:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be January 18, 1984, second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, ZI-1 J��a_zl Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk