The URL can be used to link to this page

1984-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS � �� A �P�1 � ; � � �5 / q8y �- l�8's e (9itV of Satem, fflttssadjusetts 3 q PDBYD of JA"P211 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OE APPEAL - JANUARY 25, 1984 A public hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, January. 25, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on January 4, 11 , 1984. Abutters and other interested persons having been notified by mail. This hearing was originally scheduled for January 18, 1984 but due to snow storm it was postponed until January 25, 1984, all petitioners and owners were notified by phone of this change. . Present were: Messrs.', Charnas, Hacker, Hopper, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, James Hacker at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the December 21 , 1983 meeting, Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY SECONDED. 7 Crombie St. - Crombie Street Congregational Church iPetitioners are requesting a Variance to allow the premises to be used as an emergency shelter for the homeless in thie B-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, he did not read the attachment as it was quite lengthy and said it would be better if the petitioners explained. He did read the order from the Salem City Council supporting this application, also read a letter from the Executive Department Governor's Office of Human Resources in favor of this. There were to many letters in favor and in opposition to read, it would be too time consuming. James Steward, Associate Pastor, presented himself to the Board on behalf of the Crombie St. Church. He explained that the Church has been asked by to provide space for the homeless by the North Shore Shelter Committee. He sub- mitted a copy of the lease agreement between the Crombie Street Church and the North Shore Shelter Committee. We are all concerned about the homeless. About two years ago two people were found living in a sand box under the overpass, we all remember the case of Joe Gizicki who lived in a box car near the Armory, he was an alcoholic. Mr'. Hacker told him'. that the Board could not listen to all these cases, the Board is concerned with the. application here tonight. Mr. Steward explained the North Shore Shelter Committee would like to respond to the need by providing shelter for these people, this will be a responsible place for the home- less, will besolely for the homeless on the North Shore. Rules have been developed to protect the homeless and the people in the area. The Committee is doing all it can to discourage loitering. Loitering will not be tolerated and it will be grounds for permanent barring from the shelter. All those denied admittance will be expect to leave the premises withing 15 minutes, those who do not leave will be considered trespassers and treated accordingly. We cannot guarantee that this problem will be controlled 100 percent, but the Committe will do all that is humanly possible to control it. He submitted more letters in favor of this application. He also submitted a letter from Eldon Turner from the North Shore Council on Alcoholism, Inc. , Detoxification Center which explained that many people they deal with are not alcoholics but drink in order to get admitted to Detox so the will have a place to stay. The Shelter will be staffed by both paid and volunteer workers, the staff will be trained personnel. He displayed MINUTES - JANUARY 25, 1984 page two 7 Crombie St. - Continued • plans to the Board and the Assemblage outlining where the people would be sleeping and where the two showers would be located. He explained that the guests would have to sign a release form before being admitted to the shelter, they will have to submit to a search of their person and possessions by a staff person of their own sex, they will be read a copy of the rules, they will surrender all medications, and any valuables that they want locked up, they will be assigned a mattress, cot and bedding, mattresses and pillows will have plastic covers and will be scrubbed when they are assigned to a new guest, each guest will receive clean linen, 11 :30 p.m. , all lights will be off, at 6:15 a.m. , guests will be woke up, they will be served coffee and doughnuts, start leaving at 7:00 a.m. , shelter will close at 7:30 a.m. The shelter will offer a referral service, he named all the agencies that are backing this program. These agencies will help with the training, We will refer those not admitted to this shelter to other agencies. There will be a minimum of four volunteers, will install two showers, which will be available to guests at designated times. This is a difficult decision for the Board and the people of Salem to make, this will be inconvenient for many but it will be worth it if it saves lives. We are asking for this variance for one year to show that this can work, so that the de-institutionalized people from Danvers will have some place to go and wont' wind up like Joe Gizick, face down in water or like Susan Carr sleeping under the stairs of the depot. Mr. Hacker said he had received 38 letters in favor, only two from people living in the neighborhood, only two letters in opposition, one with a petition signed by 17 abutters who live in the neighborhood. Speaking in favor: Stanley Usovicz, Jr. , Councillor, resides at 18 Forrester St. , it is very difficult to help these people, what we are facing is a crisis, there are no government agencies to help. Salem, in a small way could help. Mr. Hacker asked what other shelters the North Shore Community Shelter runs. Mr. Usovicz explained they have only been doing this since July, this is the first one. Gloria Kefalas, North Shore Community Action Program (NSCAP) , never saw so many homeless people in my life, this is an admirable project, there is no place for them, something must be dont. Jane Holaopa, 33 Flint St. , Salem, President of the North Shore Shelter Committee, I am more afraid of not having a shelter just for safety sake, it is safer for then to have a place to go than to have them breaking in some where just for a place to sleep. Charles Navel, Sr. Pastor, Crombie St. Church, once we have this shelter, Salem will feel better for having it. Pat Anderson, Ocean Ave. , Coordinater Saugus Center, there is no place for these people to go. John Taylor, 116 Lafayette St. , because of the economy, I was out of work, getting no benefits, would have been homeless if not for Crombie Street Church and the North Shoreprograms, don' t know what I would have done. Tim Lainey, Marblehead, it is in the best interest of all to encourage private groups to do what they can for these people. Ruth Wall, 13 Crombie St. , not worried about the risks, what small risk there is, I am willing to take, they are pleasant people, never any problem with the people coming and going for the meals. Frank Montessey, 15 Crombie St. , should allow shelter to open for one year. Rich Rush, Beverly, see people on the street going hungry. Jim McAlister, Salem, if this involved taxes, people would welcome it, we are talking about people who don' t vote and have no money, we have to take care of the poor just as well as the middle classes. I have seen people sleeping in the lobby of the YMCA development. Richard Pierce, 16 Dow St. great opportunity for us to aid our fellow man. Bill Smith, 17 High St. , I am curious about the people I have seen, they are very reclusive, David Jacquith, 11 Ober St. , Beverly, in favor, Debbie Howlett, 110 Bridge St. , these people are harmless, they can' t help how they look, they don' t have money for good clothes, they are good people. Helen Zagarowski, these are polite people. Philip Saindon, Chairman of the Board of Health, we are responsible to see these people taken care of. Robert Ball, 13 Crombie St. , I am a neighbor and I am in favor. Richard Swann, 117 Lafayette St. , I an participant of Crombie St. Church, goes there for meals, there is a need for this shelter. I have volunteered to help anyway I can. MINUTES - JANUARY 25, 1984 page three 7 Crombie St. - Continued Ken Perry, lives by Salem Willows, believes that with the right volunteers and staff there will be no trouble. Jim Lacey, Andrews St. , this is in the best interest of the city and the north shore. Ken Lindauer, Esq. , I am the attorney for the Salem Theatre and they are in favor. Councillor Joseph Centorino, I support this, the Governor made a committment to the homeless, this is a public problem and it is laudable that the private sector is coming up with this solution. Kay Hosman, 6 Border St. , Salem, in favor. Joan Donahue, 39 Endicott St. , this is good idea. Reverend Robinson, I understand the problem pastors face when people come to them and want a place to stay and there's no place to send them. Leroy Gaynor, Warren St. , Peabody, the Board should make every effort to give these people time to make this work. President Reagan said to look to the private sector and we now have a chance to do that. Sarah Smith, 17 High St. , I am blind and I have no fear of these people. I am in favor. Speaking in opposition: Bunny Jackson, 20 Grove St. , I am member of the Crombie St. Church, we are not all in favor. Jack Levin, manages a building on Essex Street, have not heard any argument as far as the legality of giving a variance, there is no hardship to the church. Steve Tompkins, Tompkins Furniture, what happens during the day to these people. Would like to see the trial period changed to six months. Charles Jackson, I am confused, this is needed but cannot say I am in favor, will they be look for another location during the next year. The Church was not unanim- ously in favor, after good deal of arguing we lost the vote so I signed the petition in favor. It is hard to say no, but is it legally right, just not sure. Councillor John Nutting, the rules and regulations Mr. Stewart spoke of should be incorporated in the decision. Would hate to see it run out of volunteers. The Building Inspector should police this, don' t think this has to go to the Licensing Board on any other Board in the City. Stephenie Montessey, 15 Crombie St. , the idea is great, but I am undecided, I couldn' t sign the petition, there is a need and something should be done, but the indecision is still there. Dick Pabich, I am a fence sitter, not really opposed but have a lot of questions, I run a rooming house on Summer St. , and I question whether two showers for twenty five people is adequate, is this for Salem people of for the entire North Shore area, will this be a magnet drawing people from outside, won' t this magnify the problem we already have in Salem, would these questions answered. Dorothy Cohen, 265 Essex St. , what happens to these people the rest of the day, where is the funding coming from, I have lots of questions, there should be more material made available, at this point I am hesitant. In Rebuttal: James Stewart, I would like to respond to some of the questions that have been raised. The North Shore Shelter Committe is responsible for the operation and maintenance and the supervision. They receive money from Federal Government. Also received donations. Presently have balance of $2,000. We have a 25 bed limit will not allow any more than 25. During the day this is no place to go at the present, there is plans to set up a day center so there will be place to go. Also have referral service. Given the threat to life it is worth the gamble. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas asked Mr. Stewart how long the Church had been there. Believes it's been there since 1832. Prior to 1965 has anyone ever resided in the Church. No one ever lived there, prior to 1832 is was a theater. Mr. Bencal, agrees with statements made by Councillor Usovir.z, we must consider the homeless and the neighbors. The homeless are an almost invisible group, very much unspoken for today, but it is not a political decision but what we can do legally as a Board. The Board can do a variety of things, one of which to to set a time limit, Mr. Stewart asked for a year but a year would bring them back in the middle of winter again, perhaps the Board to make it 6 - 9 months. Give them time to work out some of the problems. Mr. Stewart felt a year was the minimal amount of time to show that it can work. Mr. Hacker asked if he could live with 6 months. Would be difficult, could probably MINUTES - JANUARY 25, 1984 page four 7 Crombie St. - Continued live with nine months. Mr. Bencal asked if he anticipated less people needing this shelter in the summer months. Mr. Stewart said there is no season on the homeless but it is less life threatening in the summer. Mr. Bencal asked about other people from the North Shore, during the meals program have you notice people from other areas, how far do they come. Mr. Stewart said most are within a mile, easily two thirds are Salem people, some people to come from Lynn but a very small percentage. Mr. Luzinski, same concerns as Mr. Bencal, if we go for a year we will be back in January, the coldest time of the year. Thinks we should go for 6 or 9 months. Mr. Hacker asked what there intent was, to show us it can work in this year and then come back and make it permanent. The Shelter Committee does not want to stay at the Church, we are looking for different facility, a more suitable location. Mr. Charnas, very much in favor of the proposal but under the law you must show hardship to the owner or petitioner which would be the church, I don' t think, even if we granted this, it would stand up in court. Mr. Hacker asked if the Board could grant a Special Permit. Mr. Charnas said no, it is not a Special Permit use. Mr. Hopper said he was in favor of this but would like if for the year. Mr. Hacker felt the 6 months would be better because it forces them to look for better place in the summer also, they would have to come back to the Board before the really cold weather sets in. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition in strict accordance with the rules and regulations set forth in the Crombie Street Outreach dated December 29, 1983 (on file) , this Variance is granted for the period of eight months from the date the decision is filed with the City Clerk. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 7 Pyburn Ave. - Eva Miller • Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the premises to be used as a Beauty Salon in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objection. Mrs. Miller presented herself to the Board, she submitted a petition in favor signed by 14 neighbors. She explained she had a daughter to care for and was having a hard time finding a baby sitter, her husband is a fire fighter and his work shift is varied. This would be ideal because she could work out of her home and would not have to work as long or as late as she does now. Mr. Hopper, will this be appointment only? Yes. How many people would you have there at one time? No more than two. What are the hours of operation? Nine to five, Tuesday through Saturday. We have plenty of parking. Speaking in favor: Councillor Len O' Leary, these are good people, the neighbors are in favor. Jean Gillespie 5 Ravenna Ave. , Irene Provost, 9 Pyburn Ave. , Jane DiMambro, 1 Ravenna Ave. , Ramon Sawyer, 5 Pyburn Ave. , Gilbert Gillespie, 5 Ravenna Ave. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper, thinks it should be a Special Permit. Mr. Hacker explained to Mrs. Miller the difference between a Special Permit and a Variance. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow a beauty shop at the premises, the hours of operation to be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Tuesday through Saturday. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 50 Winter Island Road - Winter Island Commission The petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow the parking of no more than sixty recreational vehicles during the months of june through October 1984. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from Councillor Nowak requesting the • Board get an opinion from the City Solicitor before making a decision. Gary Moore, Manager of Winter Island represented the petitioners. This request is for a renewal, this has been ongoing since 1979• Speaking in favor: George McCabe, there has not been any major problems there and I want to be recorded in favor. John Hayes, Chairman of the Winter Island Commission,we have overseen the operation of the and the self contained campers, these are all self contained. We have a couple MINUTES - JANUARY 25, 1984 page five Winter Island - Continued • of large groups that stay, the Wally Byam group, these are a very nice group, also the Family Motor Coach, the handicapped travelors, we do have some stragglers, the closest other place is in Middleton. It is an asset to Salem. Howard Knight, businessman here in Salem, I am connected with the Wally Byam Group, I was instrument- al in getting them in Salem. These are people in excess of 60 years and this is our sixth season. Ralph Hobbs, Secretary for the Winter Island Commission, I saw the City Solicitor on the street and he said that this year he was not going to investigate any ramifications for the camp ground. Speaking in opposition: George Berry, Columbus Square, I am opposed to this and any other commercial activity on Winter Island, it is my contention that no commercial activity is in fact or should be the position of the City of Salem. Submitted a copy of an agreement between the City of Salem and the Plummer Home for Boys., adopted by the City Council 8/7/80 and signed by Mayor Levesque 8/27/80. Call your attention to Section 5B on page three. which states no commercial activity shall be permitted on the property to be conveyed except a municipally operated marina and an acillary snack bar or gift shop to be operated under the auspices of the Park or Recreation Department of the City of Salem, or the National Park Service, I respectfully request the Board deny this petition. In rebuttal: Gary Moore, that is in fact a quotation of the agreement but if you read futher on it describes the function of the Winter Island Commission, this not so much, quote, a commercial function but an approved function by the City Council. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski asked how many would be there at one time, or rather what is the most you have had there at one time. Mr. Mbore said that last year it was 47 but in the past there have been 50 - 55. Mr. Charnas felt this should be approved on condition the City Solicitor does no come down in the next 20 days and say it is illegal. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant the petition • and allow the overnight parking of not more that sixty recreational vehicles as requested. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 255-259 Washington St. - Stephen Ingemi Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and/or a Variance from all density, setbacks, height and parking requirements in order to divide the property in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Attorney John Serafini, Jr. 63 Federal St. , represented the petitioner. Displayed plans to the Board. This property is on Mill Hill, built originally by Mr. Audit, built the apartment house and adjacent built his home. This continued till it was purchased by the Ingemi's. It is now necessary to sell the apartment, nothing will change, except the separation of these two parcels. It is not creating anything new. This is just to allow the transfer of the property. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski said this looked like it was just housecleaning, they will still have to go to the Planning Board. Mr. Hopper asked him where the division would be, he showed him on the map. Mr. Charnas asked if he was comfortable calling this a Special Permit. Mr. Serafini said he was, felt this came under the Special Permit section. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 4 Locust St. - Peter Christopher At this time Mr. Hopper withdrew from hearing this petition because of a conflict of interested. Mr. Hacker explained to Mr. Christopher that as there would only • be four members hearing this petition it would take a unanimous vote of the Board to grant the request and he could now request Leave to Withdraw if he so desired. David Jacquith, Architect, representing the petitioner said they would have it heard. Mr. Bencal mentioned the fact that on the application the address was Locus Street, rather that Locust St. and it was advertised as Locus St. It was decided that there was no problem as the proper abutters were notified. The petitioner requested MINUTES - JANUARY 25, 1984 page six 4 Locust St. - Continued !• a Variance from lot coverage and side yard setbacks to construct an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he had no objections. David Jacquith, Ober St. , Beverly, represented the petitioner and displayed plans to the Board. He explained that most of the lots in the area are small lots. The proposed addition will be within 7+ feet of the side and will be over the required minimum lot coverage. These lots are undersized to begin with, this is a ranch house, the addition will be a single story family room, will not be any taller than the existing house, will not change character of the neighborhood. He submitted a letter in favor from Gertrude Pratt, 2 Locust St. Mr. Hacker read the letter into the record. Mr. Charnas asked where the hardship was. Mr. Jacquith said it was the size of the lot and the shape. Speaking in favor: Douglas Hopper, Mr. Christopher, Lee Cimini, 7 Locust St. , Capt. Goggin, Fire Marshal stated they had the smoke detecters and they were certified. In Opposition: Attorney William Mahoney, 81 Washington St. , representing The Jodoins, 3 Larch Ave. , they are the abutters in the rear. Disagrees with the sideline table and the minimum front line depth. Application is at fault, there is no hardship. This addition would interfere with my clients view, would block the sun and air movement. Mr. Jacquith never mentioned the shed in the application. Mrs. Kallas, 4 Bay View Circle, concerned there would only be 21 feet between the buildings, would block view from my picture window. In rebuttal: Mr. Jacquith, because this is a corner lot it is my opinion that there are two sidelines and no rear. Any alternative would also require a variance. As far as view, it would not be blocked. All the homes have fences, there is no view. The shed is a small tool shed and has been there about twenty years. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas was concerned about the hardship. Mr. Hacker does not want to grant this and cause problems for Mrs. Kallas. Mr. Bencal, isn' t she now looking at a wall, there is a fence there. • Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Luzinski and Mr. Bencal. VOTING TO DENY: Mr. Charnas and Mr. Hacker. PETITION DENIED. 21-23 Putnam St. - Robert Cameron (Petitioner) Raymond & Theresa Cloutier (Owners) Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconformity by allowing the transfer of a strip of land approximately 11 ' x 75' from 21-23 Putnam St. to 19 Putnam St. , this is an R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Attorney John Whipple represented the petitioner. He explained that Attorney Bowes, the original attorney, could not be here tonight. He displayed plans to the Board, showing them the strip of land in question. He explained that the Cloutier property would be conforming except for size, the Cameron lot will be increased. Mr. & Mrs. Cameron were recorded in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 63-631, 65-652' Boston St. & 4 Proctor St. - Edward Mello Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to change the existing nonconforming use from a mixed commercial/residential use to a wholly residential use in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections providing A.C. hardwired detectors be installed. Leonard Femino, Esq. , 63 Federal St. represented the petitioner, he • explained that Mr. Mello has tried to rent the commercial part but has been unable to do so. There will be no exterior changes, all work will interior. Presently there are five apartments, a townhouse and two stores. In 1982 the Board of Appeal granted a Special Permit to allow the commercial stores, since that time they have not been able to rent them. There are 12 parking spaces, this will not be detri- mental to the neighborhood. Mr. Hopper asked how many units there will be altogether. MINUTES - JANUARY 25, 1984 page seven 63-63}, 65-631 Boston St. and 4 Proctor St. - Continued • Mr. Femino said there would be 8 altogether and parking for 12 cars. Speaking in favor: Mr. Edward Mello. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Hacker felt the property would be better as apartments. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested in accordance with plans of file and on condition a Certificate of Occupancy and Use be obtained. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 468-474 Highland Ave. - Paul Sudenfield (Petitioner) Gregory Alexandrou (Owner) Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the construction of an automotive repair facility in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections subject to approval of plans. Anthony Goldstien, Esq. , represented the petitioner, he displayed plans to the Board. He explained the lay of the land and showed where there was a cliff, this is totally unbuildable, there is an easement for the City of Salem and is kept as a paved area, by building above ground we can avoid some of the problems. Abuts major shopping center. If he was putting in a service station he could have done so without coming to the Board, the only difference here there will be no underground tanks or pumps. Will be one story building on slab. The hardship is with the unbuildable nature of the land. Will not sell gas. Mr. Bencal asked if there would be any blasting. Does not think so, all they have to do is put in the utility lines. They are here before the Board because in B-2 this is not an allowed use. Mr. Faulkner, Architect from Marblehead, explained the siting of the building. There is a cliff that goes out about 35 feet, we sited the building in such a way, there is a flat surface and it appears this ground is buildable, we have done some preliminary probing, not test pourings, does not seem to be inordinate amount of • ledge. When we met with Mr. McIntosh on this project there was not a specific designation in the zoning district that calls for this type of facility. This will be small repair without the gas pumps. Mr. Charnas said he did not understand why they needed a Variance, thought it would be covered by automobile service stations. Mr. McIntosh explained the difference between repair and service, it is a fine line, a technicallity. Mr. Charnas did not feel it needed a Variance. Mr. McIntosh pointed out the need for a VAriance from the rear setback. Mr. Goldstein said that could be corrected by moving the building four feet. There will be no painting. Appearing in favor was Mr. Alexandrou, the owner. Capt. Goggin explained the dif- ference between service and repair. Mr. Goldstein said they would prefer to have the variance in case of any future problems. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal felt the Board should put a condition that no painting or auto body repair be done. Mr. Hopper, would like to make it clear we are granting a variance for use only, they will have to move the building the four feet. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a variance on condition no painting or auto body work be done on the premises. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 106 Bridge St. - Lawrence Snyderman (Petitioner) Systems Improvements, Inc. (Owner) Petitioner is requesting variances from lot area, width, coverage, setbacks, use and parking in order to use the existing building as an automobile muffler repair and service shop in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objection provide all permits and licenses be obtained. John Serafini, Jr. , Esq. represented the petitioner. This building is vacant, it used to be a car wash, was a car wash since 1967, prior to that there was a similar use. The only change will be a small addition, he • showed on the plans where the addition would be. The height will change slightly to make it uniform. There will be minor alterations. This will be a muffler shop. MINUTES - JANUARY 25, 1984 r r page eight 106 Bridge St. - Continued • There will be no noise, all work will done inside. There is parking for 19 cars. The tanks will be taken out, this will not have the short time volume that a car wash or a service station would have. Speaking in favor: Elizabeth Murphy, 113 Bridge St. , pleased that someone is beginning to restore this area, the front should be in accordance with the SRA now that they are looking into this neighborhood. Stanley Usavicz, Councillor, only concerned with the gas tanks,would like to make sure they are removed. John Walsh, Cross Street, would like to be sure this will be closed in, all the doors will be closed. Would like to be sure the old refuse is going to be closed in, the old brake shoes etc. , would like to see a dumpster. Robert Wiener, Esq. , in favor. Mrs. Snyderman, in favor. Speaking in opposition: William Atridge, 15 Cross St. , when people think of Bridge St. they think of commercial area, but there are a lot of homes there. Concerned about the traffic. Too many times variances are granted with conditions but the people ignore these conditions would like to make sure they go along with the conditions. Mr. Serafini pointed out that this property could still be used as a car wash or a gas station, this business would not have the volume of traffic that those uses would have. Mr. Hacker told Mr. Atridge that if they have any complaints to report them to Mr. McIntosh, the Building Inspector. Mr. Atridge said he would still like to see this denied. In Rebuttal: Mr. Serafini, all junk storage will be inside, there will be no cars left outside, the hours will be 8:00 a.m. till 5:30 p.m. , don' t think there will be a need for a dumpster, they are working with the SRA con- cerning the landscaping. Hearing closed. The Board had a discussion about the hours of operation, finally agreed on 7:30 a.m. till 6:00 p.m. monday through sat- urday. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance in accordance with plans on file an condition that: refuse be stored inside or in a dumpster with a fence and a gate, the hours of operation be 7:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday, the area be landscape, that previous nonconforming use no longer be permitted and that the gas tanks and pumps be removed. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. Hearing adjourned 10:40 p.m. , next scheduled hearings will be a Special hearing on February 8, 1984 for the petition of Mike Stasinos, 394 Highland Ave. , next regular hearing will be February 15, 1984, 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, p Brenda M. Sumrall, Clerk f (Ili#g of ,Salem, fflttssar4use##s i q Paurb of tAppvd °buius MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - FEBRUARY 8, 1984 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, February 8, 1984 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 December 7, 14, 1983. Abutters and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Present were: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Hopper, Luzinski and Bencal. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member. 394 Highland Ave. - Mike Stasinos This petition was continued from the December 21 , 1983 meeting. Mr. Hacker read a letter from Attorney George Vallis, representing the applicant, requesting this petition be withdrawn. Letter dated February 1 , 1984. Mr. Hacker explained that as this petition was heard on December 21 , 1983 and a Special Meeting set up for February 8, 1984, it required a formal vote to allow withdrawal. Mr. Hacker brought to the attention of the Board a letter from Councillor Grace regarding a meeting with neighbors reqarding .this application, and urging the Board to allow petitioner to withdraw. Mr. Bencal made a motion to allow Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW. Mr. Hacker wanted to go on record as commending the applicant on his willingness to work with the neighbors to try to work out the problems. Hearing adjourned at 7:05 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday, February 15, 1984, 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk 'Co,os e (Qi#u of "ittlem, fflttssar4usetts Aq .. PIIMI'b of 4vP211 •/�p�141M8 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - FEBRUARY 15, 1984 A public hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, February 15, 1984 at 7:00 P.M. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on February 1 , 8, 1984 and notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Present were: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, 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 member. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the January 25, 1984 meeting. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED Mr. Hacker explained to all petitioners that as there were only four members of the Board present that it would take a unanimous vote to grant any of the applications. Anyone wishing to withdraw without prejudice may do so at this time. No petitions were withdrawn. 156 Lafayette Street - Roberto Tassinari Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance to allow petitioner and subsequent owners to use the property as a dentist's office in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department was opposed based on the fact that the owner has not provided the required smoke detectors and obtained a Certificate of Compliance, he also read a letter of opposition from Judith Dery, Vice President-Property Management, Fairmont Realty and a letter in favor from Councillor Jean Marie Rochna. Attorney William Donaldson represented the petitioner, he explained that in 1970 a Special Permit was granted allowing the premises to be used as a dental office however, this permit was for the petitioner only. What petitioner seeks now is not a change of use but to allow subsequent owners to use it as a dental office. There is parking, on site for four cars, the smoke detectors will be installed and inspected. There will be three employees. Attorney Barry Plunkett represented the new dentist, Dr. Fang. Stated they were requesting a Variance and not a Special Permit. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. The Board discussed whether a Variance or Special Permit was needed, it was decided that it should be a Special Permit. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition that: a letter be received from the Pastor of St. Joseph's Parish, 135 Lafayette St. , granting permission to patients of any dentist using these premises to use the church parking area, that a Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Department be obtained; no more than five persons be employed on the premsies; and at least four on site parking spaces be maintained. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15,1984 page two • 9 Hardy St. - Alexander Hincman Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow vacant lot to be used as a parking lot in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letter from the Fire Marshal stating he had no objections. Mr. Hincman represented himself to the Board, explained that by allowing the use of this lot for the parking of ten vehicles it would help alleviate parking problems on Hardy St. When asked if he had any intentions of expanding, he responded no. He showed the Board a petition in favor signed by 21 neighbors. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Ms. Kanadis, first floor, 11 Hardy St. , spoke of problem with dust because of lot being unpaved, caused dirty laundry, also problem with headlights at night, exhaust fumes in the summer when the windows are opened, also concerned with litter and debris. Suggested paving the area and putting in shrubbery to block the lights, then she would no object. In Rebuttal: Mr. Hincman felt the lot was far enough from her house that they could not shine in windows that are five feet above grade, does not like the idea of shrubs and said there is no problem with dust, asked that no conditions be imposed. Hearing closed. Board members favored the petition but were concerned about the dust, felt there should be gravel of lyn-pak and shrubs. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition that there be parking of no more than ten cars be parked there, a six foot shrub barrier be erected on the southern perimeter of the premises from Hardy Street down said perimeter a distance of fifty feet, and that the area be graveled or lyn-pak. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED �• 78 Beaver St. - Harry Eng Petitioner is requesting Variance to construct a two family duplex and attached garages bringing a total of four units in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal (on file) . Attorney Paul Cunney, 2 Salem Green, represented the petitioner. He spoke of the condition of the building before and submitted pictures before and after. Three of the four abutters previously opposed to this petition are now in favor, explained that one of the big concerns was whether the fire trucks to make it down the street. The Fire Marshal in his letter to the Board stated the Engine Companies would have no problem with access to the upper end of Beaver St. He also stated he would suggest to the ward councillor that this end of Beaver St. become a "NO PARKING-TOW ZONE" . As far as hardship is con- cerned, felt it was the cliff, the fact that this is a dead end, also financial hardship. Parking will be on site and the whole area will be im- proved. Speaking in favor: Councillor Len O' Leary, would be improvement to area, also in favor on the No Parking-Tow Zone. Opposed: Mr. George, 81 Beaver St. , concerned about house blocking light from his house, also concerned the water may flood his land. In rebuttal: Attorney Cunney said Mr. Eng was going to build a six foot fence between properties, there will be four on site parking spaces. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petitioner a Variance and a Special Permit on condition that a six foot fence be erected at that edge of the property abutting 74 Beaver St. ; a portion of Beaver St. be made a "NO PARKING-TOW ZONE", the extent of which will be at the descretion of the City Council; grading be done so as the flow of water is away from Beaver St. and that no more than two vehicles be parked on the edge of the property abutting Beaver St. Court. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15, 1984 page three 271 Lafayette St. - Saul Toby/Clifford Abelson (Petitioners) Petitioners are requesting a variance to allow them to use the first floor as a professional office in this R-3 district. Property is presently owned by Richard & Mary Roderick. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department is opposed because they are in violation of Chapter 148, failure to provide approved smoke detectors. Attorney George Vallis represented petitioners, he explained the property is a three family dwelling, it is a large structure which would be easily adaptable to a professional office. There is no problem with parking, have room for at least 10 - 12 vehicles, the requirement is only 6. The petitioners are professional accountants and the pro- posed use will be in harmony with the existing uses on the street and in the immediate neighborhood. Felt the hardship is the size of the property and it's unique location, similar uses have been granted many times in the past. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition on condition a minimum of 6 parking spaces be maintained on site and a Certificate of Occupancy and Use be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 45 Summit Ave. & 10 Cliff St. - Robert McKenna Petitioner is requesting a variance to divide the property into separate lots in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property has not been certified for installation of smoke detectors. Mr. McKenna represented himself, he displayed plans to the Board and explained the division shown would give each lot a usable yard. No one appeared • in favor or in opposition. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 1 Pleasant St. a/k/a 117 Bridge St. - James Joly & David Hurley (Petitioners) Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use namely a liquor store to another nonconformining use, Real Estate Office in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. had no objections. Attorney Carroll Ayers, Wakefield, represented the petitioners, stated the proposed use would be less objectionable than the present use, will be improvement to the property, has parking for six cars, the lot is already paved. This has been a store for 35 years. Building needs a lot of work, no enlargement is contemplated, will be maximum of 4 employees on site. Speaking in favor: Carol Huff, asked if the petitioners owned the building - yes; asked if this is in the Historical District - no. Jean Arcari, 3 Pleasant St. ,is in favor but hopes there will be no high fences. David Lecozici, 4 Pleasant St. , not opposed but concerned the parking lot will become a rendevous area. Councillor Stanley Usovich, real estate is better than a package store but is concerned about the parking. Mr. Joly said there would be less traffic and that the parking will not be a problem, new use will be an improvement. There was no opposition. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit on condition no additional fences erected. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15, 1984 page four . 303 Lafayette St. - Raymond Pelletier, Tr. MOR-PEL Realty Trust Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert the second story of the wood frame garage into a single family dwelling unit in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections provided they receive plans for stamped approval with smoke detectors to be provided and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained upon completion. Attorney Robert Bowes, 301 Lafayette St. represented the petitioner. Mr. Pelletier has been lifelong resident of Salem, this property has been in the family since 1934, property will be improved by making the garage more attractive, will be no parking problem, Mr. Pelletier will be on site to police area and to control tenants. Mr. Bencal said the parking does not conform. Attorney Bowes, not todays requirement but will not be a problem, plenty of parking for present use, there will be no change in requirement, no extension or enlargement. Speaking in favor: Councillor John Nutting, supports this wholeheartedly. David Goggin, 300 Lafayette St. , 100% in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 323 & 323R Lafayette St. - Maureen Stevens Tr. Misal Realty Trust Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert the vacant five unit apartment building at the rear of 323 Lafayette St. and the two family building located at 323 Lafayette St. into condominiums in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating there was no Certificate of Compliance regarding smoke detectors. Attorney Clair Carlson Jr. • represented the petitioner. He submitted a Certificate of Compliance that had been obtained, 2/15/84; spoke of substantial renovations on the property, no relocation of persons, no impact on moderate income persons. Speaking in favor: Paul Raftery, 7 Bristol St. , in favor but would like fence maintained to insure privacy. Councillor John Nutting, totally in favor, glad there will be not tenant disruption. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Charnas asked why both buildings were vacant. Bought that way. Mr. Bencal, not satisfied regarding the tenants, would like affidavit saying no one was forced out. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this until the March 21 , 1984 hearing to allow the petitioners to get an affidavit regarding tenants. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED. Petitioners signed a waiver regarding theirs rights on the time element 81 Highland Ave. - Salem Hospital / Petitioner is requesting variances to convert a Medical Office Building and a l/ building known as Highland Hall into Medical & Dental Office Condominiums, also variances from density as regards, height, number of stories and distance between buildings in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application. Attorney John Serafini, Jr. represented the petitioner, he explained these units will be sold to Hospital Staff doctors, there will be no increase in staff, variance is needed so financing can take place. Use may be less than it was when nurses were in residence at Highland Hall. Still exploring facilities for parking which is a continuous problem. This variance is a good way to keep the good medical talent here that we train when they are interns. Will benefit the city, taxes will be paid by new owners where none are paid now. Mr. Charnas asked what the hardship • is. Mr. Serafini said the hardship is that without variance, Highland Hall could not be used, doctors like to own, the medical office building is already being used for doctors and dentists, no change is contemplated. Speaking in favor: Dan Garrity of Danvers. Speaking in opposition: Gilbert Letarto, 34 Hillside Ave. , concerned about parking, Ed Stetson, parking, Rose Letarto, 34 Hillside AVe. , Parking; Jeff Clark, Hillside Ave. , Colby St. lot causes a lot of problems with parking, Councillor O' Leary, concerned with parking. } ✓ MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15, 1984 page five • 81 Highland Ave. - Continued In Rebuttal: Attorney Serafini, we are talking about a major regional health facility, employs about 1500 professional people. Hospital is no adding anything, only asking for title and ownership change, there will be 23 - 34 units, no increase in traffic or parking, wehave 1200 on site parking now, 307 bed hospital; 42 bed childrens hospital, we are trying to obtaine parking off Jefferson Ave. , land is owned by the City and Power Co. , this would allow for 200 plus additional parking, we are also proceeding with a plan for a parking garage for 500 more cars, this will take a few years to put in place. In the past 15 years, the quality of the hospital has greatly increased, would like to have all parking on site, we are aware of the problem on Colby St. and are trying to resolve them. Mr. Hacker said he could understand the concerns but nothing is being added, Councillor O' Leary is willing to try to get the City to release some land. Mr. Charnas, don' t think the parking will be substantially exacerbated. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition on condition 70 parking parking spaces be maintained around Highland Hall for use by patients and staff, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each building. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. The next scheduled hearing of the Board of Appeal will be 7:00 p.m. , March 21 , 1984 on the second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Richard T. McIntosh Zoning Enforcement Officer RTM:bms �.coN i of "ittlem, 'Mttssar4use##s 3 ' S PIIIIYZt of �kppP2il 1 f 2q 4Y Jb/MIN6 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MARCH 21 , 1984 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held March 21 , 1984 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 7, 14, 1984. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Hopper, Luzinski and Strout The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the February 15, 1984 meeting.. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 323 & 323R Lafayette St. - Maureen Stevens, Tr. Misal Realty Trust / Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing five unit apartment building and two family building into condominiums in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application. This case is continued from the February 15, 1984 hearing. This case was continued because the Board wanted affidavits from \ former tenants stating they voluntarily vacated the premises. Attorney John • } Serafini submitted the necessary affidavits. Mr. Charnas asked if anyone was J occupying the premises now. Mr. Serafini said there was not. No one was opposed to the application. The Members of the Board read the affidavits. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit and allow the conversion to condominiums as set forth in the application and in the plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 21 Fairmount St. - John & Sarah Hayes Petitioner is requesting variances from lot size, setbacks and all density requirements in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. had no objections provided detail plans for rehabilitation be submitted and approved A.C. electrical smoke detectors be installed. Mr. John Hayes represented himself. He explained the plans, he purchased the lot next door, trying to protect his own property and to enlarge his lot, his could be the last chance to buy this piece of property. All I want to do is move the lot line. There is a two and half story building on one lot, and a two story building on the other lot, these will remain as is. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variances from lot size, density, setbacks and frontage to combine lots one and two as shown on plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 20 Barcelona Ave. - Basis Antoniades \ Petitioner is requesting variances from density and setbacks in order to construct • an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal and from Councillor O' Leary in favor. Mr. Antoniades represented himself to the Board, he showed a Letter of Compliance from the Fire Marshal which removes any objection the Fire Dept. had. He explained this MINUTES - MARCH 21 , 1984 page two 20 Barcelona Ave. - Continued addition would be a family room. The variance from side setback was needed because of the shape of the lot, which is at an angle, the proposed addition which is ten feet at the beginning winds up being only eight feet from the lot line. Speaking in favor: Bob Petro, 18 Barcelona Ave. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance from density, side and rear setbacks as set forth in the plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 44-46 Jefferson Ave. - Augusto DaCunha (Petitioner) Ernest Fratangello (Owner) Petitioner is requesting a Variance/Special Permit to allow premises to be used as a bakery/delicatessen/restaurant in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Hacker explained that the first order of business on this petition was for the Board to decide if there was sufficient change in the application to warrant the case being heard. He explained that in November of 1983 Mr. DaCunha came before the Board requesting a restaurant/ coffee and donut shop, this request was denied. According to rules and regulations Mr. DaCunha must wait two years before reapplying unless a substantial change has been made. Mr. Charnas read the application submitted previously and denied. Mr. Hacker asked Attorney Anthony J. DiPerna, representing the petitioner, how this petition is different from the previous petition. Mr. DiPerna explained there would be no baking of doughnuts of the premises, it will not be a full bakery, abutters would not be bothered with the smell of baking doughnuts, which was an objection at the time of the last petition. This will be an expanded • delicatessen, soup, salad and sandwiches. There will be small amount of baking, cookies, cakes, croissants, etc. , will be no deep frying. Mr. Hopper said he did not feel this is substantially different. Mr. Charnas made a motion that the Board not consider this petition because is substantially similar to the petition heard November 16, 1983 and the two year period has not gone by, it would not be proper to hear this. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUS VOTED NOT TO CONSIDER THE PETITION 41 Flint St. - Wayne C. Sousa Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert to two condominiums and to add a third unit in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. He also read a letter of opposition from Dale and Glenn Yale, 153 Federal St. Mr. Sousa represented himself, he submitted plans to the Board. This property is in state of disrepair, has spoken with the Historical Commission and will work with them, will not alter appearance, did put on one coat of paint. The building is vacant, last occupied January 1984 by the previous owners. There is plenty of parking, showed on the plans where there would be spaces for five cars, plenty of room in the rear, but would like to leave as much of the yard as possible. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker said this petition was in two parts, number one, will the Board allow the third unit in an R-2 district. It is a crowded street, there is a letter of opposition, would be opposed to a three family dwelling at this location. Mr. Hopper said he felt the third unit fits in with the building and leans toward allowing it as long as they work with the Historical Commission. . Mr. Hacker said he felt there were a lot of unanswered questions, the parking does not look the best. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow a third unit. Mr. Hopper seconded. On a roll call Vote, Mr. Charnas abstained, Mr. Hopper & Mr. Strout voted to grant, Mr. Hacker and Mr. Luzinski voted to deny. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THIRD UNIT DENIED MINUTES - MARCH 21 , 1984 page three 41 Flint St. - Continued • Mr. Charnas said that before there was a vote on the condominium conversion he would like to be sure there was no coersion regarding previous tenants. Mr. Sousa explained there were no tenants per se, it was an owner occupied dwelling. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit and allow conversion to two condominium units on condition there be no change to the exterior of the building without the approval of the Historical Commission. Mr. Hopper seconded. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION FOR TWO UNITS UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 2 Crowdis St. - Frank & Cheryl Romano Petitioner is requesting variances from lot size, density, setbacks and frontage in order to construct a single family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. had no objection provided plans be submitted for stamped approval. Mr. Romano represented himself, he explained this dwelling would be occupied by himself and his wife. He displayed plans to the Board. As this lot stands now, it is useless, there is no room for growth. Except for the fact that these lots were at one time owned by the same person we would not have to be here, he quoted from the section of the Ordinance relating to non-conforming lots (Grandfather Clause) . He submitted a petition signed by three neighbors and a letter from Mr. Piemonte, 22 Crowdis St. all in favor. Mr. Hacker said he had spoken to Mr. Piemonte and some others and they are in favor. Speaking in favor: Mr. John Walsh, nephew of Mr. Emmerton, the owner, he explained his uncle acquired these lots as an inheritance and would like very much to sell them. Also speaking in favor was Mr. Romano. Speaking in opposition: Richard Sullivan, 138 Highland Ave. , concerned with the blasting, • this is mostly ledge, also concerned with water runoff. John Criscenti, 140 Highland Ave. , also concerned with blasting, said there was a stream on the property and is concerned with water coming into his cellar. Don Soper, concerned about moving soil, water runoff. Harry Takis, 7 Crowdis, this is narrow street, there is an astronomical amount of ledge that would have to be removed, would take a lot of blasting. Mr. Hacker asked him if there were many problems when they blasted for the sewers. Mr. Takis said there was. In Rebuttal: Mr. Romano said he walked the land about a month ago with Mr. Criscenti who pointed out the stream to him. There will be no water problem, the water would flow in another direction, the fire marshal would require my having insurance and there would be a preblast survey done, I would not buy this property if there was a runoff problem. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. McIntosh, the Building Inspector for his opinion. Mr. McIntosh said he was not an expert but would like to see a preblast survey done. Mr. Charnas said he was concerned with the runoff. Mr. McIntosh suggested the Board may want to restrict the elevation. Mr. Hacker said he would like to see this continued to allow the Board to get an opinion from the City Engineer. He asked Mr. Romano if he would waive his rights regarding the time element, Mr. Romano agreed. Mr. Hopper suggested Mr. Romano have his blaster contact the City Engineer. Mr. Hopper made a motion to continued this petition to allow the Board to seek the opinion of the City Engineer and to give petitioner a chance to have his blaster contact the City Engineer. Mr. Luzinski seconded UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED. Mr. Hacker explained to Mr. Romano that the next scheduled hearing is March 28, 1984, if he Board receives the Engineers opinion the case would be heard then, if not it would not be until the April 25th hearing. He also explained to abutters that this would not be advertised again and they would not • be notified. MINUTES - MARCH 21 , 1984 page four 45 Mason St. - Stephen W. Haley • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setbacks in order to construct an addition in this (I) district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Haley represented himself. He displayed plans to the Board and explained this is an auto supply business, will be used for storage, will be 12" block walls, no windows, one story high, flat roof, will be in line with the existing two story building, just an extension. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit as set forth in the plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Winter Island - Eastern Seaboards Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to operate a windsurfing program and to construct a pre-constructed, wood framed building. Mr. Brent Merrill, owner of Eastern Sea Boards represented himself to the Board. He explained that in the past they have had to trailer the equipment to Winter Island, this creates an economic and transportation problem for his company, but putting up this prebuilt structure it will help clean up the area. The building will be 12' x 16' with a 12' x 12' deck. Mr. Luzinski asked what becomes of the building should they decide to move. He said that if Winter Island Commission wanted it, they could have it, or he would take it down. Speaking in favor: Gary Moore, Manager of Winter Island, the experience the Commission has had with these people has been compatible, it is an income source for the Commission, we have been happy with our dealings with these people, heartily endorse this. Mr. John Hayes, Chairman of the Winter Island Commission, this is not a permanent structure, the lease is • on a year to year basis. This has been an asset to Salem, the Commission fully supports this. Ralph Hobbs, Secretary to the Winter Island Commission, also fully supports this, it is an asset. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker said he would like to limit this to one year. Mr. Luzinski felt it was up to the discretion of the Winter Island Commission. Mr. Hayes explained the Commission gave them permit on yearly basis. Mr. Hacker still felt it should just be for one year. Mr. Hopper said he was in favor of three years. Mr. Charnas felt three years was fine. A compromise was reached and the date of January 1 , 1986 was decided upon. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit to construct the pre-constructed building in accordance with plans to to operate windsurfing program until January 1 , 1986. Mr. Luzinski seconded. VOTING TO GRANT: Mr. Charnas, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Luzinski, Mr. Strout. VOTING PRESENT: Mr. Hacker GRANTED 6 Story Road - Robert W. Baker Petitioner is requesting a variance from rear and side setback requirements in order to construct an addition in this R-C District. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the petitioner does not have certificate of compliance regarding smoke detectors. Mr. Baker represented himself. He showed the Board a copy of the Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Dept. dated March 14, 1984. He displayed plans to the Board. Felt the hardship is the size of the house, it is a small house, we are a young family of four and need more room. Thought this was an R-1 district but found out it was RC, the golf course is abutting in the rear. House was built in 1965• Mr. MINUTES - MARCH 21 , 1984 page five • 6 Story Road - Continued Charnas questioned whether a Special Permit or Variance was needed. It was decided a variance. Speaking in favor: Paula Ayatte, 15 Hillside Ave. , Donna Berube. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance from side and rear setbacks to construct an addition as set forth in petition and plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Hopper seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ,next scheduled meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 28, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, p Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk f O��.EOVry, e Ctv of "ittiem, Massachusetts A •, s PnxrD of '�kvtertl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MARCH 28, 1984 A public hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, March 28, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on March 7, 14, 1984. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Hacker, Hopper, Strout and Associate Member Bencal Hearing 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 explained to the assemblage that as there was only a four member Board and it would take a unanimous vote to grant any petition, any one wishing to withdraw without prejudice could do so at this time. Attorney George Vallis, representing John Keane petitioner for 382 Highland Ave. , said he would like to withdraw. He was allowed to do so. 22 Crowdis St. - Frank & Cheryl Romano Mr. Hacker explained to the petitioner and to the assemblage that as this case was continued from the March 21 , 1984 hearing to allow the Board to get / an opinion of the City Engineer and as this opinion was just given to the Board and they have had no opportunity to study it, this case will be continued until the April 25, 1984 hearing. He also explained that two of the members who sat at the last hearing were not hear tonight and Mr. Bencal was not present at the last hearing and in fairness to all concerned it would be best to continued. CONTINUED TILL APRIL 25, 1984. 8 Intervale Road - Edward & June Urbanski Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback by extending rear porch in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the Fire Dept. was opposed to this petition as there is no Certificate of Compliance regarding smoke detectors. Mr. Urbansky represented himself. He submitted a copy of the Certificate of Compliance dated March 27, 1984 (on file) . He explained this would be a 32' x 14' enclosed porch and will be heated, the present porch is enclosed, this will just be an enlargement. Mr. Hopper asked if this was just going to be a one story addition. Mr. Urbanski said it was. Will be no closer to the side yard that the existing house or porch. No one appeared in favor or in , opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to allow the 32' x 14' enclosed porch on condition it be a single story addition as shown on the plan and that detailed plans be submitted to the Building Inspector. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1984 page two 58 Endicott St. - Josephine Ellis & Rosemarie Spinozola • Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objection. Ms. Spinazola and Ms. Ellis represented themselves. They displayed plans to the Board. Explained this would be a basement apartment, there is plenty of parking, the other two stories will stay the same. Mr. Hopper asked if the parking area is paved. Yes it is. Mr. Strout asked how high from the grade the first floor is. They were not sure of the measurements but said it was plenty high. Mr. Bencal asked if it would be owner occupied. Ms. Spinazola said her parents live there. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal said this is a congested area but the petitioners seem to have satisfied the parking requirements. Mr. Hopper said he was not satified with the parking, it looks like they will have to back out onto the street. Mr. Hacker suggested allowing them one curb cut and having them maintain five spaces. Mr. Hopper still felt that the parking the way it is would cause the loss of needed spaces on the street would like to see it different, would like the street spaces saved. Mr. Hacker suggested continuing this till the next meeting to give them a chance to bring some plans regarding the parking. Mr. Hopper said he would also like to see some landscaping. Mr. Hacker explained to the petitioners what the Board wanted and asked them to waive their rights regarding the time requirements. Mr. Hopper made a motion to continue until April 25, 1984, Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL APRIL 25, 1984. 121 North St. - Peter Koutrakis (Petitioner) Levardi Rossi (Owner) iPetitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend existing nonconformity in order to construct an addition in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department had no objections. Attorney Robert Ledoux, 49 Federal St. , Salem represented the petitioner. He explained the petitioner would like a 19' x 25' addition to the existing building which houses Pete's Bait & Tackle Shop. This is a small lot located in an R-2 district but this has been a commercial building since at least 1916 when it was a harness shop. That's as far back and research could determine. As far as the Zoning Ordinance goes, it states a nonconformity may be extended as long as it is not more detrimental. There are many businesses in the area. He displayed pictures, submitted petition in favor signed by neighbors and abutters. Pete's Tackle Shop has been there for five years, came before the Board at that time for the use. Speaking in favor: Mr. Rossi, 500 Northshore Rd. Peabody, owner of the property, Mr. John Gilchrist, 1 Tremont Place, Salem. Speaking in opposition: Mr. Staley McDermet, 30 Dearborn St. , opposed to more business use on this street. Mr. Koutrakis runs a good business but that is not the question, the property does not look very attractive. Questioned the expansion of business in this area, feels it leads to lowering of property values. If it is granted there are some conditions would like to see. 1 . would like to see clapboard or shingles rather than cinder block 2. two exterior openings (windows) , this would fit in better with the residential flavor of the neighborhood 3. business not be expanded beyond present site. In Rebuttal: Attorney Ledoux said they could not expand the business without coming before the Board. Mr. Hopper asked if the addition would be for customers or what. It would primarily be for display. Mr. Bencal asked if this would add to the volume of business. Could not honestly say. People do come to this type business to browse, they get what they want and leave. Mr. Hopper said he was in favor of this with the conditions mentioned by Mr. McDermet. Mr. Hacker, would like to see the shingles of clapboard, but had problem with windows regarding security and to have windows boarded up is less attractive than no windows. Mr. Hopper MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1984 page three • 121 North St. - Continued asked if having windows would present a problem to the petitioner. Attorney Ledoux said he would be concerned with security. Mr. McDermet suggested fake windows, they look real but are secure. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition for Special Permit to extend nonconformity to allow construction of an addition as submitted on condition entire building and addition be cedar shingled or wood clapboard and be designed inkeeping with the neighborhood and as shown on plans submitted. The granting Special Permit for continued use as Bait and Tackle Shop only. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 33 Balcomb St. - Jon & Steve Kalivas 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 application and a letter from the fire marshal. Jon & Steve Kalivas represented themselves. This will be owner occupied when completed, they displayed plans, showed where the parking will be, they have three car garage and room next to the garage for three more cars. Mr. Bencal made note that this parking area slopes down to Foster Court. Jon Kalivas said there would be no exterior changes. Mr. Bencal asked what was there before. Mr. Kalivas said it was an apartment before they bought it. Mr. McIntosh, the Building Inspector asked it they were doing work there, said he had received some complaints. They explained they were removing insulation, but that was all. No on appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the Special Permit to convert • to three family as shown on drawings submitted on condition it be owner occupied, if it ceases to be owner occupied it shall revert back to two family, parking for five vehicles be maintained on site from Foster Court; Certificate of Com- pliance and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; there be no structural changes. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 23 Albion St. - Clifford Speicher Petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setbacks in order to construct an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they were opposed as there was no Certificate of Compliance regarding smoke detectors. Mr. Speicher represented himself, he sub- mitted a copy of a Certificate of Compliance issued March 26, 1984. Displayed plans, showed on the plot plan where the addition is going to be. Submitted a petition in favor signed by neighbors. This will be a one story family room, 15 x 301 , will be owner occupied. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. The Board felt Mr. Speicher needed a Special Permit rather than a Variance. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow con- struction of a single story 15' x 30' addition as shown on plan on condition the distance on the north side not be less than the existing side line. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 9 Warren St. - John J. Flynn Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance to divide a parcel of land into two parcels and to construct a single family dwelling on one parcel, • the other parcel already containing a dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. He also read letters from MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1984 ` page four 9 Warren St. - Continued • the Salem Historical Commission, Salem Planning Board, and Mr. John Lock, all opposed, a petition of opposition signed by twenty two neighbors. Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , represented the petitioner, passed out pamphlets to the Board Members containing copies of the deed, Assessors Map, plot plan and exhibits A through E showing different locations for the proposed dwelling. He also passed out copies of the Zoning Ordinance section V paragraph 10 concerning extension of nonconformity. He stated mar. Flynn has been life long resident of Salem, has lived on Warren St. since 1958. When he bought the property it was described as two parcels. At that time there was no zoning, he could have built on both parcels. The house he lives in now is three story, 13 room home, it is a single family, they raised seven children there, Mrs. Flynn had a heart attack and due to health problems, plus the fact the children are grown, the house is too big but they would like to continue to live on Warren St. This will be in keeping with the neighborhood, this lot is by far one of the largest and even after dividing if would be appropriate. He then showed on exhibit E where Mr. Flynn would like to locate the proposed dwelling, in this location all it would need is variance from frontage, it meets all the other requirements, because of the configuration it would be impossible to put house without violating one of the setbacks. Likes it close to the front, would like a large yard. Would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Even when divide it would be one of the larger lots in the area. Because of Mrs. Flynn's health would like a single story house. Will certainly go to the Historical Commission. Need Variance for setbacks and Special Permit to subdivide. Mr. Bencal asked if the neighbors had seen all the exhibits. No they have not. Speaking in favor: Capt. Goggin, Fire Marshal, first, would like to go on record as stating that Mr. Vallis is • using a false address, his correct address is not One Church st. , second, the reason the fire department is opposed is because the smoke detectors are in the wrong location, they will be moved so we will waive our objection. Speaking in opposition: James Lynch, 5 Warren St. , the Flynns are the best neighbors we could hope for, however, we feel this would be detrimental. This would crowd my house. Presently there is about 100 feet on either side of my house, if this is granted I will have only 17 feet from the next house. This would cause hardship on us. Would change the nature of living we have now. The Historic Commission says they would have to have a two story house to fit in with the neighborhood and that is what they have now, see no advantage. The neighborhood is nice to live in because it is not crowded, another house there would be adverse, would decrease the quality of life in the area, zoning is supposed to prevent overcrowding. Alice Steinicke agrees with her husband, James Lynch, we bought our house because of the land around it. Elizabeth Dice, 10 Flint St. , likes the view. Linda Larkin, 1 Warren St. , moved here recently, impressed with the historical district, would like to see zoning maintained. In Rebuttal: Attorney Vallis, the house that Mr. Flynn is going to build will be a six room house, will be two story, cannot understand Mr. Lynch's objections, it is conceivable that should Mr. Flynn sell this land, someone could buy it and put in a garage without even coming to the Board of Appeal. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker, sympathizes with the Flynns, but is opposed. Mr. Hopper, would be detrimental. Mr. Bencal, neighbors bought because of the area and we should respect that. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition for a variance/ Special Permit to subdivide and construct dwelling. -Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 19 MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1984 / page five (/ • TREMONT PLACE AND IRVING STREET - GEORGE PAPAMECHAIL Petitioner is requesting a Variance to construct six two bedroom condominium units in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he had no objection. Attorney Durkin, •Peabody, represented the petitioner. He explained the proposal for^.ten apartments that was withdrawn on February 16, 1983. Mr. papamachail lost the option to buy and just recently got a Purchase and Sale agreement. The proposed six units is the result of working with the neighbors and it has their overwhelming approval. They would like to see owner occupied. It is not practical to have anything but multifamily there. Hopes the Board will find this more acceptable to what is now there. This will have to be exterminated before it is demolished. Councillor McCabe has worked very hard with the neighbors and has had two meetings over the last couple of months. He submitted pictures of the site as it presently looks. Mr. Hacker asked if there was anyone in favor: Mr. Edward Freeman, 20 Irving St. , said he was neither for or against, really neutral, but would like to ask a couple of questions. How much will these units will cost. Attorney Durkin said between 65 & 75 thousand per unit. Mr. Freeman asked about the parking, the entrance and exit. Attorney Durkin said there would be parking for 15 cars. The entrance and exit would be Tremont Place to Irving St. right through. Mr. Freeman went on record as not opposed or in favor, is concerned with congestion. Speaking in favor: Councillor McCabe, this is the proposal the neighbors like the best. We have had a couple of meetings in the Council Chamber, neighbors are concerned about fire. Hopes this will be granted tonight. Jack Gilchrist, Irving St. , there is a problem with rats, I have seen a couple that I thought • were dogs they were so big, the problem will get worse. Donna Esterbrook, 30 Irving St. , warmer weather is coming and kids will begin to hang around there, it is dangerous. It is a fire hazard. Philip Pickett, 42 Irving St. , there is a pit out back that if children ever fell into it, it would be disastrous. Marcia Clemens, 37 Irving St. , Ms. Pzenny, 6 Tremont Place, Mrs. Martin, 39 Irving Si. , Steve Esterbrook, 30 Irving St. All in favor. Attorney Durkin, the hardship concerns everyone in the area. Hearing'closed. Mr. Bencal, we are removing a hazard, I was at one of the meetings Councillor McCabe held and I agree that anything else is cost prohibitive. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition as requested and as shown on plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be held on April 25, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. Resjppeetfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk • (tai#g of tt1em, 'Mttssar4use##s r Poxrb of �kppwd MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - APRIL 25, 1984 A public hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, April 25, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of said hearing having been duly advertised in Salem Evening News on April 11 , 18, 1984. Abutters and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Hacker, Hopper, Strout and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr.� Bencal and Mr. LaBrecque were appointed voting members. Mr. Bencal was appointed Acting Secretary. Mr. Bencal made a motion to accept the minutes of the March 21 , 1984 meeting and the March 28, 1984 meeting. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 2 Crowdis Street - Frank & Cheryl Romano (Petitioners) Donald Emmerton (Owner) This petition was continued from the March 21 , 1984 hearing. Petitioner requests variances from lot size, density, setbacks & frontage in order to construct a (� single family dwelling in this R-1 district. Petition was continued to allow the i Board an opportunity to get an opinion from the City Engineer regarding possible water problems resulting from blasting. This originally was continued until the March 28th hearing, but as the opinion of the City Engineer was not received until that date, the Board Members did not have an opportunity to look it over. Mr. Bencal read the petition and the letter from the City Engineer. He also read a letter from the Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc. to Richard Sullivan, 138 Highland Ave. , regarding the effects blasting would have on surface runoff. Mr. Bencal read the minutes of the March 21st hearing to bring Mr. LaBrecque, who was not present, up to date on the petition and to refresh the memory of the other members of the Board. Mr. Hacker said he viewed the property, it is in character with the other lots in the area, did see water. I have a problem with granting this, there are not curbs, no catch basins, would cause problems. Mr. Hopper said he would like to hear from Mr. Romano regarding the blasting. Mr. Romano said the blasting would be regulated by the Fire Department, it would have to be done safely, would cause no problems, my blaster had contacted the City Engineer, I don' t know if he was satisfied. Mr. Bencal, the City Engineer seemed not to really give an answer, the only other correspondences is that of the Eastern Land Survey Associates, it is apparent from that report there would be major problems if this is allowed to go through, I am not confortable with this. Mr. Strout asked Mr. Romano what steps are being taken regarding the water problem. Mr. Romano said there was no water problem, if you got an unbiased opinion you would find there is no problem with water. Mr. Hacker said he was unbiased, I walked the land and there was water there. Mr. McIntosh, the Building Inspector, told Mr. Romano that • if there is water there, there are things that can be done to make the water go where you want it to go, such as catch basins. Mr. Hopper, the evidence we have shows the blasting would be detrimental. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition for variance, Mr. Hopper seconded. Voting to deny the motion: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Bencal and Mr. LaBrecque. Voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Strout. PETITION DENIED r , MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1984 page two • 58 Endicott St. - Josephine Ellis & Rosemarie Spinazola Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 District. This petition was continued from the March 28, 1984 meeting. Petition was continued to allow petitioners to bring in more suitable plans regarding parking. Ms. Ellis & Ms. Spinazola displayed the new plans to the Board. Mr. Bencal asked if there would be a problem for them if one of the restrictions was that it be family occupied. Mr. Hacker, does not think the Board can do that. Mr. Hopper, can we terminate this if it is sold. Mr. Hacker, we can but cannot see why we would want to. Mr. Hopper, would like to restrict this to the petitioners keeping ownership of the property. Mr. Hacker explained to the petitioners that the Board would grant this but if they sold the property it would go back to being two family dwelling. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petitioners request for a Special Permit to convert to a three family dwelling on condition that if property is sold it will revert back to a two family dwelling. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 19 Green St. - David L'Heureux Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to continue use of the premises as a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. He also read a petition signed by nine neighbors ' in favor. Mr. L'Heureux represented himself, he explained he had a Purchase and Sale agreement with Peter Harriss, 21 Washington St. , Groveland. He told the Board he had come to the Board for a Special Permit and was granted such in June, 1982. One of the conditions of this Special Permit was that it remain owner occupied. • He now wants to sell the property and Mr. Harriss the future owner would like it to remain a three family. Mr. Hopper asked Mr. Harriss if he would have any objection to a condition it remain owner occupied. Mr. Harriss said he would not as he did intend to live there. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the request for a Special Permit to continue the use as a three family on condition the property continue to be under the ownership and will be occupied by the new owner, Mr. Harriss. In the event that the new owner ceases to own or occupy the property, the property shall revert back to its prior use as a two family dwelling. Nothing in this decision shall be interpreted to prevent a reapplication to this Board in the event new owner ceases to own or occupy the property; two parking spaces shall be maintained on site. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 8-10 River St. - Stephen Whittier Petitioner is requesting Variances from all density and setback requirements in order to construct a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and letters from the Fire Marshal and the Historical Commission, both favorable. Mr. Whittier represented himself, displayed plans to the Board. Explained this would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Speaking in favor: Donald Hunt, 2 River St. , last fall a different petition was before this Board and myself and other neighbors were opposed, that was for a two family, this plan tonight is better suited to the neighborhood. Paul Willis, 4 River St. , Ann Knight, 11 River St. , John Carr, 7 River St. , Abby Burns, 12 River St. , Kathy Willis, 4 River St. , all spoke in favor. No one appeared in opposition. • Mr. Bencal, as long as the petitioner meets the parking, I have no problem with this. Mr. Hacker, this is an unstamped plan, does not show dimensions. I have a problem granting this carte blanche. Mr. Hopper, there are enough safe guards here. Mr. Whittier showed Members a plan that had the dimensions. , MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1984 page three 8-10 River St. - Continued • Will be -0- ft. front, 7' side yard. Mr. Hopper, should allow him to go closer, maybe 5' on side, westerly. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant petition the requested variance to zero feet frontyard, 5 ft. side line (westerly) and 8 ft. sideline (easterly) , variance from frontage & density on condition, two parking spaces be maintained on site, Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, complete plans be submitted to the Building Inspector. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 15-17 Read St. - Richard DeForrest Petitioner is request a Variance to rebuild four unit apartment building that was consumed by fire and to convert to four unit condominiums in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Attorney William Donaldson, 6 Lynde St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. He explained that the original four unit apartment building was destroyed by fire and the owner would like to rebuild as four unit condominium. Will be substantially on the same foundation, part of the foundation will not be used, this will allow additional parking. Will be six parking bays, will be large back yard and it will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Will comply with Fire Department regulations. Mr. McIntosh said he had spoken with Councillor Lovely regarding this petition and the Councillor was in favor. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Hopper, no problem with this. Mr. Bencal, it is a laudable project. Mr. Hacker, would like to see some kind of shrubs in the back yard. Mr. Strout asked if there was any kind of fence. Mr. DeForrest, presently just a chicken wire fence. Mr. Hopper, would like to see fence. Mr. Hacker, if there is any lighting would like • it to be on the perimeter facing inward. Mr. Bencal, shrubs should be facing Story St. so lights won' t shine on residences. Mr. Hopper, should either be solid fence or solid shrubs. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition as requested on condition: if there are any lights installed on perimeter they be placed so as to face inward and away from residences, there be solid fence or solid bushes to prevent lights shining into neighbors property, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 11-13 Bryant St. - Mark Leibowitz Mr. Hopper asked to withdraw from hearing this application. Mr. Leibowitz then asked for Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. His application is for a Special Permit to convert to a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 6 Prince St. - Robert P. McCauley Petitioner is requesting Variances from all density and setbacks as the relate to Lots A & B in this R-3 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. McCauley represented himself, he explained he just wanted to divide the lots, will make no changes, wants to sell the house on lot B and will keep lot A that has the garage. Mr. Hopper asked him to explain what the hardship was. He was unable to give any. Speaking in favor was Mr. Richard Clement, 3 Park St. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper, not happy about the size of the lot he wants to make, cannot see any hardship. Mr. Hopper made a motion to deny the petition. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED r MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1984 page four • 12 Scotia St. - John B. Conroy Petitioner is requesting Variances from all density and setbacks in order to construct a 24' x 24' garage in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department would have no objections provided a Certificate of Compliance be obtained. Mr. Bencal also read a petition in favor from four neighbors. Mr. Conroy represented himself, he submitted a copy of the Certificate of Compliance from the Fire department, dated April 24, 1984. He displayed plans and said the garage would not be blocking any view. Mr. Bencal, will the garage be on the left or the right of the house. Looking at the house from Scotia St. it will be on the left. Mr. Bencal, appears to plenty of room for vehicles now, why the need for a garage. Mr. Conroy, right now I have to park my plow outside all year. This will be for storage of vehicles only. Speaking in favor: Mr. Paskowski, 11 Scotia St. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hopper, does not see any proble with hardship. Mr. Bencal, could be the size of the lot. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant the petition for Variances from side and rear setbacks and density in order to construct a 24' x 24, garage provided that said garage is used for storage of vehicles only,is not to be used for residential purposes. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED / 24 Norman St. - Robert Bramble (Petitioner) N.E. Telephone (Owner) )/ Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow 38 dwelling units in this B-3 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Attorney George Vallis, Church St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. This building, as I am sure you are all familiar with, was used by the Telephone Co. Residential use is not allowed in this zone. There are only eight parking spaces on site, under the Urban Renewal we are required to have one space per unit, will address this later. Mr. Vallis read sections of the Urban Renewal Plan. He stated the Zoning Ordinance should be updated to meet the needs of changes in the down town area. These will only be one bedroom units. Submitted letter from the Salem Redevelopment Authority supporting this project. Regarding the parking, spoke with Mr. Rybicki concerning parking in Riley Plaza. Landlord would have to provide yearly stickers for tenants. If condominiums, owner would be responsible. This would be beneficial to Riley Plaza. This is unique piece of property, it is a three story building, no elevators, ceilings very high, not favorable for offices. We have a surplus of office space in the down town area and we do not need any more. He submitted copies of previous Board of Appeal petitions which were similar and were granted (on file) , all these involved arrangements with Off Street Parking Department, the precedent has been established, we will also make arrangements with the Off Street Parking Dept. Mr. Hacker, how much did you pay for the property. $200,000. Attorney Vallis told the Board that a mistake had been made on the application, they requested 38 units, but want 39• No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Frank Montessey, Crombie St. , not opposed to residences but concerned about parking. There is a parking problem in this area, there are never any places for people who already live there. The chances that all these people will park in Riley Plaza are slim, in the application it states there is no problem, well there is a problem. Stephanie Montessey, 15 Crombie St. , there are twenty two parking spaces on Norman St. and there is never one available. People will not want to carry groceries a block and a half. Abby Burns, 15 Chestnut St. , concerned about �• �, parking, does Riley Plaza have any room during the day. Donald Balser, employee for insurance company, speaking for the company, this would be severe regarding the parking. My company provides 120+ parking spaces, any employee parking on the MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1984 page five 24 Norman St. - Continued • street is minimal. On site parking should be provided. Not opposed as far as residences are concerned. Donald Hunt, 2 River St. , Planning Board drew Master Plan encouraging residential development in the downtown area, would like to know if anything was received from the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Hacker said no. Mr. Hunt, we could be robbing people who come downtown of parking spaces. Rene Varrin, 38 Summer St. , concerned about parking. I am sure the Parking Commission would be very happy to get $9,000 a year for parking, but Riley Plaza is not an acceptable solution. In Rebuttal: Attorney Vallis, when the phone company was operating there were at least one hundred people employed there, we are talking about 39 people. The parking area on site would be used for people to bring there groceries, would be temporary parking just for this purpose. These will be studio apartments, Basically just be one person living there. If this was used as office there would be more of a parking problem. Riley Plaza in the evening is virturally empty, the parking commission says there is adequate room, a lot of the people would not necessarily have cars, most of the people would be working during the day and will have there cars with them. Councillor Lovely, the Board of Appeal has a difficult decision to make, I do not want to speak pro or con. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal, I am uncomfortable, for my own, peace of mind, I would like to see something from the parking commission regarding the number of spaces that are available at night and on weekends. If the commission is enthusiastic, I would like to have something in writing. Attorney Vallis, we could get a letter. Mr. Hacker, there is no question they are for it. Mr. Hopper, parking has always been a problem and the city does nothing about it. Mr. Strout, if they provide parking stickers, in favor. Mr. LaBrecque, would like to see parking in basement if possible. Mr. Jacquith, Architect, that is not possible, explained about the structure, if you could put • parking there you could not get more than ten spaces and you would wipe out six of whats already there. There would only be a net gain of four spaces. Mr. Hacker, parking situation is horrible, 39 apartments could generate 39 guests, now you need 78 spaces. Mr. Bencal, would like continuance to get something from the parking commission. Mr. Hopper, continuance not necessary. Mr. Hacker, I know the parking commission is in favor. Attorney Vallis asked the Board to allow him to withdraw the petition at this time. Mr. Hopper made a motion to grant petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. The Board by a vote of four to one, Mr. Hacker opposed, granted LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2 Chestnut St. - James B. Maguire Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert to three condominium units in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. He also read a letter from the Chestnut Street Associates, stating that while they did not want condominiums on Chestnut St. , they were not formally opposed to this particular request. Attorney Paul Lynch, Marblehead, represented the petitioner, explained this is a four story brick building, there are three dwelling units, Mr. Cunney occupies first floor, Mr. Maguire, the second and Mr. Ryan the third & fourth floors. There will be no changes as far as use, will be residential owner occupied. No one will be asked to vacate. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Joyce Cook, 7 Chestnut St. , not formally opposed, just wanted to echo what the Chestnut Street Associates had said in their letter. Capt. Goggin, Fire Marshal, opposed based on the fact that the Fire Department was not given any plans. Building looks like a duplex, no Certificate of Compliance, concernted about if there is a fire wall. Richard Pohl, 25 Chestnut St. , this �• make sense financially, but I am opposed because I have made a big investment and I am concerned about any condominiums on Chestnut St. , other properties in the area could become prime targets for condominiums. Mr. Frederickson, 18 Chestnut St. opposed, to condominiums in area. In rebuttal: Attorney Lynch, all fire MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1984 page six 2 Chestnut St. - Continued laws will be met, there appears to be a fire wall between 2 & 4 Chestnut St. We are not displacing anyone, we are not in anyway affecting the City Ordinance. Mr. Hacker, I have been on this board a long time, and this is the first time Capt. Goggin has been so vocally opposed, would like to continue this. Attorney Lynch, I have no objections to that, however, it is Mr. Hoppers last meeting, perhaps we could have approval on condition we get Fire Department approval. Mr. Hacker, wants to continue. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this until the May 23, 1984 hearing to provide the Baord the opportunity to get adequate feedback from the Fire Marshal and the Building Inspector and the Board receive written waiver of petitioners rights reqarding the time element. Attorney Lynch agreed. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL MAY 23, 1984. Mr. Bencal, for the record, told Mr. Hopper that he appreciated the help given to him since he joined the Board and said the Board would miss his expertise. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. , next scheduled meeting will be May 23, 1984, the Board will meet in executive session at 6:30 p.m. , public hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted 'po Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk 1 a /� . Ctu of "Salem, 'Mttssar4usetts PnxrD of Appeal ��41M6� MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MAY 23, 1984 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, May 23, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on May 9, 16, 1984. Abutters and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Members Present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Bencal. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman Mr. Hacker. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the April 25, 1984. 2 Chestnut St. - James B. Maguire Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert to three condominium units in this R-2 district. The petition was continued from the April 25, 1984 hearing. Mr. Charnas read the application. At the April 25th hearing, the Fire Marshal and the Building Inspector were asked by the Board to inspect the wall separating the buildings at 2 & 4 Chestnut. Mr. Charnas read the response of the Fire Marshal which stated they are completely separated by a complete fire wall. The Fire Marshal also made note in his report that AC Hardwired smoke detectors must be installed prior to any sale of condominium units and that there were no second means of egress from the third floor. Mr. Charnas read the minutes from the April 25th hearing which pertained to this application. Mr. Luzinski said that as he was not present at the last hearing he would not be voting on this petition. Mr. Charnas, also said he would not be voting as he was not present either. Mr. Hacker asked if one of them could possibly vote so there would be a five member vote taken. Mr. Charnas said he would vote. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member for this petition. Capt. Goggin said he had no objection as long as the items outlined in his report were taken care of. Attorney Lynch, representing the petitioners, said the smoke detectors have been installed, they have not yet received the Certificate of Compliance but will get it. Mr. Bencal felt the questions have been answered as far as the Fire Dept. is concerned, but would like to make sure all suggestions from Capt. Goggin are part of the conditions. Mr. Gauthier, as long as we approved the set of floor plans and the fire dept. has no objections, it is fine with him. Mr. McIntosh, the Building Code covers the egresses, Certificate of Occupancy will cover everything. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow conversion to three condominium units under the following terms and conditions: A.C. electrical single station type smoke detectors be installed within individual units, A.C. electrical interconnected smoke detectors within all common area be installed; second means of egress from the third floor constructed; approved doors on the 1st and 2nd floor stairway partitions be provided; and individual Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. By a vote of four in favor, Mr. Charnas abstaining, the motion carried and the petition granted. • GRANTED 1 Mr. Gauthier made a motion to waive the six months waiting period. Mr. Strout seconded. By a vote of four in favor, Mr. Charnas abstained, the motion carried. GRANTED MINUTES - MAY 23, 1984 page two 18 Summer St. - John & Joan Kelley (Petitioners) Richard Pohl (Owner) The petitioner was on the agenda in the number six position. Attorney Peck, representing Dr. Pohl, requested it be heard at this time due to previous commitment. Petitioner is requesting the Board of Appeal order the Building Inspector to enforce the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to this property which is in an R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and two letters which were attached, One letter dated March 19, 1984 from the Kelleys to Building Inspector, the second letter dated April 6, 1984 from the Building Inspector to the Kelleys. Both letters on file. Attorney John Tierney, 133 Washington St. , represented Mr. & Mrs. Kelley, the petitioners. He stated that this was a residential zone and has been since 1965, he submitted a xerox copy of a zoning map showing this property as R-3, it has always been R-3, offices specifically excluded, the only changes in zoning did not include this section, the only area changed from R-3 was across the street, that was changed to B-3, the rest of the area is R-2, Dr. Pohl has his office there, it is in fact a professional office, the Building Inspector has made inspection of the site and there is in fact a professional office there. The only way the ordinance can be changed is by a 2/3rds vote of the City Council, no such vote ever taken, no map exists which indicates change. Mr. Charnas, do you disagree with the Building Inspector that the decision was made based on information he had saying this was B-3? Mr. Tierney, I did see the letter to that effect. No one appeared in favor of the petitioners request. In opposition: Attorney Peck, One Church St. , representing Dr. Pohl, we do not dispute the fact that Dr. Pohl is conducting a professional office at this location, I would ask the Board to take note of the previous decision when the Kelley's tried to overrule the Carriage House, this petition was denied November 30, 1983, the Kelley's at that time petitioned the Board to have the Building Inspector revoke a Building Permit for the Carriage • House, the new amendment allowing Carriage Houses to be used as residences make this issue moot. He submitted a copy of a letter from Richard Stafford, City Solicitor at the time, dated July 18, 1984 and sent to Mr. McIntosh. In this letter Mr. Stafford states that based upon the official zoning ordinance and zoning may that the area in question is a B-3 district. (letter on file) In all due respect to Mr. Tierney, the zoning ordinances are determined by the zoning map on file; this opinion was based on the map on file and the map which was being sold to the public. The key point here is what did the map say at the time Dr. Pohl took possession. The Kelleys have taken the previous decision to court, the recent passage of the Carriage House amendment may make this redundant. This case will probably go to court also. Dr. Pohl took title of the property May 25, 1982 and opened the office September 11 , 1982. In rebuttal: Mr. Tierney, the Carriage House situation did come before this board, but that is a separate issue from this. The question here is the office, it is never too late to look at matters freshly, this has never been anything by an R-3, needs a two thirds vote of the Council to change zoning and this has never happened, no matter what that map may say it is not an official map. We request the Building Inspector to enforce the zoning. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. McIntosh if he had anything he wanted to say. Mr. McIntosh, it was the opinion of the City Solicitor that this was a B-3 district, based on that I made my decision, when the map was updated the Carriage House became residential, the office noncon- forming. Mr. Gauthier, the same map existed when I was Building Inspector, Dr. Pohl was led to believe this was a B-3 and his office allowed, I would have made the same decision. Mr. Tierney, I have no quarrel with what has been done in good faith, but no amendment has been made to this zone, the statute exists, it is R-3 and always was. Mr. Charnas, does not dispute that the zone is R-3, however, we (• have a City Solicitor and that is what we pay him for and we should go with what he says. Mr. Bencal, the Building Inspector carried out his duties as far as the zoning goes, he has done his job. Mr. Hacker, Dr. Pohl has been using this for MINUTES - MAY 23, 1983 page three 18 Summer St. - Continued two years, why is this here now, and not two years ago. Mr. Tierney said they believed his office was on Essex St. and just recently on Summer St. Mrs. Kelley said the office has only been there a couple of months. Mr. McIntosh, I was in Dr. Pohl's office on Summer St. back in August of 1983 so I know it has been there longer than a couple of months. Mr. Charnas made a motion to deny the petition and to have a copy of the letter form the City Solicitor dated July 18, 1983 attached to the decision; Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 16 Broadway - Herbert Ablow & June Brown Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance to extend a noncon- forming structure in order to construct an addition in this (I) district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the fire dept. has no objections. Att. John Serafini, Jr. , 63 Federal St. Salem, represented the petitioners. Displayed plans to the Board. This will be a small addition to the Salem Paper Co. , it is not feasible to expand any other way. This is highly commercial area, the railroad abuts in the rear. This addition will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Gauthier said this would be a Special Permit as they are extending a nonconformity. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. 41 Memorial Drive/27 Essex St. Ext. - McNeil & Associates, Inc. Petitioners are requesting a Variance to develop thirty six (36) townhouse, multi- family condominium units in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and the addendum. The following letters were also read and placed of file: Letter dated May 4, 1984 from Michael O'Brien to Mr. Hacker, Chairman of the Board, letter dated April 18, 1984 from Michael O'Brien, City Solicitor, to Thomas Southworth, Assistant Vice President of McNeil & Associates, Inc. , letter from Michael O'Brien dated April 18, 1984 to Richard Swiniuch, Councillor at Large, all these letters concerned the status of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, also, letter from the Fire Marshal and letter from Kenneth May, Vice-Chairman of the Planning Board, supporting the project. Mr. Southworth addressed the Board. He submitted a packet to the Board Members containing a brief outline of the proposed project, a legal memorandum from Attorney Saul Feldman, letter from Sturdy Oak 'Construction Co. , Inc. , "Exhibit A, which is a cost breakdown for a 15 unit single family subdivision, petition in favor of the proposal, signed by 45 neighbors and a Fiscal Impact Analyses showing the projected revenue. Mr. South- worth stated that there is a legal dispute going on, the former City Solicitor's opinion was that all that was needed was a majority vote by the City Council, the present City Solicitor disagrees, it is his opinion that it takes a two thirds majority vote. However, does feel it is appropriate to discuss that situation at this hearing tonight. He displayed plans and drawings of the proposed project to the Board and to the assemblage, he explained that these will be individual town houses. The entrance will be from Essex St. , there will be an emergency entrance also, but the location not decided as yet. Regarding the letter from the Planning Board, we are more than willing to have final plans approved by them. MINUTES - MAY 23, 1984 page four 41 Memorial Drive/27 Essex St. Ext. - Continued Most of the criteria we have established regarding this development was done with neighborhood input. We have agreed to maintaine public access to the ocean, will provide a docking type facility which will allow for launching of small boats, designe will be compatible with architecture within the City, will be open space, natural buffer zones and landscaping, existing structures will be removed. We estimate there will be 110,000 dollars of revenue generated. On December 22, 1983, we entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement, we are before this Board tonight as part of the conditions of that Purchase and Sale Agreement. There is hardship with this particular site. Attorney Saul Feldman, representing McNeil & Assoc. , Inc. stated there was a legal basis for this Board to give approval under Chapter 40A and Section IX of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Regarding hardship, he showed on plans what could be constructed under the present Zoning, all that could be constructed would be 15 houses, the cost for this would be prohibitive, would wind up costing 205 thousand dollars per home, not feasible. He referred to Exhibit A (on file) which gave a preliminary cost estimate for a 15 unit, single family subdivision. The proposed 36 units will fit in with the neighborhood and will add to the city's stock of housing. Speaking in favor: Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, reiterated the letter from the Planning Board, in favor but would like to have continued input. Samuel Murphy, 47 Memorial Drive, these people have met every request made, this site should be developed. John Zujewski, 45 Memorial Drive, Mr. Szpak, 44 Memorial Drive, what is there now is bad, Robert Hayes, 40 Memorial Drive, would like some conditions in writing, like the view, rights to the water and would like to make sure there are no more than 36 units. Pearl Coughlin, 30 Memorial Drive, would like to make sure there are no increases • in number of units. In opposition: Michael O'Brien, City Solicitor, at the request of the City Council I have given my legal opinion regarding the status of the property which is presently being disputed. Staley McDermit, Dearborn St. , concerned with the Historical significance of the old health hospital, would recommend preserving this, it is an eyesore now but could be preserved, agrees the property should be developed, also concerned about traffic and density. Michael Lowe, 11 Collins St. , concerned about how he would be affected regarding public access, if someone says I can' t be there, what are my rights. Mr. South- worth, we will give deed right to the city that will give permanent access to the water. Robert Hayes, 40 Memorial Drive, asked about the cemetery. Mr. Southworth, the cemetery will have permanent public access, will be landscaped and fenced, boat access will be maintained, there is a bit of a dispute as to where the ramp will be, launch facility will be for small boats. Stephanie Konevich, 63 Memorial Drive, what will happen to the Crow II Club. Mr. South- worth, there will be a recreational building for the residents of the development. In rebuttal: Mr. Root, there will be no future development, as far as the validity of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, we may have to go to court. We will go to the Planning Board with final plans. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier com- pliment McNeil and Assoc. for a first class presentation, but thinks they need more meetings. Bothered that the City Solicitor does not think they own the property, would like more time to see differences resolved, cannot vote at the present time. Mr. Charnas disagrees, not the boards position to decide the ownership, this was a good presentation, however, I do agree I would like more time to read through the legal opinion, would like to continue. Mr. Hacker, feels the same way, would like to continue this until the June 13, 1984 meeting, asked for a waiver of their rights as far as the time eliment is concerned. Mr. ' Gauthier made a motion to continue this case until June 13, 1984 provided the Board is given written waiver of the rights regarding time. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL JUNE 13, 1984. . 1 MINUTES - MAY 23, 1984 page five 9 Colby St. - Richard Conway & Charles Brennan Trs. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend a Special Permit granted on January 20, 1982 which allowed expansion of existing nonconforming use by adding a second story to the building in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and referred to the Jan. 20, 1982 decision. Also read letter from the Fire {Marshal stating he had no objection. Attorney Thomas Alexander, 59 Federal St. , represented the petitioners. In 1982 this was allowed on condition that 71 parking spaces be maintained and it comply with terms approved by the city Engineer with respect to drainage, sidewalks, etc. We are submitting the exact same plan "B". Because of high interest rates it was not economically feasible to continue with this at the time. Want just what was granted before. Mr. Hacker, would you have difficulty if we limited you to only eight doctors. Att. Alexander, there will be three offices on the second floor, it would be difficult to say how many doctors will be there. Mr. Hacker, if we were to limit you, what amount would you be comfortable with. Mr. Alexander, would like ten, as far as the parking is concerned, it would be improved. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Mr. Theriault, 37 Hillside Ave. , concerned about the parking, it is a mess there, questioned the abutters list. Mr. Hacker explained the procedure the Board must use regarding notification of abutters. In rebuttal: at this point in time there are only about 25 spaces, by going forward with this plan we will increase the parking and will only increase the number of doctors by two or three. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker, when this came before the Board I was the only one against it. I would hate to hurt the service the doctors provide, there is bad parking problem there, I would be in favor now as long as they maintain 71 parking spaces. Mr. Theriault, where would the land come from for this parking. 1 He was shown on the plans. Mr. Hacker, this should be conditioned on the maintaining of the 71 spaces or a Certificate of Occupancy will not be given. Mr. Gauthier asked if there would be any blasting. Yes, there will be some. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested to allow property to be altered and its use expanded by the addition of a second story and the addition of a new entrance as shown on the plan (plan B) submitted to the Board on condition that 71 parking spaces be maintained at the site, petitioners shall in all respects comply with the terms of Plan B submitted to the Baord and approved as noted by the City Engineer with respect to drainage, sidewalks, etc. as that plan relates to the property in question, that a Certificate of Occupancy and Use be obtained prior to use of the second story. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 23 Bradford St. - James W. Poppe Petitioner is requesting variances from all density requirements, lot size, set- backs and frontage in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Department was opposed as there are no Certificate of Compliances for either building. He also read a letter in favor from the Planning Board. James Poppe represented himself, he submitted copies of Certificate of Compliances which are dated May 23, 1984. He explained to the Board that he wanted to purchase a strip of land ( 141 ) from his neighbor Marion Kenny, who owns 23 Bradford, he owns the abutting property, 27 Bradford St. He will use this land for a yard. Mr. Charnas said he thinks this is a Special Permit. Mr. Gauthier felt this could be handled by the Planning Dept. Mr. McIntosh explained that they will be creating violations by increasing the non- conformities. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. �. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit as requested. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - MAY 23, 1984 page five 132-134 Derby St./16 Bentley St. - John Hamilton, Tr. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert to six condominium units in this B-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Marshal (no objection) , Historical Commission (In favor) and a letter from Mr. Thaddeus Wlodyka (opposed) . Attorney John Tierney, 133 Washington St. , Salem, represented the petitioner, he submitted letters from Don DeKeins, 17 tY Bentley St. and Lawrence LeBoeuf, 131 Derby St. , both in favor of the petition. Mr. Hacker said they would need a motion and vote on whether to hear this case of not, the petitioner was before the Board in November 1983. Mr. Charnas read the previous decision. The 1983 application was for six condominium units plus three commercial stores and only provided for four parking spaces. Mr. Strout made a motion to hear the petition presented tonight as there was significant difference. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board voted-' unanimously in favor of hearing the petition. Att. Tierney, further explained difference between the 1983 petition and the one being presented tonight. There will be no commercial stores, and there will be nine parking spaces. 132 Derby St. is presently uninhabitable, 16 Bentley St. , there is an existing two family which has been vacant for two months, he submitted letter from Florence Atkins stating she is moving voluntarily with assistance from Mr. Hamilton. (letter dated 3/13/84) . Other previous tenant has not been located. David Jacquith, Architect, displayed plans to the Board, the existing 212 story structure will have a gambrel roof, will be town house. He submitted pictures of the property as it presently exists, only asking for three units per building, will bring it back into it's victorian splendor, three units in front, three in the rear for a total of six units. Any- thing less would not be feasible. Att. Tierney, there will be a considerable amount of money spent to restore, this will improve the area. There will be no • negative impact. Submitted copy of certified letter sent to the Housing Authority. Part of the building at 132 Derby St. will be added to as far as height, about 32' feet because of the gambrel roof, will be three stories. Mr. Jacquith explained how they would be taking part of one building for parking, would be like a car port, the cinder block garage is gone, this takes care of the rest of the parking. The block wall will come down and a fence put up. Speaking in favor: Alan Choincy, 10 Hardy st. , this is an eyesore. Jan DeKeins, 17 Bentley St. , Julie Tache, 127 Derby St. , this is presently a detriment to the neighborhood. Speaking in opposition: Thaddeus Wldoyka, 137 Derby St. , submitted petition in opposition from fourteen abutters. Opposed because of the parking, if there should be a fire, the fire dept. could not get there, developed own parking area and still has problems parking, people park where they are not supposed to, I have health problems and sometimes have to go to the hospital in a hurry, can' t get my car out. Mr. Hacker asked if he was aware of the parking the petitioner is providing. Mr. Wlodyka, not interested in that, show me the square footage. Mr. Jacquith showed him on the plans where the parking would be. Mr. Wlodyka, don' t you need 12' spaces per unit. Mr. Jacquith, yes, that is what we have. Mrs. Vandecon, 138 Derby st. , concerned the extra height would interfer with her air and light. Mr. Gauthier explained to her there would not be an extra story, height will just be the gambrel roof. Mr. Batchelder, speaking on behalf of his mother, Mrs. Zdanowicz, 14 Hardy St. , would like to see this improved but am concerned about parking. Mr. Hacker, under the ordinance all they need is the 17' per unit. Mr. Theriault, 145 Derby St. , am in favor, parking is always going to be a problem, suggested parking on the other side of the street. In rebuttal: Mr. Tierney, the original proposal may have created a parking problem, /• but with this proposal the parking situation is satisfied, the property will be upgraded. Hearing closed. MINUTES - MAY 23, 1984 page six 132-134 Derby St./16 Bentley St. - Continued Mr. Gauthier, parking is a problem there, but the problem is with the bars, suggested the neighbors look into resident stickers. The petitioners satisfy the parking requirement, they will not add to the problem and this will be a sub- stantial improvement. Mr. Bencal, even though I am not a voting member on this petition, would like to say, I was down in that area today, a lot of broken glass there, thinks the Board should give this plan consideration. Mr. Luzinski, we are all in favor of upgrading the property, I am opposed to increasing the density. Mr. Charnas, there will be substantial improvement, impressed with the petitioner, they were denied and came back with necessary parking and reasonable plan. Mr. Hacker, this building is most objectionable in town, I think this is good sample of a developer coming back and meeting some of the problems of the neigh- borhood. He has tried to satisfy part of the situation. If we cut him down in the number of units it would not be a profitable venture, in favor. Mr. Strout, definitely in favor, like residences rather than commercial. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the Special Permit and allow six condominium units on condition the concrete wall be torn down and a fence be erected; nine on site parking spaces be maintained; and lighting be placed facing inward and away from residences; Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit. Mr. Strout seconded. By a vote of four in favor, Mr. Luzinski voting in opposition the Board voted to grant the petition. GRANTED V 24 Norman St. - Robert Bramble • Petitioner is requesting a variance to convert the building to thirty nine dwelling units in this B-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Marshal and the Planning Board. The Fire Marshal stated the Fire Dept. was opposed due to the lack of parking facilities. The Planning Board voiced it's support. Attorney George Vallis, Church St. , Salem, represented the petitioner, he showed the Board the deed, stating that as of May 15th Mr. Bramble owned the building. This is a B-3 district and residential uses are prohibited. As far as the parking situation, according to the zoning ordinance, parking may be provided within 400 feet of the building, the building on Norman St. is less than 400 feet from Riley Plaza. If the building was used for offices, inn, bank, etc. , the owner would not have to provide parking. Heritage Plaza West was approved by the Council and the Planning Board, there is a conflict between the UrbaN Renewal Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, the Ordinance has not caught up with it. As far as hardship, the Zoning Ordinance with it's conflict and the building itself is the hardship. The building was built for the express use of the phone co. , the Holyoke Ins. Co. wanted to buy it at one time but found it too prohib- itive. Submitted letter from the Salem Redevelopment Authority in favor of the proposal, also submitted letter from the Salem Parking Department which stated Riley Plaza could easily accomodate at least 40 cars, even during peak hours. If used for residential use the majority of people would be working people, their cars would be somewhere else and would not be at Riley Plaza. He then submitted a Notice of Intent from Robert Bramble which stated that if the petition was granted he would make the necessary arrangements on behalf of the Condominium Unit Owners Association to purchase on an annual basis yearly parking stickers and the amount required to purchase said stickers shall always be included in C• ' the annual budget of said Association. Would not object to this condition being included in the decision. Thirty nine units in a building this size is not too many, will go for between 30 and 40 thousand dollars. The building is vacant and is becoming an eyesore. This will also create revenue for the city. Mr. Charnas asked why it would be unrealistic to use for anything other than resid- ential. MINUTES - MAY 23, 1984 page seven 24 Norman St. - Continued • Mr. Vallis explained this is a four story building with very large rooms, to be used for offices the cost would be prohibitive. Mr. Gauthier remarked on the surplus of office space in Salem. Speaking in favor: Julie Tache, 148 Washington St. , would like to residences there. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, reiterated what the Planning Board letter said, the Master Plan states the City should be developing residences in the downtown area, the Planning Board will be addressing this in the near future, there will be some zoning changes, parking is an issue the Planning Board will be discussing. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Kavanaugh what he thought the minimum spaces would have to be purchased from Riley Plaza. Mr. Kavanaugh said it would probably be less that 1} per unit, would suggest one per unit. Speaking in opposition: Doug Rider, Holyoke Ins. Co. , we did have survey made of the property and did consider using it for office space, the cost was not prohibitive. Don' t object to residences, concerned with the density and the parking. People coming home with groceries will not want to park in Riley Plaza, does not think it will work, questioned having a four story walk up. Our company provides 139 parking spaces and hire spaces from across the street, the most we do not provide parking spaces for is 15, would like to see this denied unless better parking is provided. Mr. Hacker, you said your company looked into buying this property, where would you have put parking for your extra employees? Mr. Rider, does not know, at the present time we were not going to occupy it, it was investment for future. Mr. Grengold, 10 Norman st. , parking will be an issue no matter what. I have an assigned parking space and many time I have come home and someone is in my space. In Rebuttal: Attorney Vallis, as far as there not being any elevators, there are none at the Y.M.C.A. building and they • are getting allow without them. Holyoke Ins. Co. is the biggest violators in the city as far as parking. The yearly sticker fee will be $225.00. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski, concerned that the Board may be committing the city to provide parking, don' t know if the Board can do that. What happens if the City decides to do something with Riley Plaza. Mr. Hacker, the alternative is to let the building fall apart. Mr. Gauthier, if it is used for offices, we will have to contend with parking problem every day, we would like to get young people in to buy in the downtown. We have a parking commission that says they can guarantee 40 cars with no problem. The Planning Dept. is in favor. Mr. Luzinski, I am in favor of these being residences buy I am concerned about the city being obligated to provide parking and perhaps leaving these people hanging in the future. Mr. Hacker, we should have some faith in the City Planner. Mr. Kavanaugh, this Board should consider the fact that in the next several years there will be a new train station and it will take cars our of that area and put them in a different area. Mr. Charnas, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Bramble, but on this I am opposed, I am opposed to using public parking to provide space for developers. Developers should provide there own parking. This meets the hardship, but I am sure there must be something else he can do with this besides what he has proposed. Mr. Bencal, when then came before the board previously, I was opposed only because I wanted a letter from Parking Commission, they have provided that, thinks the 39 stickers is a low figure, it should be increased to perhaps 50. Mr. Strout, referring to the Condominium documents, says if there are two cars in one unit they must buy two stickers. Mr. Charnas, in this situation you are deeding away perhaps as many as 80 spaces and I am opposed. Mr. Luzinski, we could be setting a precedent. Mr. Gauthier, this will be a shot in the arm for the downtown area. Mr. Hacker, we do not have the right to say they can park in Riley Plaza, the Parking Commission has that right and they have said they are in favor. He asked Mr. Kavanaugh about other developers coming in a wanting to use Riley Plaza. Mr. Kavanaugh, if this is granted you will be obligating this developer to make arrangements for parking based on MINUTES - MAY 23, 1984 page eight 24 Norman St. - Continued • `' existing conditions and the decision tonight should not be based on what may happen in the future. Mr. Luzinski, would like opinion from City Solicitor. Mr. Charnas concurred. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to continued this petition until the June 13th hearing. Mr. Gauthier seconded. By a vote of 4 to 1 , Mr. Charnas being opposed, the petition was continued. CONTINUED TILL JUNE 13, 1984. Mr. Hacker was unanimously -voted Chairman, Mr. Luzinski, Vice Chairman and Mr. Charnas Secretary. Hearing adjourned at 11 : 15 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be June 13, 1984 at One Salem Green, second floor. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk •. •CONM e Ctg of *Ulem, 'Mttssar4usetts • i s Poarb of 4pzal � � MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JUNE 13, 1984 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, June 13, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on May 30 & June 6, 1984. Abutters and others having been notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski & Strout. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman Mr. Hacker. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to accept the minutes of the May 23, 1984. hearing, Mr. Charnas seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 41 Memorial Drive/27 Essex St. Ext. - McNeil & Associates This petition was continued from the May 23, 1984 hearing. Petitioners are requesting variance to develop 36 townhouse, multi-family condominium units in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the minutes of the May 23, 1984 hearing. Mr. Luzinski asked if anything new has happened on this since the last hearing. Mr. Hacker said no, it was a good presentation but still has problem with it. Mr. Gauthier, have they met with the Mayor? Mr. Hacker, the City Solicitor has ,• sent back the deposit check. Mr. Southworth, from McNeil and Associates said J that the City Solicitor did return their deposit, however, we have returned it back to them. Mr. Hacker, I don' t think we should be involve with the question of ownership. Mr. Charnas agreed, the problem of ownership is not up to this Board. Mr. Luzinski asked where the access to the float would be. Mr. South- worth said it would be on the westerly side, this could be changed however, if people did not agree with location. Mr. Luzinski asked if the neighbors would have access to the recreation building. Mr. Southworth, we have given this some thought, no decision yet. Mr. Charnas read a letter from the Historical Commission which voiced opposition to the demolition of the Old Health Hospital. Mr. Charnas, some concern was voiced at the last hearing regarding the possibilty of more than 36 units being built at a later time. Do we want to put in condition limiting this to only 36 units and waiving their rights to anymore. Mr. Gauthier, does not think that is necessary, if they ever wanted to put anymore, they would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance to allow the construction of 36 condominium units on condition the petitioners still get approval from the Planning Board, particularly with regards to the public docking facility. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Charnas, Mr. Luzinski. Voting in opposition to the motion: Mr. Hacker, Mr. Gauthier & Mr. Strout. By a vote of two to three the motion was defeated. PETITION DENIED 278 Derby St. - George Osgood Attorney John Serafini requested Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice his clients 1 petition for a Variance to allow commercial uses and variance from parking requirements in this R-3 district. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant Leave to Withdraw, Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW. MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1984 page two 41 Dearborn St. - Thomas Meler • Attorney H. Drew Romanovitz requested leave to withdraw without prejudice his clients application for variance to allow the continued use of the premises as a two family in this R-1 district. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW 57 Loring Ave. - Arthur Valaskatgis Attorney George Vallis, representing the petitioner, requesting a continuance of this application until the June 13, 1984 hearing. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to continue this petition until June 13, 1984. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL JUNE 20, 1984., on condition petitioners waive rights to time. 13 - 18 & 20 Sable Road/3,5 & 7 Buena Vista Road - James Abram Attorney Christopher Plunkett requesting a continuance of this application in order to give the petitioner the opportunity to meet with the abutters. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to continue this petition until July 25, 1984, Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 25, 1984, on condition petitioners waive rights with regard to time element. 24 Norman St. - Robert Bramble The petition for variances to convert premises into 39 dwelling units was continued from the May 23, 1984 meeting. This meeting was continued to allow the Board • to get a written opinion from the City Solicitor regarding the City's liability with regards to parking in Riley Plaza. Mr. Luzinski asked if we had received the opinion requested. Mr. Hacker informed him the Board had not received anything from the City Solicitor, however, he spoke with the Parking Director and was told that the Director felt there was ample room at Riley Plaza to accomodate 39 cars. Mr. Hacker said he was not sure if they should require the leasing of one space per unit of one & one-half space. Mr. Luzinski, still have the same question, will we be obligating the City to provide parking. Mr. Hacker, we can't obligate City. Mr. Luzinski, theoretically, they still don' t have the required amount of parking. Mr. Charnas, I am opposed because I don' t like to see city property used for.private developers. Mr. Hacker, if this were used for offices the parking situation would be worse, there would be at least 100 spaces needed. Mr. Gauthier, if we grant this we would be bringing young people into the city and bringing money into the downtown area. Attorney Vallis, representing the petition, said he spoke to the City Solicitor and he said the City would have no liability, if the Board would feel more comfortable with a written opinion he would have no objection that the granting of this be conditioned upon such opinion. Mr. Hacker, basically what we would be doing is allowing the residents to park in Riley Plaza, we are not guaranteeing them a space. Mr. Charnas, what happens when sometime in the future another developer wants to put in condominiums, do we let them park in Riley Plaza, pretty soon the parking lots will not be available to the public, where do we draw the line. Mr. Strout, the public is not using them now. Mr. Hacker, the Parking Commission says yes, the Planning Board says yes, it fits with the Master Plan, if sometime down the line they cannot accomodate any more we will treat it individually. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition for variances to allow 39 condominium units on condition the City Solicitor let the Board know that the City • is not obligated to provide parking for private developers, the owners of the building be required to purchase annual parking stickers, the 8 on site parking spaces that are presently there be maintained. Mr. Strout seconded. By a vote of four to one, Mr. Charnas voted in opposition, the petition was granted. GRANTED MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1984 page three Mr. Hacker had to leave, Mr. Luzinski will be acting Chairman. Mr. Luzinski explained to the assemblage that there are now only four members so in order to grant any applications there must be a unanimous vote. Anyone wishing to Withdraw can do so at this time. 18 Barcelona Ave. - Alice L. Pitreau Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow a seconde apartment in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letters from the Fire Marshal (no objection) and the Planning Board which expressed their opposition because of the density. Attorney Berkal, 26 Lynde St. , represented the petitioner, he explained this would be an in-law apartment strictly for the mother. There would be no construction, all she will need is a stove and refrigerator, everything else is there. We would be more than willing to have a condition put on that this be two family only as long as their mother lives there. Speaking in favor: Councillor O'Leary, 31 Barcelona Ave. , there is no problem in the neighborhood with this request. Capt. Goggin., the hardship is on a temporary basis, in favor. Marjorie Holland, 22 Barcelona Ave. , all the neighbors are in favor. Basil Antoniades, 20 Barcelona Ave. , in favor with the restriction. Michael Francullo, 19 Barcelona Ave. , in favor as long as it reverts back to single family if she leaves. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the Variance to allow a second apartment on condition it will revert back to a single family dwelling if Mrs. Pitreau ceases to live there. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 22 Barnes Rd. - Richard & Doris Davis Petitioners are requesting variance from side setback to allow construction of porch in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Richard Davis, 22 Barnes Road, represented himself. He explained the porch was constructed without a permit, they were under the impression a permit had been obtained. This porch replaced the old porch, it is one foot closer to the side. Showed pictures of the porch. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas said this is a Special Permit, not a variance. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit as requested. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 35 Andrew St. - John Suldenski Attorney George Vallis requested his client's petition for a Special Permit to convert single family dwelling into a four unit condominium and to expand height be continued until the July meeting. After speaking with his client, they would prefer presenting the petition to a full board. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continued this application until the July 25, 1984 meeting. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 25, 1984, on condition petitioner waive rights with regard to time element. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be July 25, 1984 second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk (9i#g ofttlem, Httssttclluse##s / MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - JUNE 20, 1983 A Public Hearing of' the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, June 30, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 6, 13, 1984. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout, Bencal & LaBrecque 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. 57 Loring Ave. - Arthur Valaskatgis Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use by allowing a convenient supermarket in this R-1 district. Mr. Hacker and Mr. Gauthier will not be hearing this petition. Mr. LaBrecque was appointed a voting member. Mr. Luzinski will be Acting Chairman. This petition was continued from the June 13, 1984 meeting at the request of Attorney George Vallis, representing the petitioner. Mr. Bencal read the application, a letter from the fire Marshal stating they can not approve this until plans are submitted- for their stamped approval, also a letter from the Planning Board stating their opposition to the proposal. Attorney George Vallis, One Churcb-.St". , Salem, represented the petitioner. He explained the original •� petition was granted in 1979, this Variance was not acted upon due to financial considerations. The petitioner came back to the Board on September 21 , 1983 and was again granted a Variance for commercial use: There was some initial opposition, but this was withdrawn. Petitioner would like to have a convenient supermarket, namely White Hen Pantry. There are commercial uses in the area. This was lying vacant for 15 years and was an eyesore. We are not adding anything to the building and the parking will be the same. We are asking for a Special Permit to extend nonconforming use. This will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. There will be a buffer zone, landscaping. The foundation has already been poured, the structure will not change. In regards to the letter from the Planning Board, this may be an R-1 zone, but no one would reasonably put a single family home there because of the commercial uses in the area. This will be a very attractive building. Mr. Luzinski asked if there was only one driveway. Mr. Vallis said no, there are two. Mr. Luzinski, the plan only shows one. Mr. Vallis, I stand corrected, it is shown as one. Speaking in favor: Attorney Robert Bowes, representing Dr. Pat H. Curtin, 66 Loring Ave. , his client wants to go on record as being in favor. Speaking in opposition: Walter Power, Chairman of the Planning Board, the Master Plan of the City calls for this entrace tot he city be upgraded and an effort made to improve traffic safety, this will not do this. The Planning Board did not oppose this when they wanted parking in the area, petitioner is now putting in major commercial use, we are opposed to further encroachment of commercial uses here. This is a very congested area and this market will further congest it, it will slow traffic down. There are single family homes there. This is a major artery and another business here will exacerbate the problem and will set a precedence. We do not want another major commercial zone in an R-1 zone. We have had considerable problems in that area, we have Sylvania, the College, manufacturing facilities and a fire house, granting this business use will increase traffic, there are already existing convenient stores in the area, sees no need for another. It was only a short time ago, petitioner wanted Variance for his automotive business, now in just a few months he wants to expand that use, he did not know at the time of the MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1984 page two 57 Loring Ave. - Continued last hearing that he also wanted a convenient supermarket. The Planning Board is adamantly opposed. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, would like to reiterate all that Mr. Power said, the Master Plan favors residences in this area. There is a traffice problem, it is a very congested area. Hearing closed. In rebuttal: Mr. Vallis, took issue with Mr. Powers suggesting they came in with the idea that they would add 'to this at a later date. We did not. At the last hearing I mentioned that my client needed a larger space for his auto parts business but we never intended to use the entire area for this, there is 7,000 feet there. We asked the property be zoned commercial. As far as the Planning Board not opposing, they did oppose it in 1983, Mr. Powers said they did not have time to oppose it, I do not understand, he is here opposing this for the third time and he says they never opposed it. We have helped the parking problem, there are 23 parking spaces, one half will be for the convenience store, I think Mr. Powers opposes this for personal reasons. Mr. Bencal, we have copy of a letter from the Planning Board dated September 20, 1983. Mr. Bencal read the letter which stated the Planning Boards opposition and was signed by Mr. Power. Mr. Luzinski said that at the last hearing the only thing mentioned was the Auto Parts store, nothing more. Mr. Vallis argued that the petition in 1979 mentioned more. Mr. Luzinski referred to a copy of the 1979 decision and said this decision also only mentioned a retail use for the sale of automotive parts and supplies and no further use was mentioned. Mr. Bencal, I don' t think a store is in harmony with the neighborhood. In reading the minutes of the 1983 meeting, the petitioner said he needed the area because of growth of business, does not think this is the place for convenient store, the location is not in the best interest of the City and it is not in harmony with the Master Plan. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petitioner a Special Permit to allow a convenient supermarket. Mr. Strout seconded. Voting against the motion was Mr. Luzinski, Mr. Bencal and Mr. LaBrecque. Mr. Strout voted in favor. PETITION DENIED 10 Loring Ave. - William A. Kelley Petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear yard setbacks in order to construct an inground pool in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating this occupancy is in violation because of smokes detectors no being in compliance. Mr. Kelley represented himself, he showed on the plans the location of the pool he would like to put it. This would be an olympic size pool. He showed the Board where there is a retaining wall and explained that he though his land went all the way to the retaining wall, which would have given him the needed rear setback. He recently learned he did not own all the way to the wall and therefore needs a Variance. He told the Board that he does have smoke detectors. Mr. Bencal explained that they had to be certified by the Fire Dept. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance on condition the pool be no closer than 8 ft. to building or closer than 4 ft. to the side and that he comply will Fire Dept. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1984 page three 10-1012 Hancock St. - Frank & Diane Ouellette Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert a four family into a five dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, a letter from the Fire Dept. and a letter from the Planning Board stating their. opposition to this request. Attorney George Vallis, Church St. represented the petitioners. The petitioners purchased the property in 1984. He quoted from the section of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Special Permit requests (V B 10) . This is an exceptionally large house. There are presently only three cars for the whole house, can easily get more parking. This will not be substantially detrimental. When petitioners bought the house it was four family, two duplexes. The fifth apartment will have two entrances. Will be the third floor which is presently the attic. Petitioners want to move there and live there themselves. Seems like the Planning Board has double standards. Mr. Hacker, this is not the time to judge the Planning Board. Mr. Vallis, in 1976 there was an application for Loring Ave. , Walter Power was the petitioner, his. petition was granted, all we want is to add one unit. Mr. Hacker, cautioned Mr. Vallis about getting personal. This is a large house and will be owner occupied. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Roger LaPointe, 8 Hancock St. , supports the Planning Boards arguments. This is highly congested area, we have 10 apartments, 18 cars, 8 parking spaces, this will give you some idea of how congested it is. We have neighbors feuding, cars with slashed tires, neighbors are pitted against neighbors, this is a major problem. Mr. Ouellette says he can provide parking for 7 - 8 cars, he would have to hot top the entire area. This would seta precedent, will devalue properties, would be detrimental, would be a safety hazard, there is one fire hydrant, it is so con- gested that someone is always parked in front of that hydrant. He may have 1500 sq.ft. of floor space but I would not be able to stand up in most of the attic, he . would have to put dormers, he should have spoke with neighbors before he came here. Florence Hudon, 9 Hancock st. , agrees with Mr. LaPointe, we have a problem, his tenants are parking on the street, on my way here tonight saw car parked on side- walk and I had to walk on the street to get around the cars, we have tried talking to the past administration and to the police. Samuel Scholnick, 6 Hancock St. , agrees with others. Ina Winokur,- 12 Hancock St. , same reasons. Mr. LaPointe, 8 Hancock St. , he .said there were only three cars there now, but one of the tenants is moving and the new tenants could have more cars. Mrs. Green, 7 Hancock St. , granting this would be opening a pandoras box, we already have more there than we can stand. Keven Green, 7 Hancock st. , no opposed to the Ouellettes personally, there is no room for more in this neighborhood. In rebuttal: Mr. Vallis, as far as neighbor against neighbor, Mr. Ouellette would like to be a good neighbor, yes, there is a parking problem but not from this property, The Ouelletts bought this with the hope they would be able to move there and live there, it would be owner occupied. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier asked Mr. LaPointe how many units he had. He said three and that he had ample parking. Mr. Scholnick said he had a four car garage. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Ouellette what there intention was when they bought the property in April. He said they have looked for multi-family home, something we could afford, we want to start a family and my wife will stop working, the realtor showed us the attic and suggested we could live there, this sounded like a good idea, we did not realize at the time that we would have to get permit. Mr. Hacker, petitioner entered intb-agreement knowing it was a four family, the parking situation is not his fault, am concerned about creating a worse situation. Mr. Gauthier, I would like to see the petitioner go to the neighbors and try to work this out, see if they can come to some agreement. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Vallis if he might want to withdraw this to give them time to come to agreement. Mr. Vallis asked about continuing this. Mr. Bencal, concerned about opening pandoras box. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. LaPointe if there was room for negotiations. No. MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1984 page four 10-102' Hancock St. - Continued Mr. Ouellette, I did speak with neighbors and I told them I would not rent to anyone with more than one car, would not mind having this as a restriction. Mr. Strout, this would be owner occupied. Mr. Ouellette, for the time being, would not like to feel we have to stay there. Mr. Gauthier, we could put restriction that this would revert back to four family if they stopped living there. Mr. Ouellette, cannot afford this without extra family. Mr. Hacker, does not think the Board can restrict the tenants to only one car. Mr. Luzinski, this will be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to allow conversion to a five family dwelling as requested. Mr. Gauthier, made a-motion to-amend the Mr. Luzinski's-motion by adding the conditions, it remain owner occupied, parking be limited at all times to six cars. There was no seconded on the amendment. Mr. Bencal seconded Mr. Luzinski original motion to grant as requested. Voting against the motion were Messrs. , Hacker, Luzinski, Strout and Bencal. Mr. Gauthier voted in favor. PETITION DENIED 19 Dearborn St. - Thomas Mazzarini 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, a letter from the Fire Dept. , stating they had no Certificate of Compliance regarding smoke detectors. He also read a letter from Deborah Day Tierney, 33 & 35 Walter St. , stating she had no objections to the petition. Mr. Mazzarini represented himself, he explained he wanted this Special PErmit so his in-laws can live there, he sub- mitted a letter from John Moustakis, 23 Dearborn st. , stating he had no objections. Mr. Mazzarini said he will comply with the Fire requirements, there is ample parking. Speaking in favor: Mark Southerland, 17 Dearborn St. , Councillor George McCabe, have received no opposition to this. Mary Horton, 15 Dearborn St. , the Mazzarinis are good neighbors, plenty of room for them to park. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow conversion to a three family 'dwelling on condition it remain owner occupied, five on site-parking spaces be maintained, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained", a certificate of compliance be obtained from the Fire dept. , and plans be approved by the Building Inspector. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 22 Proctor St. - Nicholas Milona, Michola Milona and Anastasia Tzimas Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family into a three family in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. Attorney George Vallis, represented the petitioners. This property was purchased in April 1984, there will be interior and exterior renovations. This is owned by father and son, and Mrs. Tzimas, a relative. It is owner occupied. Have no objections to this being restricted to owner occupied. There is plenty of room for parking. They have done quite a bit of work already, was in disrepair till my clients purchased it. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to convert to a three family dwelling on condition it remain owner occupied, five on site parking spaces be maintained, a certificate of Occupancy be obtained as well as complying will all fire regulations. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - June 20, 1984 page five �• 5 Columbus Square - William & Louise pelletier Petitioners are requesting the Board have the Building Inspector order the removal of the boat cradles from the tidel flats in front of 5 Columbus Square (R-1) . Mr. Bencal read the application and letters from Marion Jebb, 5 Winter Island Rd. (not opposed to the boat yard) and Joseph Centorino (not opposed to boat yard but believes the board should explore all available options regarding the repositioning of the cradles) . Attorney Francis Mayo represented petitioners submitted map of property to the board. Petitioners purchased property in 1964 - the boat yard was there at the time. He showed pictures. In their line of vision are some structures known as boat cradles. When they purchased the property there were very few cradles visible. Now they cannot look out onto the bay without looking at cradles. Many are left out all winter. As far as the letter insinuating someone is vindictive regarding the Boat Yard, that is not the case. (1st paragraph of Marion JEbb's letter " I cannot understand how anyone could be so vindictive to want to hurt two people who are working so very hard to make a good living without really hurting anyone." He then showed pictures taken in 1969 - no cradles are visible. He read the definition of a Boat Yard. He then stated that these cradles are structures, they are fastened to the ground. This boat yard has grown to such an extent that the clients cannot enjoy their view. There is no apparent reason for this. I have found no boat yard that makes use of the cradles the way Mr. Haywood does. Speaking in favor of petitioners request: Duncan McInnis,22 Columbus Sq. , I like to go kayaking and sometimes I have to physically move the cradles so I can get • out. Kids dive off the cradles, it is very dangerous. Don' t know of any other boat yard that used cradles like this. Speaking in opposition: Attorney Bill Lundregan, representing Haywood. The Haywoods have operated the boat yard since 1979, and they live in the area. The question here is whether the Haywoods have increased the operation since present zoning went into effect. It is important to point out that this is a protected use as long as we don' t increase the area we do it on. This is an R-1 zone district. A boat yard is a special permit use. Mr. Pelletier says there are more cradles there than there were in 1964. He showed pictures taken in 1963 by former owner. There were 40-60 cradles there when the Pelletiers bought the land. This property was originally owned by Mr. Haywoods grandfather. It was sold to Mr. Cahill. He started operating the boat yard in the 201s. He expanded it between 1920 and 1955. He operated it untill 1979, wold it to Peter Haywood. By 1965 Mr. Cahill was storing about 60 boats. Phil Cahill built the cradles and he was floating between 40-50 boats, less in the winter. There is no way we can run the business without floating these boats. The yard has not been filled one inch by Mr. Haywood or Mr. Cahill. The Pelletiers bought their land knowing about the boat yard. They have done nothing but complain since the day they moved in. They have complained to the council and the Harbormaster. The Corps of Engineers have given this a clean bill of health, we have nothing in writing. This is a protected use. . Cradles being floated is normal for a boat yard. He submitted a letter from the Dionnes, 26 Columbus Ave. (have lived there since 1948 and have never had a problem with the boat yard - if they wanted a cradle moved the past and present owners always gave immediate action) . Also a letter from (� Mr. Grieco, 38 Bay View Ave. (have nad no problems with the boat yard in fact they enjoy the quaintness of the cove) . He showed pictures taken from the Haywoods house, same view as the Pelletiers. The main issue here is has the Building Inspector investigated and done his job. Minutes - June 20, 1984 page six • } 5 Columbus Square - William & Louise _Pelletier cont'd Phil Cahill - Own home in which my mother lives. When thePelletiers moved in I had trouble from day one. They have harassed me. Mr. Simpson, 20 Columbus Sq. - They have never interferred with me. Did lobstering, raised my boys there, they learned to swim there. Tom White, 19 Winter Island Rd. - No problem with Boat Yard. Tricia Moody - Boat Yard is very picturesque. Edwin Dennis, 77 Bay View Ave. - Adds Mystique Ken Hanson, Fort Ave. - Worked for Peter Haywood for 3 years, have never seen any expansion. Peter Haywood,4 Columbus Sq - I keep as many cradles on dry land as I can without interfering7, with my operation. Mrs. Simpson, 20 Columbus Ave. - No problem with boat yard. Mr. Swanson, 1 Winter Island Rd. - No problem. In rebuttal - Attorney Mayo - This Board should enforce zoning ordinance and have Building Inspector remove cradles under section 8 D #1 of the ordinance. On Dec. 5th, I wrote to Building Inspector. None of the people here are effected the same way as the Pelletiers. Mr. Hacker - would like to hear from Building Inspector. Mr. McIntosh - did send letter which indicated violation. However, based on .what Attorney Lundregan submitted to me, it has been going on for years and is non- conforming. Mr. Luzinski - Are the cradles on boat yard land? Att. Lundregan - They are on our land or on land owned by the Dionnes. He then showed deed and registered plot plan. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Cahill if he did repairs. Mr. Cahill - absolutely, started fiberglass in 1954. Mr. Gauthier - Would like to get this resolved. I don' t think the problem is to put Peter out of business. The issue is the cradles, I don' t think the Board has the authority to have them removed. Perhaps a comprmise could be worked out. Mr. Bencal - Wouldn' t this fall under Conservation Commission? Mr. Hacker -The question is whether the Building Inspector has acted properly. • , Mr. Haywood - I am willing to work something out, I can try to open the lanes as much as possible. Mr. Bencal - can we continue this until next meeting in hopes the neighbors can resolve it. Minutes - June 20, 1984 page seven 5 Columbus Square - William & Louise Pelletier cont'd Att. Lundregan - This hearing is a direct result of court action by the Pelletiers. All you can decide tonight is if the Building Inspector has enforced the Zoning. Are there any more cradles than there were in 1965. All Peter can do is tighten the lines, when the wind blows they will still drift. Mr. Hacker - Would like to see this continued until the August meeting. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED 24 Valley St. - Petro Theophilopoulos Petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear setbacks to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read .the application and a letter from Deputy Chief David J. Goggin, Salem Fire Prevention Inspector which stated there was no Certificate of Compliance regarding smoke detectors. Anastasia Theophilopoulos represented herself and her husband. She explained that this addition would be a family room, they have enough room everywhere but in the rear, they would come to within 10`- feet• No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Patricia Lavoie, 24 Crowdis St. , showed pictures of the yard, submitted a petition signed by 22 neighbors. Said their fence is two feet into her property. Cynthia Georgelas, 22 Valley St. , direct abutter, strongly opposed to them building any type structure that doesn' t comply with codes. Everyone should be able to enjoy their yard. They sub- divided the property without any concern for the future. The problem is, he builds • things and then says whoops, I've made a mistake. Joseph Piemonte, 22 Crowdis St. , agrees with neighbors. In rebuttal: Anastasia Theopiloulos, we have always got permits for anything we have done. All we want is a family room. Mr. Bencal, don' t see any hardship, if there is any, the petitioners have created themselves. Mr. Hacker: This appears to be a neighborhood feud, legally there is no hardship. Mr. Bencal made a motion to deny the petitioner's request for a Variance. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED. 11 South St. - John J. Bilodeau Petitioner is requesting a Variance from all density and setback requirements in order to divide the property at in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating there is no Certificate of Compliance regarding the smoke detectors. Attorney William Donaldson represented the petitioner. He displayed plot plans to the board. He explained they wanted to change the common boundary line between the two lots so that a driveway may be opened up to allow motor vehicles to have access from the stree to the area behind number 11 South St. Presently 9 & 11 South St. have common boundary line. On lot #11 there is a retaining wall and stairway. No access for cars. My clients want to take part of this retaining wall and stairs so cars can park, he will build a ramp to back. The neighbors have seen the plans, he submittied a petition in favor signed by six abutters. Both lots are up for sale. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Bencal: What is the Hardship. Mr. Gauthier: there is no parking, they couldn' t sell the property, also the size and configuration. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petitioner the requested variance on condition a Certificate of Compliance • be obtained from the Fire Dept. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1984 page eight • 95-97 Federal st. - Jessica Herbert Petitioner requests a Special Permit to convert an existing three family dwelling in a four family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Gelini, 881 Federal st. , stating they had no objection as long as there would be no more than four units. Also read letter from Bob Bramble, 100 Federal St. (in favor) , Letter from the Fire Marshal (no objection) Letter form Richard Mintern & Suzanne Freeman, 106 Federal St. (in favor) . Attorney George Vallis, 1 Church St. , represented the petitioner. He submitted a petition in favor signed by 15 neighbors. He explained that in 1981 , David and Rhonda Preman, the owners, were granted a Special Permit to convert this to a three family dwelling, prior to this it was a nursing home. The petitioners are nice people and Salem will be glad to have them live here. Ms. Herbert's husband is with the FBI and expects to be transferred here. Ms. Herbert spoke to the neighbors and explained what was going to do. We have no problem with the conditions suggested in the letter from Richard Mintern & Suzanne Freeman. This is under a Purchase and Sale Agreement, will do extensive work, will restore this to what it used to be. This is an enormous house, 21 rooms. It is better to divide the property up the way Ms. Herbert wants than to have a number of unrelated people living there. The petitioner is in the business of restoration. It is unrealistic for this building to be a two or a three family, there is plenty of parking, 8 spaces with the possibility of 10, they will do landscaping. David Jacquith, Architect, will change the site so that parking will be concealed, will landscape, build trellis, will be meeting with the Historic Commission, will replace pallitrades on roof and porch, be wood rail, new stairs, new deck in rear, the small garage would be removed, • first floor would be owner occupied, second floor will be 2 - 2 bedroom units, third floor will stay the same with minor changes in the bathroom. Attorney Vallis: submitted copies of the Assessors Map, there are different types of houses in this area, this will in no way be detrimental, will keep it residential, they would prefer having 8 parking spaces but can provide 10. Speaking in favor: Robert Healey, 4 Federal Ct. ,thinks it would be an improvement to remove the garage, the top of the garage has been used for cook outs. Would they be willing to have units subject to lease rather than tenants at will, this is a good plan and will not be detrimental. William Russell Burns Jr. , corner of Federal & Becket Sts. , heartily concurs. Andrew Shultz, Esq. , representing the Premans, owners of the property, they are definitely in favor, the Special Permit granted in 1981 allowing a three family did not go far enough, there is no economical way today to use this property as a two or a three family, four family is minimum, this could finally solve the problem of this house. Walter Power, Chairman Planning Board, this should be allowed to be developed so that the quality of the building is kept up. Mrs. Burns, corner of Federal & Becket Sts. , definitely in favor. Speaking in opposition: H. B. Peabody, 6 Federal Ct. , very strongly opposed, have spent a lot of money on my property, there are a lot of homes in this area that could become four family if allowed. Mr. Peabody gave a lengthy history of this property and stated he was opposed to "Down Zoning". Joanna Peabody, 6 Federal Ct. , strongly opposed. Connie Arlender, 91 Federal St. , opposed to four family. Jessica Herbert impressed us, we would welcome her to the neighborhood under the old Special Permit which allowed three family. In Rebuttal: As far as Mr. Peabody's argument that this is down zoning, this is not, if anything this is up zoning. This is no feasible financially as a three family, it is feasible as a four family. Hearing closed. • Mr. Gauthier: I am impressed with petitioner. Mr. Hacker: this property has always been proble, I am also impressed with petitioner, this will be beneficial to neighborhood. Mr. Bencal: I am in favor but would like to see the parking for 10 cars. Mr. Luzinski: this is best proposal I have see for this property. Mr. Strout: the end result will be good for the neighborhood. MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1984 page nine • 95-97 Federal St. - Continued Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petitioners request to convert three family. to a four family on the following conditions: the property be used for residential only, not be used for boarders, is to be owner occupied, 10 off street parking spaces be maintained, Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, landscaping be in accordance with plans submitted to the Board, existing garage be removed, all exterior work be in compliance with Historical Commission. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 63 Federal St. - Ann Serafini Mr. Gauthier had to leave. Mr. Hacker explained there would only be a four member Board and the petition had the option of withdrawing without prejudice if she so desired. Attorney Serafini, representing petitioner said they would have the case heard. Mr. Bencal read the application, letter from the Fire Marshal (no objection) and a letter from Jacob S. Segal Esq. ,59 Federal St. ( in favor) . Attorney Serafini explained they were requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit from rear and side setbacks in order to construct an addition. This addition will be for office space. This is an R-3 district, we had been granted a Variance previously to allow the Law Office. He displayed plans showing the proposed addition. Speaking in favor: Germaine Bonia, 28 Lynde St. ; Elizabeth Wilson, 28 Lynde St. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance from rear and side setbacks and from lot coverage in order to construct an addition in accordance with plans on file. Mr. Luzinski seconded. • UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 25 Congress St. - Arthur Ingemi Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages in this B-4 district. Mr. Hacker explained to Mr. Ingemi that as there was only a four man Board a unanimous vote of the Board would be needed in order to grant this application,he would therefore have the option to withdraw without prejudice and come back when there was a five man Board. Mr. Ingemini decided to have this petition heard. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Ingemi represented himself. He told the Board he has always managed a liquor establishment. This is a vacant building, would like an outside deck, will be a small operation, will specialize in seafood and the like. Will make a substantial investment, occupancy for between 35 and 50, 35 in the restaurant, about 10 in the bar. This will not be a barroom, I am aware of the liquor laws. Sitting of the deck will be about 20 people. The deck will be about 10 ft out, the length of the building. Mr. Hacker asked how many employees would there be. Mr. Ingemi said there would be 2 to 3, will be subleasing from Pickering Wharf for parking. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Gallo Emerson, Pres. of the Pickering Wharf Association, 80 Wharf St. , there are already 6 bars in this area, there is a problem with parking and cannot support another restaurant, would need about 10 - 15 parking spaces. There is a problem in the area with noise late at night, this would be detrimental, would reduce the values of the properties and the quality of life in the area. Daniel Perrot, 67 Pickering Wharf, thinks he would need more than 2 or 3 employees, same objections. Robert Wilson, 102D Wharf \ St. ; Marie Vallaincourt, 86D Wharf St. , Marie Heinz, 102C Wharf St. , same objections, • submitted letter of opposition from Betsy & Joseph Jones, 67B Wharf St. Richard Reese, Derby St. , same objections. In rebuttal: Mr. Ingemi: all I can say is, this would have been done well. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to deny the application, Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSL DENIED. c MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1984 • page ten I �- Meeting adjourned at 12:10, next scheduled hearing will be held on July 25, 1984 on the second floor, One Salem Green, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk a I I I• i L Ji�pfoRllgb (1�i# of '*Iem, Attssttr4use##s Poara of �kppwd MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JULY 25, 1984 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, July 25, 1984 at 7:00 P.M. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on July 11 , 18, 1984. Abutters and other interested persons having been notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski and Associate Members Bencal Meeting was called to order by the Chairman, James Hacker at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 13, 1984 hearing. Mr. Luzinski asked to see the copy of the the letter from the City Solicitor regarding the liability of the City to provide parking at Riley Plaza. The Board had requested a legal opinion from the City Solicitor. After reading the letter Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 96 Washington Square E. - Emma Toomey Mr. LaBrecque will be a voting member. Mr. Hacker read a letter from Attorney Richard L. Rynolds, 47 Jackson St. , Saugus which stated that the ad which appeared in the Salem Evening News was not correct and asking for the petition to be readvertised and put on the August 22, 1984 hearing. Attorney Reynolds then asked for Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petitioner the requested Leave, Mr. Gauthier seconded. LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 35 Flint St. - Crowninshield Corp. Mr. Gauthier will not be voting due to conflict of interest. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member. Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that Crownin- shield is appealing the decision from the Nation Park Service Department of Interior regarding the Historical significance of the gym at the Bowditch School, they are therefore requesting this hearing be continued until the appeal has been decided. He also explained that on a continuance, this will not be advertised again, he would however, try to have a press release put in the News when this case comes up again. Attorney Lindhaur asked if a specific date could be set. Mr. Hacker said they would wait until the decision is made. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this petition till further notice. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED 35 Andrew St. - John Suldenski Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a single family dwelling into a four unit condominium and to expand height for a portion of the building in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from Councillor Usovich, in favor. He also read a letter from Deputy Chief Goggin stating there is no Certificate of Compliance with regards to smoke detectors. Attorney George Vallis, Church St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. He submitted copies of Section V of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which states that multi-family dwellings on exceeding four families are allowed in an R-2 district by Special Permit. MINUTES - JULY 25, 1984 page two 35 Andrew St. - Continued This is presently a single family house, there is 3,594 square feet of living • space. According to the Ordinance in order to get a Special Permit, the petitioner must show this will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, this petition will not violate the intent or purpose of the ordinance. The addition in height will add 580 square feet of living space. This will enhance the value of this house and the neighbors property. He then submitted a petition in favor signed by 47 neighbors. He also submitted a letter from Judy & Wayne Hanson, 4 Andrew St. , in favor. Mr. Suldenski has been to the neighbors and told them exactly what he was going to do. He has been before the Board previously for Special Permit for 11 & 111 Mason St. , he submitted pictures of that property, and this shows the quality of work he does. He displayed the map of the neighborhood, there are many multi-family in the area. A four unit was just recently granted at 82 Webb St. This property will perk up the neighborhood if he is allowed to rehabilitate it. Mr. Vallis then displayed the plans of the proposed project to the assemblage. He explained the addition to the height. There will be new stairs, stained clabboard and will be a deck around the house. He showed a drawing of what the house will look like from Andrew Street. There will be parking for 8 cars, the rest of yard will be landscaped. There will be two units of the first floor, the upper level will be two town house units containing two bedrooms. Would like to make the point again that this will not violate the intent or purpose of the ordinance and this is not detrimental. If all these homes in this area were single family that certainly would have an effect on the neighborhood, but in this case there are many multi-family homes and one more willnot effect the neighborhood. Speaking in favor: Hilda Beck, 90 Andrew St. , Ed Graczyk, 12 Forrester St. , Emma Toomey, 96 Washington Sq. E. , Marie Cote, 15 Andrew St. , Sandra Alexander, 15 Andrew St. , Nancy Fraser, 26 Pickman St. , Priscilla Wallace, 23 Andrew St. , Dave Alexander, 15 Andrews St. , Ms. Collins, 78 Webb st. , Mary Tyburski, 22 Andrew St. , Ernest Delpero, 82 Webb St. , Marie Nordstrom, 16 Andrew St. , Ms. DaSiliva, 18 Andrew St. Speaking in opposition: Chester Chalipowski, 30 Andrew St. , showed the Board pictures of the congestion in the area. The Planning Board has said there is a critical parking problem here, there are too many people living in this area as it is. Assuming this is granted, there are 13 parking spaces being used by neighbors, where will they go to park. Mr. Suldenski says he is going to improve the neighborhood but this would be disasterous, there are people here tonight who object to this. The Planning Board told you people 6 months ago the parking situation was bad, yet you granted 4 units at 82 Webb St. , these units have robbed me of a view of Collins Cove. Mr. Hacker cautioned Mr. Chalipowski that the Board was more interested in the petition before them tonight. Mr. Chalipowski continued, we are like sardines there now, there is parking problem on Andrew St. and on Webb St. , it is the job of this Board to protect the neighborhood and enforce the ordinance. Attorney George Atkins, 301 Lafayette St. , representing Michael. & Ann Pelletier, 25-27 Andrew St., My clients are not opposed to the form of ownership, condominiums, not opposed to the residential use, no opposed to the style of structure, we are here for two reasons, the increase to four units and enlarging the building. This derogates from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. We are opposed to the degree of use. Four units is nc,t a reasonable increase. Granted the lot is large enough to handle to necessary parking, however, the people who presently use this will have to go elsewhere to park. My clients would have no objection to two units. It is difficult for the Board of Appeal to see these things in a cumulative way. Katleen Ternes, 16 Pickman St. , speaking for herself and Mrs. Ryan, opposed to the increase in density, the five family dwelling there now have been there for years, the problem is not whats there now, but to control what can happen there. •� This is a strong family neighborhood, granting this could start to detract from this family atmosphere. Traffic is serious problem. Mr. Suldenski told us it was not economically feasible to make this less than four family, all of us would like to MINUTES - JULY 25, 1984 page three 35 Andrew St. - Continued get the rents or income from property so that we could live rent free. Patrick Farrell,1 Smith Ave. , interested in purchasing the property and making it two family. Jane Sturgell, 17 Andrew St. , density, size of units, this will not foster families, this property is not even of the fair market yet, concerned with the historic sigificance, not on the local historic register but it is on the national, could be certified for tax benefits. The property is run down, but very neat. Condominiums would be detrimental. Gary Sturgwell, 17 Andrew St. , Mr. Vallis made a remark that the neighbors would like to see this torn down and made into a parking lot, that is not so. He also said the seller is anxious to sell, the truth is Mr'. Suldenski has dogged him for years, this man is not anxious to sell at all. As far as pouring money into the neighborhood, yes this can be a good thing, but money is not everything. The increase in density will not be beneficial. Mrs. Len Doherty, 75 Webb St . , concerned with density, the addition looks very large. They have adequate parking but again, where do the cars go that have been using this to park. Mr. Sicotte, many of the people who spoke in favor are members of Mr. Suldenski's family or are people who are looking for Variances in the future. Mrs. Ricard, 29 Andrew St. , density, this is an incredible increase in density, this will not promote family life. Vincent Kennedy, 11 Andrew st. , increase in density, Andrew St. is a one way street, the only entrance to the parking lot is from Andrew St. Regarding the proposed character of the structure, all well and good, it may or may not contribute to the neighborhood. Believe the developer is 'part owner of a condominium that was an illegal four family and this certainly speaks loudly for his character. Tom Stanovicz, 9 Webb St. , parking. Michael Pelletier, 25-27 Andrew St. , submitted petition signed by 10 people opposed to 4 units. Paul Ricard, 29 Andrew St. , density, parking, traffic. This will be a • fire hazard, increase in cars on Andrew St. will make it more difficult for fire trucks, cause problem with snow removal, street cleaning. The neighborhood presently consists of four different type people; elderly, singles in condos, (no children) , apartment dwellers, new families with children. Not enough children. This could set a precedent.by changing from one to four family. There are 13 homes that could be turned into a potential 27 extra units with possibility of 54 cars and no kids. Ann Pelletier, 25 Andrew St. , agrees with all reasons so far given, many of the people who spoke in favor are tenants of Mr. Suldenski. In Rebuttal: Attorney Vallis: most of the people who spoke in opposition own three and four family homes, they use this property for parking, it is called the neighborhood parking lot, the opposition is really narrowed down to density. We are showing eight parking spaces, will be two per unit. A two family dwelling with this much living space would probably. have more people living there. People who live in condos are equally interested in the neighborhood. Mr. Suldenski has one third interest in a house in the area that he inherited. Regarding the degree of use, we are talking about a nonconforming use, the Ordinance says we are allowed multi-family not to exceed four with a Special Permit. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: opposed to increase in density particularly in this area. Mr. Charnas: the Board can change the character of a neighborhood over a period of time, this is a bad precedent. Mr. Gauthier asked Mr. Sicotte if he really wanted to sell this property. Mr. Sicotte: Mr. Suldenski has been after me for five years. I promised it to him. The property needs a lot of work and I can' t afford to do it, that is why I decided to sell. Mr. Hacker: I don' t think Mr. Suldenski should be responsible for the parking of the neighborhood. Would rather see him come back for maybe three family. I would have to vote against it. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The board voted unanimously • against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED MINUTES - JULY 25, 1984 page four • 13-18 & 20 Sable Rd, 3, 5, & 7 Buena Vista Rd. - James Abram Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance from lot sizes in this R-1 district. Mr. Hacker will not sit on this petition, Mr. Luzinski is Acting Chairman. Attorney Plunkett, representing the Petitioner requested Leave to With- draw without prejudice. Attorney Robert Kallis, representing the neighbors said they had no objection to this. Councillor Leonard O'Leary, not opposed to the withdrawal of the petition, is opposed to the development. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petitioner Leave to Withraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW 253 Lafayette St. - Charles McManus Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing two family dwelling into a three unit condominium in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the applica- tion and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property was not in compliance with code regarding the smoke detectors. Mr. McManus represented himself. He explained he had parking for six cars, the building is very large, I will continue to live there, this is an R-3 district which allows multi-family, will rehab- ilitate the building, this in not in a low income area. One of the tenants is interested in purchasing a unit, hope he does stay with us, if not, I will certainly give him the six months to find another place. I have informed him of my intentions, did not give him an official letter. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Charnas: not opposed to this but thinks the law prevents the Board from granting this unless tenant is given written notice prior to hearing, a copy of this notice should be filed with the Board along with the petition. Mr. McManus: • I did tell the tenant and I gave him a copy of this Ordinance. Mr. Hacker: to protect yourself it would be prudent to withdraw and sent a Certified letter to the tenant and come back to the Board at a later date. It will have to be re-advertised. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW 40 Daniels St. - Robert Bramble Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to construct an extension of a noncon- forming building in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the structure is in violation with code regarding smoke detectors. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner. Would like to think this is simple, not asking for any increase in units, it is a three family, wants to put an addition. He displayed pictures of the property, displayed plans. Presently only one means of egress, the addition will give property the second egress. This requires a Special PErmit, the building is nonconforming and we are adding to the nonconformity. This will be a viable piece of property, the side will be removed and will be clabboard. They will be luxurious apartments. David Jacquith, Architect, displayed floor plans, the addition will be stairs and living room. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Sophie Lussier, 17 Koskieusko St. , this addition will block my view, also my air lights, sun. The Building Inspector along with Board Members check the Assessors map to get an idea of the proximity of Mrs. Lussier's property to Mr. Brambles. After a length discussion between the Board Members, Mr. Jacquith the Architect and Mrs. •� Lussier it was agreed that the plans would be changed so that the southwest portion of the the proposed second and third floor decks would be reduced by two feet. No one else appeared in opposition, hearing closed. MINUTES - JULY 25, 1984 page five 40 Daniels St. - Continued Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petitioner's request for a Special Permit on condition the southwest portion of the proposed second and third floor decks be reduced by two feet from the plans as originally submitted to the Board; a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained and A.C. hardwired smoke detectors be installed. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 107 Federal St. - Paul Bonarda Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert store into two efficiency apartments and a Variance from minimum parking requirements in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Dept. , no objection; the Planning Board, opposed; the Historical Commission, stating Mr. Bonarda's willingness to work with the Commission. Mr. Bonarda represented himself. Have just recently purchased the property, will make many improvements, this is a place where kids congregate, there is a pay phone outside and they hang around there. Don' t think a store will make it there anymore. The two efficiency apartments are economically feasible, they would be small apartments, probably for a couple or a single. May have two cars but this would not be an increase considering the cars that are there for a store. Getting rid of commercial store can only help the parking situation. This would not be detrimental. Mr. Hacker wanted to go on record as having sold a business to Mr. Bonarda about three years ago, stated this would in no way influence his vote on this petition, he will sit on this. Mr. Gauthier: will these apartments be on the first floor? Yes. Mr. Bencal: you have owned this since April or May, did you just recently advertise for the • store? Mr. Bonarda: Yes, had someone interested but they changed there minds. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Richard Mitern, 106 Federal St. , don' t think the Board should grant either one or two more apartments, there is parking problem, this is a small lot, the cars back out onto Federal St. Properties that are not owner occupied do not fare well, as I understand it the gentleman is not planning to live there, also concerned with density. Elizabeth Burns, 22 Beckford St. , my husband and I are both opposed, she submitted a statement from her husband, William Burns Jr. and two other neighbors, Margaret Foley, 114 Federal St. , Mary Hanley, 111 Federal St. , all opposed. This would be a deterior- ation of the neighborhood, should remain R-2, no parking. Mr. Charnas asked if she would be happy with a store there? She responded no, would like to see it two family. Hope Griffin, 14 Beckford St. , John McCale, 14 Beckford St. , traffic, density. Mr. Luzinski asked if they would prefer a store rather than additional apartments. Mr. McCale, leave two family, maybe a professional office. In Rebuttal: Mr. Bonarda: as far as making this into two townhouses, it is not economically feasible. I have spent a lot of money there and will spend a lot more. The last one to run the store went bankrupt. Right now there is place for three cars, the two efficiency apartments would only bring in two more cars and would be getting rid of store, this would save a lot as far as traffic is concerned. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: What is the square footage ? Mr. Bonarda: about 1 ,000 sq. ft. per floor. Mr. Luzinski: The second and third floors are already apartments? Yes. Mr. Hacker: Parking in this area is a problem and by granting this we would be adding to the problem. Piggy back parking is not allowed, Mr. Bonarda bought this knowing it could be store. This could be a professional office. Mr. Bencal: Parking is a problem, granting this could be taking a step • backwards. Not harmonius with the neighborhood. Mr. Gauthier: Could be a two family with high rents, don't like to increase the density. Mr. Charnas: Only problem I have is the parking. MINUTES - JULY 25, 1984 page six . 107 Federal St. - Continued � I Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit and Variance as requested. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The unanimously voted against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 32 Summit St. - George DuBois Petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear and side setbacks in order to construct a garage in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating they had no objections. Mr. DuBois represented himself. He submitted plot plans showing the location of the proposed garage which will be 22 feet long. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance from rear and side setbacks as requested. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Charnas congratulated David Goggin on his promotion to Deputy Fire Chief and thanked him for all his help as Fire Marshal. Hearing adjourned at 10:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be August 22, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk Ctv of ttlem, 'Mttssuchusetts Poarb of �k"zal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - AUGUST 22, 1984 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on August 22, 1984 at 7 :00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News as required by law. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Bencal, Charnas, Luzinski, Hacker and Gauthier. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the chairman, Mr. Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member of the Board. 5 Columbus Square - William & Louise Pelletier Petitioners William & Louise Pelletier are requesting that the Board have the Building Inspector order the removal of the boat cradles from the tidal flats in front of 5 Columbus Square (R-1) . The minutes of the last meeting concerning this petition are misplaced and the members of the Board reluctantly continue this petition in order that they could re-read the past minutes. The petition is continued until September 19, 1984. 278 Derby St. - George Osgood Petitioner George Osgood is requesting a variances from parking, density, side line, front yard, rear lot line and height so as to construct a 58 multi-family dwelling units with additional commerical space at 278 Derby St. , (R-3) . Attorney Serafini submits the request for the petitioner, George Osgood, for the building located on the corners of Liberty and Derby St. He states that this area should not have been rated (R-3) because this section of Salem has no residential build- ings in the area. The cost of the project is around 5 million dollars. Mr. Serafini states that they have talked with the Fire Officials and have agreed to comply with all their specifications before the building is started. Attorney Serafini also states that the peaks of said multi-family dwelling will be lowered 10 ft. , entrance to the parking will be from Derby St. , not Charter St. , and egress will be on Liberty St. . He also states that there will be 90 parking spaces provided by a four story garage. The building will be rental units, however, evidently they will be turned into condominiums. Mr. Allen Salloway, owner of Standard Motor Parts, abutter to said building, spoke in favor stating that it would get rid o� an eye sore. Mr. David Goggin also spoke in favor because of the modifications which were made by Mr. Osgood. There was no opposition to this petition. Mr. Bencal asks about parking becoming deeded parking when the units are made into condominiums. The answer by Mr. Osgood was yes, one parking space per unit. Mr. Gauthier votes in --\ favor and Mr. Charnas moves to grant provided that: r. MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1984 Page twu 7�8 Derby St. - George Osgood - Continued 1. The height of the towers be reduced 10 ft. 2. Egress to the building will be on Liberty St. not on Charter St. 3. If the building is changed into condominiums, one space per unit will be provided for parking. 4. Approval of the Fire Department 5. Builder will work with the City Planner The motion is seconded by Mr. Gauthier, UNAMIMOUSLY GRANTED. Winter Island Commission and the Park & Recreation Commission Petitioners are requesting a variance to adapt building as a small boat storage and maintenance facility, and sailing program office and classroom at 50 Winter Island Rd. The Fire Chief states that he has no objections upon revue by the Fire Dept. Ralph Hobbs, Secretary of the Winter Island Commission, presents letters in favor of the project and states how it would benefit the area. Mr. Bencal asks if it will be available for Salem Residents. Mr. Hobbs answers "yes". The building would remain the property of the City of Salem, however, its maintenance - buld be done by the Winter Island Commission and Salem State College. Mr. Richard carnes, Salem State College is in favor, Mr. Jerry Lavoie, Park & Recreation Commis- sion is in favor stating that it would be a plus for the Winter Island Area. John Gollath, Salem State College, is in favor. No one opposed the variance. Mr. Charnas asks about hardship. His answer by the Commission was that the property is not being properly maintained. Mr. Bencal makes a motion to grant. Mr. Luzinski seconds the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 41 Flint St. , - Wayne C. Sousa Petitioner Wayne Sousa asks for a special permit to convert and existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling at 41 Flint St. (R-2) . This petition was first heard in April and it was denied. Attorney George Valis, lawyer for the petitioner, Mr. Sousa states that Mr. Sousa moved into the property and made extensive repairs. He moved to Salem to live in the property located in Salem and he intends to stay. He does not wish to make condominiums out of this dwelling. Motion by Mr. Gauthier that this is not substantially different from the previous application. Mr. Bencal agrees. Mr. Charnas makes a motion to hear the petition and Mr. Gauthier seconds it. On a roll call Vote, Mr. Charnas, Mr. Hacker, and Mr. Luzinski vote to deny. Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Bencal vote to grant. BOARD VOTES NOT TO HEAR THE PETITION. 16 Lynch St. - Shetland Properties Petitioner, Shetland Properties is requesting a variance to use a vacant lot at ' 16 Lynch St. (R-3) as a parking area. The Fire Dept. states that they have no ob- jections subject to fire spaces left for the purpose of fighting fires. Mr. Krowenberg :=INUTES - AUGUST 22, 1984 Page Three '6 Lynch St. - Shetland Properties - Continued ;peaks in favor of expanding the parking lot for Shetland Properties. He states —that the neighbors have no objections. The property at the present time is vacant. Mr. Charnas reads a letter from Shetland Industries stating what they are going to do with this property (parking lot) and how they intend to maintain it. Mr. Mark Bedard, 26 Perkins St. , Mr. Craig Schallis, 25 Perkins, Mr. Ronald Charest all speak in concern of the project. They state that they basically agree with the improvements with a few exceptions. One exception is they wish the evergreens would be placed closer together to form a barrier from the parking lot. Mr. Hacker asks what the hours of operation would be. His answer from Mr. Krowenberg was 24 hours a day. Mr. Luzinski asks who would maintain the lot. His answer from Mr. Krowenberg was that Shetland Industries would. Mr. Bedard also asks for a concession that the neighbors be allowed to use the lot because there is very little parking available in the Point Area. Councillor Jean Martineau feels that Shetland Industries has met most of the demands of the neighborhood except for the guarantee of paking for the neighbors on this lot. Mr. Hacker closed the hearing in favor of the variance with no restrictions. Mr. Luzinski is in favor of the variance with no restrictions. Mr. Charnas is in favor and he asks about the hardship. Mr. Krowenberg states that the lot is not big enough to build on. Mr. Charnas makes a motion to grant the variance. It is seconded by Mr. Luzinski. UNAMIKOUSLY GRANTED. 109 Bridge St. - Theodore Kuszmar Petitioner, Theodore Kuszmar is requesting a variance from lot coverage and rear and • ide setbacks in order to construct an addition at 109 Bridge St. (B-1) . The Fire apt. states that they could not approve the request because no application was made. Mr. Charnas reads a letter from Elizabeth Murphy, 113 Bridge St. , Salem, Mass. in opposition to the granting of the variance because it would take away from the appearance of her home at 113 Bridge St. She does state, however, that she would consider modifi- cations especially a 6 ft. , pressured treated fence. Mr. Hacker withdraws because he has a similiar business in the City of Salem. Mr. Kuszmar states there is presently about 20 ft. between the store and the neighbor's house. Mr. Charnas asks about Mrs. Murphy's specifications. Mr. Kuszmar agrees to a 6 ft fence. Speaking in favor is Councillor Stan Usowich who states that the neighbors are in favor because the deliveries will be made in the back of the store on Arbella St. not on Bridge St. Mr. Hacker agrees with Mr. Kuszmar especially because of the bottle bill which forced small business to provide more room for the storage of bottles. Mr. Charnas asks for the hardship. His answer is the Bottle Bill. Motion by Mr. Charnas to grant the variance provided that: 1. Fire Dept approval 2. All .deliveries are made at the back of the store except for the tractor trailer deliveries 3. A 6 ft. stockage fence be built between the store and the property of Elizabeth Murphy Mr. Gauthier seconds the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED . MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1984 Page Four • 78 Lafayette St. - Marie Plamondon eetitioner, Marie Plamondon requests a variance to continue the use of a carriage house located at 278 Lafayette St. (R-3) as a Bridal Shop. Mr. Charnas reads a letter from Mr. Walter Power III, Chairman of the Planning Board opposing the request for the variance because of historical reasons. Mr. Valis talks for the petitioner stating that because of the fire at the Masconic Temple she had to relocate her Bridal Shoppe Business in this carriage house on Lafayette St. He states that Mrs. Plamondon has made extensive repairs to the carriage house and has made it into a very attractive piece of property. He also states that there hasn't been any traffic problems due to this business being located there. Jean Marie Rochna speaks in favor of a permanent variance stating that Mrs. Plamondon runs a very professional business and she has never received any complaints from the people living in the area. The building, Mr. McIntyre feels she has improved the building and he has not received any complaints. Mr. Charnas moves to grant the variance as long as the majority of the stock of the Bridal Shoppe Inc. remain in the Plamondon family and the business be run as a bridal shop. Mr. Gauthier seconds the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 94 Bridge St. - James Apostolos Petitioner James Apostolos is requesting a variance from side line requirements and a special permit to extend nonconforming use at 94 Bridge St. (R-2) . Mr. Charnas reads a letter from Councillor at Large, Richard E. Swiniuch stating his opposition to the granting of this variance. He states in his letter "The area is already highly ongested and the safety of children going to and from school along Pearl Street must • of your first consideration. The above mentioned petitioner has many times promised .ot to park their commercial vehicles on the street but to no avail. as they are still parked there. Any additional building will only add to the problems." Also in opposi- tion to the granting of the variance are: Mr. & Mrs. Williams, stating that there already is not enough parking, and that Mr. Apostolos has no consideration for the neighborhood. Also presented by Mr. Williams is a petition against the variance con- taining 14 signature. Councillor Stan Usowicz also speaks in opposition to the grant- ing of this variance. He states that the Exoon Station in question is a junk yard and it takes away from the neighborhood. This business has been a disaster and Mr. Apostolos has no friends in the neighborhood . They do not have any more patience with him. Mr. Usowicz also states that Mr. Apostolos cannot be trusted. Also in opposition to this variance are: Ruth McNamara, 3 Pearl St. , Salem, Mass. , Eric Williams, 4 Pearl St. , Salem, Mass. , Lea Dill, 4 Pearl St. , Salem, Mass. , Albert Belisle, 6 Barton St. , Salem Mass. , Albert Hill, 4 Barton St. , Salem Mass. , Anthony Fuccilorro, Warner St. , Salem, Mass. , Thomas McNamara, 3 Pearl St. , Salem, Mass. , Debroah Carter, 1 Warren St. , Salem, Mass. , Annette Dumais, 4 Cross St. , Salem, Mass. , Bruce Dill, 4 Pearl St. , Salem, Mass. Mr. McIntyre, the building inspector states that it is very difficult to get Mr. Apostolos to do anything. Mr. Richard Mailhoit, 57 Sylvan St. , Danvers, Mass. is the only one who spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that with two additional bays some of the vehicles would be parked in them and it would improve the property on Bridge St. A motion to grant the variance is made by Mr. Charnas. It is seconded by Mr. Luzinski. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO DENY. • MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1984 Page .five ` 8 Goodell St. - Robert &Maria Smith I Petitioners Robert & Maria Smith are requesting a variance from rear set back and distance between buildings at 8 Goodell St. (R-1) . This petition was continued until the September 19, 1984 meeting due to the lack of plot plans and pictures concerning this request. 459 Highland Ave. - Charles & Alexander Hincman Petitioners Charles & Alexander Hincman are requesting a special permit to operate a business for the purpose of Display Sale, Installation, and Service of Miscellaneous Truck Equipment and Accessories and to also conduct a Welding and Light to Medium Metal Fabricating Shop at 459 Highland Ave. (B-2) . The Fire Chief approves the request subject to obtaining a certificate of occupancy. Speaking in favor of the special permit are Charles Hincman, 1 Glen Ave. , Salem, Mass. , Alex Hincman, John Pelletier, 12 English St. , Salem, Mass. Mr. Hincman states that there will not be any structural changes to the building he will be occupying. Speaking in opposition are Thaddeus Wylodka, owner of 136-140 Clark St. , Salem, Mass. He states that Mr. Hincman will be using part of his land when he is operating his business. Mr. Hacker tries to explain to Mr. Wylodka that Mr. Hincman is only renting the building in question and if he has any complaints concerning the use of his abutting property illegaly he should contact the building inspector and he would take the appropriate action. Also speaking in opposition to this Special Permit were Mr. & Mrs. Ervich, 2 Clark Ave. , Salem, Mass. They state that having a business such as this would create alot of noise in the neighborhood. A motion was made to grant the special • 1permit by Mr. Charnas with the provisions that: 1. The special permit will be in effect for one year from the date of recording. 2. No outdoor displays, welding or fabrications would take place. 3. A certificate of occupancy is obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconds the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. The meeting adjorned at 10:45 p.m. The next scheduled meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 12, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Donna Berube ?. Citof Salem, Massachusetts e4 .J.s � � �uxrD of ��r}tettl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - SEPTEMBER 12, 1984 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals was held on September 12, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having;beeii.duly-,ad--- vertised in the Salem Evening News. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Bencal, Labrecque and Strout. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Charnas moves to accept the minutes of the August 22, 1984 meeting. Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. Chairman, Mr. Hacker, appoints Mr. Bencal and Mr. Labrecque as voting members. , 4 Locust St.' - Peter Christopher • i'Petitioner Peter Christopher is requesting a special permit to construct a l0'k' x27' ' addition to the rear of his existing house to enlarge the existing kitchen and add a sunroom at 4 Locust St. R-1. The Fire Marshall states that he has no objections as it is in compliance with the fire laws. Mr. Vallis represents the petitioner saying that this petition is different than the petition of January 1984. The proposed addition would be 17 ft. from the side line and will not go out farther than the existing building. The new proposed addition would be 274 sq.ft. , compared to 424 sq. ft. Mr. Bencal makes a motion to hear the petition. Mr. Charnas seconds, UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TO HEAR PETITION Mr. Vallis states that this addition would be an extension to a non-conforming building. . The addition meets all regulations of the building code. Speaking in favor of the petition were: Grace O'Brien, 3 Locust St. , Salem, Mass. , Mrs. Chemaski, 8 Bayview Circle, Salem, Mass. , Thomas O'Brien, 3 Locust St. , Salem, Mass. Opposed to the petition is Mr. Raymond Jodoin, 3 Larch Ave. , Salem, Mass. Representing Mr. Jodoin is Attorney William Mahoney. Attorney Mahoney states that his client, Mr. Jodoin is concerned about the height of the addition. He states that Mr. Christopher's plans are not to specifications, stating that they do not show all of the direct abutters. He suggests to the Board that this petition be postponed until another meeting in order that his client might see if his sunlight will be affected by this proposed addition. Mr. Jodoin also stated that they are building on the rear of the property not on the side as the petition states. Mr. Vallis states that it is the way you would look at the abutters that would decide whether it is the side or rear of the property. The height of the existing building is 16 ft. and the new addition would not exceed this • lheight. Mr. Gauthier states that this addition would not obstruct Mr. Jodoin's sun- light due to the position of his property. Mr. Bencal is in favor of the petition saying it would increase the value of the neighborhood property. Mr. Charnas agrees with Mr. Bencal limiting the height of the new addition to the height of the existing building. Mr. Charnas makes a motion to grant with the stipulation that the new addition would not exceed the height of the existing house. Mr. Strout seconds ' MINUTED - SEPTEMBER 12, 1984 Page two 4 Locust St. - Peter Christopher - Continued •'UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 34 Bridge St. - Nondas Lagonakis Petitioner Nondas Lagonakis is requesting an appeal to the decision of the Building Inspector, Richard T. McIntosh which issued a building permit to Kenneth Surrette to build a new building at 34 Bridge St. after the existing building was demolished. B-2 Mr. Robert Gauthier is made a voting member and Mr. Labrecque is not a voting member. Attorney DeMakis is representing Mr. Lagonakis. Attorney DeMakis states that the new building does not comply with .the building codes of the City. The new building is wider and is two stories instead of one story. Mr. Lagonakis is the owner of the abutting property. Attorney DeMakis asks that the Board revoke the permit that has already been granted. Speaking in favor of the appeal were: Councillor Stan Usowich, 18 Forrester St. He states that the building is substain tially larger then the original building and that the Board of Appeals should have approved the request for a larger building before the building was put up. Mr. Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4 Councillor agrees with Mr. Usowicz. Mr. Novak, 114 Columbus Ave. , Salem, Mass. states that the Board has to act on this matter saying that if they do not act they will look bad. Mr. Don Juralowicz, worker at a nearby Liquor Store, states that he witnessed the tearing down of the existing building. He states that they were tearing down the building not trying to restore it. They never tried to save the existing building . Mr. Harry Manzoni works across the street and he states that the building is non-conforming from the existing building. • `Speaking in :opposition to the appeal is Attorney Collins who is representing Mr. Thomas Rhoades of Catering Chef Inc. - leasee of the building. Attorney Collins states that Mr. Rhoades has invested $20,000 on this building, relying on the special permit which was granted to him by the Building Inspector, Mr. McIntosh. Attorney Abrams represents Mr. John Spinalli. He states that when the .Special Permit was granted it was in compliance with the Salem Building Codes in the follow- ing ways: 1. The building was not substaintially demolished in one scoop 2. The building is substainstially the same, but is an improved building 3. The building inspector acted properly in granting the permit Mr. Abrams states that the hardship is that the building is now constructed and it does conform with the ordiances of the City. And that his client has already ex- panded alot of money on the building. Mr. Ken Surrette, 26 Elmwood Circle, Peabody, Mass, states that the building is not bigger than the original building and if any- thing it is smaller in area of square feet. Mr. McIntosh states that he gave a permit to renovate the existing building. The new building conforms with all the regulations of the Building Ordinances. The only thing in question is the size of the lot. He also states that the existing building could have hurt someone because of the condition it was in. Mr. Gauthier states that no one just walked into the City without a building permit. He feels that the building inspector had the best of faith when he granted this special permit. Mr. Hacker agrees with Mr. Gauthier, however, questions whether the contractor really tried to save the existing building. Mr. Hacker suggests that he, Mr. Lagonakis, Mr. Rhoades and Mr. McIntosh sit down ` together and discuss this matter privately at a later date to see what can be done • to make both sides happy. PETITION CONTINUED. MINUTES-- SEPTEMBER 12 1984 age ree • 9 Williams St. - Stephen M. Scalette -Petitioner Stephen M. Scalette is requesting a Special Permit to build a third dwelling unit in an existing two family home at 19 Williams St. R-2. Mr. Labrecque is made a voting member. The Fire Dept has no objection to this petition with the condition that fire alarms be installed in compliance with the law. A letter in opposition to the issuance of the Special Permit from the Planning Board is read by Mr. Charnas. It states that the area is already quite dense and the addition of a third unit to the building would exacerbate this density. Mr. Scalette, owner of the property, speaks for himself. He states that he likes the City of Salem and that he has already spent $33,000 in fixing the house and that he intends to spend another $6,500. Mr. Scalette states that he has parking for four vehicles. He states that his present tenants are professional people and very good tenants. Speaking in favor of the Special Permit is Lynn Murray, 21 Williams St. , Salem, Mass. She states that there is adequate parking on the street and that Mr. Scalette has done an excellent job restoring the building. Mr. Stan Usowich states that it would improve the value of the property and that his only concern is that there is adequate parking. As long as there is enough parking, he is in favor of the Special Permit. Also in favor of the Special Permit is Alice Kuzmar who sends a letter stating how it would improve the neighborhood. Speaking in opposition is Peter Wales, Williams St. , Salem, Mass. He says that he is just concerned about the parking on an already congested street. Mr. Bencal states the parking on the street is less than adequate. Mr. Charnas motions to grant the special permit. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED • 153 Lafayette St. - Charles McManus Petitioner, Charles McManus is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family into a three unit condominum and a Variance from 20' side line require- ment to build within 15' of sideline at 253 Lafayette St. R-3. Mr. McManus states that he resides in the building and wishes to change an existing two family into three condominums. Mr. McManus states that presently he has one tenant, Dr. Dave Goodman who states that he would like to purchase a condominum or he would relocate. The Fire Dept, is opposed to the special permit subject to his obtaining a certificate of compliance for fire dectectors. Mr. McManus does state that a hardship does exsist in that he would have to re-do all the windows. Mr Gauthier makes a motion to grant the special permit with the provision that he gets a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Gauthier also makes a motion to grant the variance. Mr. Charnas seconded. On a roll call vote, Mr. Charnas denied because he feels that a hardship does not exsist. Messrs. , Strout, Bencal, Hacker, and Gauthier vote to grant the variance. GRANTED 71 Bridge St. - Augusto P. DaCunha Petitioner Augusto P. DaCunha is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existicig:; two family dwelling house into a three family dwelling at 71 Bridge St. , B-4. Att. George Vallis is representing Mr. DaCunha. He states that Mr. DaCunha bought the property with the idea of moving into the City of Salem. He also states that the • MINUTES,,,-. SEiTEMBER 12, 1984 Page four • '1 Bridge St. - Augusto P. DaCunha - Continued - ,two tenants that now reside in the building do not have cars so no parking problem exsists. There already is wiring on the third floor and all that is needed is that the plumbing be .brought up. Speaking in opposition to this request are Mr. Stan Usowich, Mr. Gerald Levesque, Marine Speculators, Phyliss Remon, 6 Lathrop St. , Salem, Mass. , Francis Remon, 6 Lathrop St. , Salem, Mass. They are all in .opposition because of the lack of parking in the area. Mr. Bencal states that the Board cannot deny one person and then allow another the same request. For this reason he is opposed to the Special Permit. Mr. Gauthier agrees with Mr. Bencal. Mr. Strout makes a motion to grant the permit Mr. Charnas seconds it. UNAMINOUSLY DENIED after a 5 -O vote. 107 Federal St. - Paul Bonarda. Petitioner Paul Bonarda is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing store into an efficiency apartment at 107 Federal St. R-2. This petition is con- tinued until the October 1984 meeting due to the fact that it was improperly ad- vertised in the paper. PETITION WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , next scheduled meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 19, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green'. Respectfully submitted, • / Donna Berube Cosm' b� Ti#u of "Salem, Anssuchuse##s �. � • ,, F ultra of ettl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - SEPTEMBER 19, 1984 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on September 19, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having duly advertised in the Salem Evening News. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski, Gauthier, Strout, Bencal and Labrecque. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal is made a voting member and Mr. Labrecque is not a voting member. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 20, 1984 meeting. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 34 Bridge St. - Nondas Lagonakis •� j Petition of Nondas Lagonakis which was continued from the last meeting. This petition is to appeal the decision of the Building Inspector, Richard T. McIntosh to issue a building permit to Kenneth Surrette to build a new building at 34 Bridge St. after existing building was demolished. B-2. A private meeting was held on Friday, September 14, 1984 to discuss this problem. The results of this meeting was that both Mr. Lagonakis and Mr. Surrette could not agree on any terms. Mr. Hacker states that the Building Inspector acted properly and he made a just decision, however, he was deceived by the builder and he should not be made responsible for what took place with the building. Mr. Hacker also states that the lease drawn up by Mr. Rhoades attorney states that the building is to be removed at the lessee's expense. This shows that Mr. Rhoades had no intentions in restoring the existing building and that he tried to go against the law. Mr. Bencal states that he believes that they had no intentions in fixing up the existing building. They intended to tear it down and build another building. Mr. Gauthier states that in his opinion if the Diner had been properly braced it could have been lifted out without the demolision of the complete building. Mr. Charnas says that he agrees with the chairman that there was never an intent to restore the building. Mr. Bencal motions that the permit should be revoked because of the misintent of the previously grantedpermit. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY REVOKED 5 Columbus Square - William & Louise Pelletier Petition of William & Louise Pelletier requesting the Board have the Building In- • ` spector order the removal of the boat cradles from the tidal flats in front of i MINUTES - SrPTEMBER 19, 1984 Page two • 5 Columbus Square - Continued 5 Columbus Square (R-1) . Mr. Luzinski is made a voting member. Mr. Charnas with- draws because he was not present at the original petition. Mr. Hacker asks Mr. Hayward what has been done since the last hearing. Mr. Hayward states that he has moved the cradles that where in the way and that he is working on tieing the cradles so that they will not sway as much. Mr. Hacker asks the Pelletier's if they want all the cradles removed or just the excess ones removed. Mr. Pelletier states that he just wants the ones on his property removed. Mrs. Pelletier states that she wants all the cradles removed and put on Mr. Hayward's land. Mr. Gauthier asks if the picture showing the cradles is available. His answer by Attorney Lundregan is that it is not available. The land under the cradles is owned by the Dione's , 26 Columbus Ave. , Salem, Mass. and they have given permission to Mr.-Hayward to use the land. Mr. Hacker states that it is not his right to tell Mr. Hayward that he has to remove the cradles. Mr. Charnas states that Mr. Hayward would need a Special Permit for any- thing over the uses of 1965 which were 40 to 60 cradles. Mr. Bencal states that they are not on the petitioner's land so there is nothing they can do if the amount of cradles is under 60. Mr. Hacker asks Mr. Hayward how many cradles he presently has. Mr. Hayward's answer is "I do not know". Mrs. Pelletier states that there .are more than 60 cradles now. Mr. Hacker states that if there are more than 60 cradles then the Building Inspector should take appropriate action. Mr. Gauthier states that there are no deeds to the tidal flates except for certain individuals. Mr. Bencal makes a motion to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector subject to: 1. The boat yard have no more than 60 cradles. • i 2. Keep the cradles in the same order that they were in in the picture that was presented by Philip Cahill. 3. Keep the lane open for the Pelletier's use. Mr. Strout seconds the motion. On a roll call vote Messrs. Bencal, Hacker, Strout, and Luzinski vote to grant and Mr. Gauthier votes present. GRANTED 8 Goodell St. - Robert & Maria Smith This petition of Robert & Maria Smith for variances from rear set back and distance between buildings at 8 Goodell St. (R-1) is continued from the August 22, 1984 meet- ing. Mr. Luzinski and Mr. Charnas are made voting members. Mr. Robert Smith, 8 Goodell St. , Salem, Mass represents himself. He states that his present garage is too small to even fit a volkswagon. The present garage is ll'by 12' . Mr. Charnas states that he needs a Special Permit instead of a Variance. Mr. Hacker states that he has received complaints from some of the neighbors that there is liter and debris around the present garage. Mr. & Mrs. Smith assures the Board that this has been cleaned up. Mr. Charnas moves to grant the Special Permit with the stipulations: 1. No unregistered vehicles be on the premises 2. All work on vehicles would be done between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. • 3. The garage will not be used for any commercial purposes. Mr. Gauthier seconds the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 1. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1984 Page three • 394 Highland Ave. - Angelo Marotta Petitioner Angelo Marotta is requesting a variance to allow a residential use in an non-residential zoned district at 394 Highland Ave. (B-2, R-1, R-C) to con- struct 216 single family condominimums. This petition is WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE 37 Lafayette Place - James '& 'Lucille Goldrick Petitioners James & Lucille Goldrick are requesting a Variance from rear and side setbacks and possible density ordinance to construct a garage on the site of a des- troyed garage at 37 Lafayette Place. (R-2) The Fire Marshall states that he has no objections. Mr. Goldrick represents himself. He states that the present garage is a two car garage. The new garage would be 2 feet longer. Mr. Gauthier states that Mr. Goldrick has a right to build a new garage on his land and that it would look alot better than the existing one. Mr. Charnas moves to grant the Special Permit. Mr. Strout seconds. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 66 Valley St. - Jane & Robert McDonald Petitioners Jane and Robert McDonald are requesting a Variance from rear set back in order to construct an enclosed porch at 66 Valley St. (R-1) . The Fire Department has no objections except that the swtoke detector requirements were not met. Mrs. • McDonald represents herself. She has a certificate which states that she has met the smoke dectector requirements. Speaking in favor of the petition is Mrs. D'Annolfo, 2 Parlee St. , Salem, Mass. There was no one in opposition. Mr. Gauthier states that it is a Special Permit that she needs not a variance. Mr. Gauthier makes a motion to grant the Special Permit. Mr. Charnas seconds the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 21 Clark St. - Ronald Calvani Petitioner Ronald Calvani is requesting a Special Permit to operate from his home a business restoring antiques and antique lighting at 21 Clark St. (R-1) . Mr. Labrecque is made a voting member. Mr. Gauthier is not a voting member. Fire Marshall states that he has no objections. Mr. Calvani represents himself. He states that he did not re-apply three years ago because he was going through a divorce than and he was hospitalized and was unable to re-apply for the permit. _ Mr. Bencal states that Mr. Calvani was operating in violation of the Sunset Clause because he had not re-applied sooner. Speaking in favor of the petition were Agnes George, 8 Clark St. , Salem, Mass. She states that Mr. Callvani never bothered anyone. Pauline Alexander, 12 Clark St. , Salem, Mass. feels the same as Ms. George. Mr. Calvani states that he does use chemicals, but it is kept to a minimum. He states that he has n-o other employees and that he works alone. Mr. Charnas moves to grant the permit with the stipulations that: 1 He remains living on the premises • 2 As long as the conditions of the business do not change from the original decision of 9/12/78 MINUTES - SEPTEMPiER 19, 1984 Page four 21 Clark St. - continued J3• Special Permit is contigent withcthe requirements being met with the Fire Department Mr. Labrecque seconds motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 19 Hancock St. - Charles & Beverly Nelson Petitioners Charles & Beverly Nelson are requesting a Special Permit to build a third dwelling unit in an existing two family home at 19 Hancock -St. (R-2). The Fire Mar- shall has no objections as it is in compliance with the fire laws. Mr. Nelson re- presents himself. He states that there is ample parking for four plus vehicles. He states that he has owned the property since March of 1984 and that he resides in one of the apartments. Mr. Bencal states that since there is ample parking for four plus vehicles, he sees no reason why they cannot grant the Special Permit. Mr. Charnas moves to grant the Special Permit with the condition that he obtain a cer- tificate of occupancy. Mr. Labrecque seconds the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 11 Oliver St. - Richard Clemens Petitioner Richard Clemens is requesting a Special Permit to build a third dwelling unit in an existing two family home at 11 Oliver St. The Fire Marshall states that Mr. Clemens has not obtained a certificate of occupancy. Attorney Gary Sachrider represents Richard Clemens he states that in the area of Oliver and Winter and Mall Streets there are many three family dwelling units. He says that Mr. Clemens has parking for more than three cars (five or six cars). He has two exits on every floor except the second floor and he plans to definitely take care of this matter. There would be no structural change to the building. Mr. Clemens states that there is no problems with the neighbors. Mr. Bencal asks if there will be any piggy- back parking. His answer by Attorney Sachrider is that there will be no piggy- back parking. Mr. Charnas makes a motion to grant the Special Permit with the con- dition that a certificate of occupancy is obtained. Also, with the stipulation that there be ample, nonthe parking for four or five cars. Mr. Gauthier seconds the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m., next scheduled meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 17, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Donna Berube • J,a.CO\V1� (situ of "Salem, 'Mttssar4usetts � pottra of 4kppeul iyJ MINUTES - BOARD OF APPEAL, OCTOBER 17, 1984 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, October 17, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on October 3, 10, 1984. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker Mr. Gauthier made a motion to accept the minutes of the September 12, & 19th meetings. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 107 Federal St. - Paul Bonardi Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing store into an apartment which will bring a total of three units, also requesting a Variance from minimum parking requirements. Mr. Hacker will not be sitting on this case for personal reasons. Mr. Luzinski will be the Acting Chairman. ' Attorney Stuart Rosnick, representing the petitioner, question the reason for Mr. Hacker not hearing this case. Mr. Charnas said he did not think Mr. Hacker had to explain his reason. Mr. Luzinski then explained to the petitioner that as there • would only be four members hearing this case, it would take a unanimous vote of the Board to grant. The petition has the option of withdrawing his petition and coining back at a later date. The petition said they would like to be heard tonight. Mr. Luzinski then explained that the Board would first have to vote on whether on not to hear this petition, Mr. Bonardi was before the Board in July of this year and was denied. Mr. Charnas read the application from the July hearing, this request was for two efficiency apartments which would make a total of four units, the new application is requesting three units. Mr. Charnas then made a motion to hear the new .petition as there is substantial changes. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED TO HEAR PETITION Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. The Board was concerned because there were no plot plans showing the parking. Mr. Bonardi said there were plot plans submitted for previous meetings, however, after going through the files from those meetings, no plot plans were found. Attorney Stuart Rosnick represented the petition, Mr. Bonardi, he stated this was a unique building on Federal St. , it has a store which has been closed since Mr. Bonardi bought it, he does not want to continue using this as a store. Mr. Bonardi has decided not to appeal the Board' s last decision, he has decided to ge for the: three units instead. He submitted a petition in favor, signed by twelve neighbors. HE! needs a Variance from the minimum parking requirements, he only has three spaces, on site. Mr. Rosnick the quoted from the Zoning Ordinance, Section VIII, Paragraph 4E which states: If no structural alterations are amde, any nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises, may be changed to another noncon- forming use provided that the Board of Appeals, either by general rule or by making findings in the specific case, shall find that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use. We feel the use as an apartment is much more appropriate to the district that the use as a store. We he bought the property, he thought he might like to make it a store, but now feels this would not be appropriate. The hardship is the MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 1984 page two 107 Federal St. - Continued parking, he thought he would be able to squeeze in more parking but he cannot. One tenant does not use any parking, the other tenant uses two spaces, the new tenant will be informed there is only one space available. The bottom line is, which is more detrimental, a store or an apartment. Mr. Bonarda could have made more money with the two additional units but he is willing to have the one additional unit. Mr. Charnas asked when this was last used as a store. Mr. Bonarda said last February. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: William Burns, 22 Beckford St. , it is true Mr. Bonarda is a businessman, his purpose in buying this property was to transfer the liquor license to his other store. Concerned about people moving into neighborhoods without concern for the quality of the neighborhood, example: Bridge & North St. , they have been allowed to become dense overpopulated areas. We must take a stand against this. This area has historical significance. Federal Street is already a highly congested area, we do not need any more traffic. We have a chance to restore this to a two family home, it should be kept that way. He submitted a petition in opposition, signed by eighteen neighbors, said he did not know who signed the other petition but these are all owners. What they are proposing is changing this to an R-3 neighborhood, it is our feeling that to preserve the quality of the neighborhood it should be kept R-2. To allow this to be changed to R-3 would start a stampede on this street to three families. This street is as sensitive historically as Chestnut St. Mr. Charnas: If we turn this down, you realize he could run a convenience store there. Mr. Burns: we have no objection to that, there was no problem with the store until they got a liquor license. Mr. Charnas: wouldn' t a store create more traffic than an apartment. Mr. Burns: • a store is not objectionable, a three family is. Elizabeth Burns, 22 Beckford St. , there are only two parking spaces available now. As far as the store is concerned, there was no objection to it until they go a liquor license, when that happened it all changed, it stayed open later. A store probably couldn' t make it there now, people have gotten in the habit of going elsewhere, but we would prefer having a store. The public telephone that was taken out, was put there illegally by the previous owner, the Historic Commission has had it removed. We heard Mr. Bonarda is suing the city because of this. We would like to see this place owner occupied, concerned with the density. In rebuttal: Attorney Rosnick, Mr. Bonarda is no suing the city, he does have a complaint and it is being handled through channels. One of the parking spaces is presently being leased, if this petition is granted, that will change, the space will be for the tenant. This is an R-2 district, but the Ordinance allows the Board to grant, by Special Permit, up to four family dwellings, we are only asking for three. Mr. Bonarda will be putting approximately $30,000 into this building, this certainly is not a slum lord. The liquor license has been transferred to the Lafayette Store. Cannot see where people would rather have a store than another apartment. Mr. Gauthier asked if there were two stairways. Mr. Bonarda said yes, and pointed them out on the plans. Mr. Gauthier: how many parking spaces are there? Mr. Bonarda, three full spaces. Mr. Strout: has one of the spaces been sold? Mr. Bonarda: not sold, it has been leased by the month. Mr. Gauthier: on the petition submitted by the applicant, how many are owners? Mr. Burns looked over the petition and said only two of the signatures were actual owners. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I am willing to accept there are three spaces, even with the three spaces, I am against this. Federal St. is • one of the most beautiful streets in the City and the neighbors are content to have a store there, have not seen any real hardship. Mr. Gauthier: I agree with the neighbors, I have seen this area come back to two family area, people have worked hard for this. I am against this petition, I think Mr. Bonarda could do well with a two family dwelling. Mr. Strout: agrees with Mr. Charnas and MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 1984 page F`hree, • 107 Federal St. - Continued Mr. Gauthier, adding more units to. this area will not add to the historical aspect. Mr. Luzinski: I concur. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 72 Bridge St. - John J. Suldenski Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and a Variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling on an undersized lot in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Salem Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. has no objection, however, they did mention they felt this should have a Skerry St. address. He also read a letter from the Planning Board stating their opposition to this petition because of the high density in this area, they also expressed concern that open space for recreational use by the residents of this parcel would be severely reduced, open space in the entire neighborhood is already inadequate. Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , represented the petitioner. He explained they were coming for a Special Permit under section V ( 10) of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with extensions of nonconformities. The best way I know to decide what is detrimental to a neighborhood is to ask the neighbors. He then submitted a a petition in favor signed by 28 neighbors. Mr. Suldenski is doing extensive remodeling of the existing five family dwelling, he has done a lot of work in Salem and he does his work with pride. When he finishes the five family it will certainly enhance the neighborhood. He has owned this property for about three months. • A single family house on the small lot will not exacerbate the congestion, the Salem Zoning Ordinance requires 15,000 Sq. Ft. , you will not find any lots that size on Bridge St. The Variance is needed because of rear setbacks, the house would be 36' x 281 , 2 story and will have an eighteen foot setback in the rear, it will be 24' from the street, if the Special Permit is granted the hardship is due to the size of the lot. The house could be put closer to the front but it is better if it is further from the street. Mr. Luzinski: Will he live there? No, he will probably sell it. Speaking in favor: Mr. Michael Thomas, 5 Skerry St. , This has been an eyesore, this will improve the area. Speaking in opposition: Ann Pelletier 25 Andrews St. , there is a five family there and only seven parking spaces. Mr. Gauthier showed her on the plans where there would be parking for 8 cars. She also said she was concerned because she had children who go to the school in that area and it is a very congested area, would not like to see any additional building in the neighborhood. He could take that area and put in a nice yard. In rebuttal: Mr. Vallis, don' t know what to say to Mrs. Pelletier, her opposition because she has children that go to school on Skerry St. doesn' t seem valid, Mr. Thomas, who lives right there and has seen this for years is better qualified that someone who doesn' t live in the neighborhood. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: I don' t think building a single family there will influence traffic on Bridge St. , my only question is how do we do it, Special Permit first or Variance. Mr. Charnas: I think he should be able to build a single family, needs Variance from setbacks, would vote to grant the Special Permit but am against the Variance, disagrees with Mr. Vallis that if the Special Permit is granted, the hardship is created. Mr. Gauthier: with a two story house it could be made smaller and it could make most of the setback requirements. ' It could be redesigned. Agrees with Mr. Charnas regarding the hardship, doesn' t see one. Mr. Hacker, has no problem with dividing MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 1984 page four 72 Bridge St. - Continued the lot, would like the house kept small enough so that it stays a single family. Has difficulty with Variance. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit as requested provided the fire department is given detailed plans of the building and a Certificate of Compliance is obtained. MR. Gauthier seconded. SPECIAL PERMIT UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance as requested. Mr. Strout seconded. TheYvoted unanimously against the motion to grant. VARIANCE UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 35 Andrew St. - John J. Suldenski Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing single family dwelling into a three unit condominium in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Salem Fire Marshal. He also read a letter from Jane & Paul Ricard, 29 Andrew St. , stating their opposition. Mr. Hacker noted that Mr. Suldenski had come before the Board in July of this year for a Special Permit for this same piece of property. Mr. Charnas read the application from that meeting. At that time Mr. Suldenski was requesting a Special Permit to convert from single family into a four unit condominium. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to hear the petition as there was a substantial change. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO HEAR PETITION Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , represented the petitioner. He explained they were coming for three units rather that the four units they had prevously �. applied for, also going to expand height of a portion of the building. He displayed copies of the Assessors Map. Showed pictures of the property and showed what the building will look like. There are three family homes in this area and this will certainly not be more detrimental, there is a three family right next door which is owned by Mr. Ricard, who wrote the letter of opposition. The Ricards came to the Board in July 1983 and was granted a Special Permit to convert his property to a three family, next to that property is a five family. There are two, three and four families in this area, quite a few multi-families. The Board granted a Variance to put a four unit condominium across the street at 82 Webb St. I know the opposition will all say this will exacerbate the congestion, what con- stitutes congestion? Parking, my client has parking for eight cars easily. Mr. Vallis then submitted copies of the minutes regarding the decision on 29 Andrew St. , Paul Ricard. Mr. Ricard was granted the Special Permit, however, he was denied a Variance from parking. Mr. Vallis said he would like to point out that the locus of 35 Andrew is presently being used by many of the people who live in the area. There is a parking problem in the area, this place does not have a parking problem. These units will probably sell for between 70 & 90 thousand dollars. Mr. Vallis again referred to the 29 Andrew St. decision. He stated there was no opposition to that petition, seems like the neighbors don' t want any outsiders coming in there. Mr. Suldenski was raised on Andrew St. and he still has family living there. He then submitted copies of the meeting regarding 29 Andrew St. , quoted Mrs. Pelletier's objection which dealt with parking, we are providing a lot more parking and we will be landscaping. Mr. Gauthier asked Mr. Vallis why they would close up the Webb St. entrance and put entrance on Andrew St. Mr. Suldenski responded by saying it was because of the kids cutting through. •' Speaking in favor: Cindy Suldenski, 15 Andrew St. , Mr. Michael Thomas, Skerry St. , here is a piece of property that, even when I was a kid was an eyesore and it is even worse now. This could only enhance the neighborhood. MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 1984 page five • 35 Andrew St. - Continued ` Speaking in opposition: George Atkins, Esq. , 301 Lafayette St. , representing Mrs. Pelletier, 25 Andrew St. , objected to the Board's decision that there is a substantial difference, he quoted Section 16 of the MGL Chapter 40A which deals with repetitive petition: The Board should not be concerned about and permits that were granted before, should only be concerned about what is before it tonight. Anything else is just a red herring. I am sure Mr. Suldenski does excellent work, we have no objection to condominiums, no objections to the architecture, no objection to Mr. Suldinski, we are opposed to extension of nonconformity. In my opinion I don' t think you have the authority to grant this. This is an R-2 area regardless of what was allowed a year ago, we don' t want any further encroachment. Jane Sturwell, 17 Andrew St. , concerned with the Historical significance, it is listed on the National Register. Primary objection is the congestion, this projection should be reviewed on it's own merits. Did not object to the Ricard' s petition because they were going to live there and it was a chance for them to improve their property. This could be kept a two family and still make a profit. Dave Goodman, 11A Andrew St. , concerned with the density, just because mistakes have been made in the past we should not continue making them, the line must be drawn some place. Rebecca Kennedy, 11A Andrew St. , concerned with density, this is potentially beautiful property. Mr. Chalepowski, 30 Andrews St. , density, parking, was opposed when he asked for four units, still opposed. The real issue is; are we going to let him become rich at the expense of the neighbors. There are 13 parking spaces there, what is to become of the people who use them now, it will be a disaster, it is up to this Board to concern itself with the neighbors. Mr. Hacker: even if someone • kept this as a single family, there is no guarantee they will allow the people to use those spaces. Mr. Charnas, addressing Mr. Chalipowski, you are concerned with the parking and yet you were in favor of Mr. Ricard's petition when he had no parking, can you explain? Mr. Chalipowski, I was in favor as long as he met the parking requirements. Gary Sturgwell, 17 Andrew St. , when you have four small units you can' t have families, that means a higher turn over. Four years ago this was very run down area, it is now a substantial neighborhood, the market values are good, no longer considered to be as bad as it was, the neighborhood has been developed,now it is getting to be overdeveloped, we are losing the original character. It may be economically feasible to make a two family, but not necessary to make three. Mr. Sicotte was not anxious to sell, but was the offer was too good. Ann Pelletier, 25 Andrew St. I have a five family, I bought it as a five family, I paid for a five family and I get the rentals for a five family. If a person buys a three family, they pay for a three family, likewise, if someone buys a single family they have paid for a single family. I did not object to the Ricard's petition, they could not afford to improve the property without the extra income. I have the right to support or not to support a petition, that is my right. When asked if they use Mr. Sicotte's parking area she said yes, they rent two spaces. Attorney Atkins, it is important to remember you are increasing the density. In rebuttal: Attorney Vallis, what has happened in the past and what is in the neighborhood now, is important. If I did not show what exists in the neighborhood, I would be derelict. Why should Mr. Suldenski be punished because of the condominium across the street. By right he could put in a two family, he is only asking for one additional unit. The tenants who are opposed are using these parking spaces, • Mr. Chalipowski's tenants use them, Mrs. Pelletier admitted renting two of the spaces. Whatever happens, the neighbors will not be able to park here. MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 1984 page six 35 Andrew St. - Continued • Mr. Suldenski even offered to help Mr. Chalipowski to hot top his yard. They did not oppose Mr. Ricard's petition because he was a nice guy, Mr. Suldenski is a nice guy too. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: seems everybody is opposed to increasing the density unless it is someone they like. Their opposition is also because their tenants use the parking area. This is not detrimental, I would be in favor. Mr. Hacker, agrees with Mr. Charnas, think's the Board can help the neighbors out, would like to close off driveway on Andrew St. and make it on Webb St. Mr. Gauthier: agrees, thinks this will add to the neighborhood, it is not up to Mr. Suldenski to provide parking for the neighborhood. Mr. Luzinski: I would feel better if this remained R-2, I am not in favor. Mr. Strout: I have no problem with this if the driveway is on Webb St. , will be good for the neighbor- hood, one unit more will not be detrimental. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition as requested on condition eight parking spaces be maintained on site; access to the parking area be on Webb St. , not Andrew St. and a Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained. Mr. Charnas seconded. The Board granted the Special Permit by a vote of four to one, Mr. Luzinski voted in opposition. GRANTED 18 March st. - John E. Kiernan Petitioner is requesting a Variance to raise existing roof from 27' stories to 3 stories, total height from 35 ft to 37 ft. to allow for two additional bedrooms in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. had no objection providing a Certificate of • Occupancy is obtained. Mr. Luzinski is Acting Chairman as Mr. Hacker had to leave for awhile. Mr. Luzinski explained to the petition that as there are only four members to hear this petition it would take a unanimous vote of the Board to grant. He therefore had the option to Withdraw Without Prejudice if he so desired. Mr. Kiernan said he would like to be heard. He displayed plans to the Board, he explained that he could reduce the pitch of the roof but to maintain the Colonial look, raising the roof is necessary. Received a Variance in 1962 for additional units, it is now a four family. This will not increase density, will cut down to three larger units. Will only raise the front, will probably have an additional bathroom. Will be two apartments in front and one in the rear, like a townhouse. With the four units, people don' t seem to stay very long, This will upgrade the neighborhood. Speaking in favor: Michael Thomas, 5 Skerry St. , any improvement in this ward is good. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas said he felt this should be a Special Permit rather that a Variance, he is extending a nonconformity. Mr. Gauthier agreed it should be a Special Permit. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the Petitioner a Special Permit to raise a portion of the roof on condition a full set of detailed plans be submitted to the Building Inspector in conjunction with the Building Permit and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Charnas seconded. SPECIAL PERMIT UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 28 Greenway Road - Rene LeBlanc (Petitioner) John Sadoski (Owner) Petitioner is requesting a Variance for an addition to be closer than the required 30 ft. in the rear in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated they were opposed because there was no Certificate of Compliance with regards to smoke detectors. Mr. Luzinski, Acting Chairman, explained that as there were only four members present it would take a unanimous vote of the Board to grant this petition. He would be allowed MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 1984 page seven • 28 Greenway Rd. - Continued to withdraw at this time if he preferred to be heard by a five man board. Attorney Kevin Daly, 1 Church St. , representing .the petition said they would prefer to have the petition heard now. The LeBlancs purchased this property in 1972, he noticed a water problem in the basement, he made a patio to help alleviate this problem, eventually the patio became an addition, no permits were taken out, did not realize there was a zoning problem till they went to pass papers. Mr. LeBlanc sold the property to John & Elizabeth Sadoski on August 17, 1984. The addition prevents water seepage, if this Variance is not granted it will cause a hardship on the new owners. He submitted a copy of the Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Dept. Speaking in favor: Mr. Sadoski, 28 Greenway Rd. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the Variance from"rear setback requirements to allow the existing addition. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 186 Federal St. - George & Margaret McAllister Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the required 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit to allow a two family dwelling on a 9,400 sq. ft. lot in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. McAllister represented himself. He explained that he wanted to put in a second unit, which is allowed. However, he does not have the required square footage per dwelling unit. There will be not exterior changes and he has plenty of parking. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas felt this should be a special permit as it is already nonconforming. The other members • agreed. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow two family dwelling on this undersized lot on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. SPECIAL PERMIT UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 10:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be at 7:00 p.m. , October 24, 1984, second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, `C� 'L' Z4i4oa�l Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk ` .rcuwrtybn .: (9itu of "Salem, Massachusetts A "� ,attrD of ettl MINUTES - BOARD OF APPEAL, OCTOBER 24, 1984 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, October 24, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One SaleR!` otice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on October 10, 17, 1984. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members Present: Messrs. , Bencal, Charnas, Gauthier, Hacker and Luzinski Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a Voting Member. 7 Crombie St. - N.S. Shelter Committee (Pet. ) Crombie St. Church (Own) Petitioners are requesting an extension of a Variance which was granted January 25, 1984 to allow a portion of the premises to be used as an emergency shelter for the homeless in this B-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Salem Health Dept. , citing some violations, a letter from the Fire Marshal, stating the objection of the Fire Dept. because of the fire alarm system, a letter from Miss Charlotte Hood, 23 Linden St. , opposed to the location of the shelter. Attorney Lawrence Plavnick, 63 Federal St. , stated he is representing the Shelter Committee and he is also a member of the • committee, said he would like to turn the floor over to Councillor Usovich but j first would like to point out that the letter from the Health Dept. did not apply to the shelter but to the section of property located on Essex St. , also pointed out that the contract between the Church and the Shelter Committee is pending the results of the Board's decision. Councillor Usovich: I am in favor of this shelter, every thing that has been discussed demonstrates that things can work out. Attorney Plavnich: recapped the history of Governor Dukakis's work for the homeless, also the work being done by the North Shore Community Action Program, we are all concerned with the homeless, there was no place to put them, the Crombie St. Church said if we could provide the means to support this they will provide the location, the North Shore Committee was formed. We came to the board eight months ago and was granted a Variance for a period of 8 months. We have service approximately 3,000 people, an average of 18 people a night. We now have a budget of 16,000 dollars from private and public funds. We have had some problems but we have also had many successes. There has been an increase in traffic since it has opened, across the street is a parking lot and this does attract loiterers, but this has done so for years. We have taken steps to alleviate this problem and we have met with neighbors and police. We do have guide lines, he submitted a copy, we have met with community members, we will meet with businessmen in the neighborhood. There is a need to protect the community as well as the homeless. The shelter is addressing a need that exists. We are asking the Board in it's wisdom to grant an extension for another eight months, with the same conditions. Mr. Bencal, asked Mr. Plavnick, when the petition came before us earlier in the year, this was going to be a temporary place. What has been done to find another location? Att. Plavnick: We have and will continue to seek another location. The facility at the Church is limited and we will eventually have to close this location. We will do everything we can to find another place. Mr. Hacker asked who was responsible for locating another place. Att. Plavnick: The entire shelter committee, we have looked at a place in Beverly but that didn' t work out. Mr. Hacker: in eight months you have only looked at one place? Att. Plavnick: yes. Speaking in favor: James Stewart, Shelter Director, MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1984 page two • 7 Crombie St. - Continued this shelter provides life saving place for people who have fallen through the cracks, humanity cries out for attention. The letter from the Health Dept. refers to the Essex St. location, not Crombie St. We have a valid inspection certificate at the Church signed by Capt. Coggin. Mr. Hacker asked the Fire Marshal about their opposition. Capt. Turner said the Fire Dept. wants an upgrading of the fire alarm system to conform to the Building Code and the Fire Prevention Bureau, to cover the shelter's occupants. Kay Hosman, 6 Border St. , agrees with Mr. Stewart, this performs a life saving service. Rev. William Cunitz, 11 Essex St. , Beverly, member of the Shelter Committee, would like to assure the Board that we are doing everything we can to find suitable alternate sites, thinks the Board misconstrued facts when they think we have only looked at one place, what we meant was we actually started negotiations at one place, we have looked at others, we check the newspaper ads, etc. Marie Whitmore, 4 Auburn Rd. , I assist with the meals program at the Church. We have to address the human needs that exist, it is a matter finding some common ground where we can meet the human needs and comply with the letter of the law. The availability of suitable property is in short supply. Kevin Martin, 304 Essex St. , This shelter opened in March, I came there a little over two weeks later and stayed there quite awhile, the shelter did a lot for me, people started to care for me, I started to care for myself. This is the longest I have stayed out of the hospital, I found a job and now live in Salem. Donna O'Day, no address given, also stayed at the shelter, the emotional support they gave me was wonderful, these are people who care, I was there for 23 days. These people helped us all get back on the right track. Roger Casey, • 7 Crombie St. , they do everything for everybody. Richard Rush, 7 Crombie St. , I have stayed there, I am also a volunteer, these are fine people. Mr. Hacker: questioned the number of days these people have stayed, they are only allowed to stay five consecutive days. Rev. Cunitz explained that some of these people have served as volunteers. Ms. Swan, 7 Crombie St. , stays in the shelter, it is very necessary for me. Tim Gray, 42 Charles St. , came first as a volunteer, we have given these people a chance, would like to ask this Board to let us continue to give these people a chance. Maggie Mason, 53 Palmer St. , member of the staff at the shelter. Recently worked in Virginia is the same kind of shelter, I feel that if we are allowed to continue these people will become members of the community, they just need a chance. Elizabeth Crean, First Baptist Church in Beverly, I am on the Board of the N.S. Shelter Committee, the Church in Beverly supports this both morally and financially. Even though the place in Beverly fell through, we have feelers out. James Schooley, 9 Crombie St. , I did not know if I was in favor or against, would like to say to the N.S. Shelter Committee that they have not made a good search for an adequate shelter, should increase their efforts. Tom Hingman, Cabot St. , Beverly, works at the shelter, they are doing a great job. Jack Corney, 233 Lafayette St. , would like to reiterate what everyone has been saying, the problems of the homeless on the North Shore are not going to go away. Bob Lavatte, 7 Crombie St. , these people have been very good to me. Speaking in oppositon: Donna Day, 28 Norman St. , one of the owners of the White Hen Pantry, we have a lot of pilferage and violance going on, have called police, it does no good, it is getting ridiculous. I wish there was a solution, I feel for these people but I think the shelter should be closed. I am losing customers and I am afraid. Mr. Hacker asked if she had talked with anyone from the shelter. She said they had a number to call, Steve Lovely's, if there was any trouble, . called him but got no where. They go through the trash, I am not saying that everyone there causes trouble, but in the four months I've been there, the trouble comes mostly from the people at the church. Peter Zaharas, no address, don' t think the shelter belongs in the center of Salem. There was supposed to be MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1984 page three 7 Crombie St. - Continued meetings with the merchants, have had none. Would like to know how long this extension is going to be for, if it just going to be this time, fine, I can put up with this for another 8 months, but the Board should not keep giving them extensions. This is a nuisance, we are bothered with drunks, have had broken windows but cannot say who did it. Russell Slane, 9 Forrester St. , there is an alternate for alcoholic, they can go to the detox center, this gives them a weeks shelter, food, etc. , there is no charge, they can also get 30 day treatment in Lynn. Steve Thompkins, Tompkins Furniture, Essex St. , there is a complete lack of communication, we have problem with people passing out in the parking lot, breaking into cars, vandalism, panhandling, there has been no attempt by the Shelter to communicate with the businesses. Tom Artell, 263 Essex St. , the over- flow people sleep behind my store. He showed pictures of the back of his business, people change their clothes back there, they have made a total shambles of the place, a woman customer was propositioned, the shelter was aware but they did nothing. I have left messages for them but have never got a response. Dick Pabich, Owner of the Salem Inn, we have people passed out in the back of our place. The trash is a bad situation, public drinking, we have to live with this. Dorothy Cohen, 263 Essex St. , I have been at this address for a long time, never had a problem before. Councillor Lovely, the Board has a difficult decision to make, the shelter has not communicated with the merchants, have not until recently made good effort to find new place, there are problems. People in the area are concerned. Ms. Kennan, 28 Norman St. , problem with trash, drunks, it is a difficult situation. I feel for the homeless, why in 8months time a suitable place couldn' t be found. • Charles Jackson, not so much opposed, would like it someplace else, would like a time limit put on extension and after this time be done with it, am really on the fence, I am a member of the Church. Mr. Bencal asked him if he knew anthing about the contract the Church has with the Shelter. He said no, he was not there when it was discussed. In Rebuttal: Attorney Plavnick, will extend the contract with the Church until April. A budget of 63,000 dollars seems like a lot but when when looking for property it is insignificant. We have three full time staff members. Mr. Stewart receives $12,500 and two assistants receive $6,500 each. I have spoke with Mr. Tompkins about getting together with members of the business community, thought it best to speak with residents first. Salem has a sizeable homeless community, over the past few months we have started to deal with the problems that up till now we have not had a chance to deal with. All we are asking for is an additional 8 months. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: one of the original concerns was about having a lot of out of towners coming in, has this happened? Mr. Stewart, most of the people are from Salem. Mr. Plavnick: about 27% are from Salem. Mr. Luzinski: What about this letter from the Health Dept.? Mr. Plavnick: this letter concerns the other address. Mr. Luzinski: it states the address as 7 Crombie St. Mr. McIntosh: I think it might concern Essex St. Mr. Gauthier: Would like them to comply with the Fire Dept. before I could vote for this, I understand that $63,000 is not much when dealing with property, but after the tragedy of the Beverly Fire, I would like to see them comply with Fire Dept. Mr. Hacker:- have you done anything about contacting the Fire Dept. James Stewart, I did not receive a copy of their letter. Capt. Turner: Spoke with Rev. Navle and told him that what they had done was minimal, 20 - 25 people sleep there, we have to be able to get to them. Mr. Hacker, I don' t think we should vote on this this evening, they have neglected the neighborhood. The safety factor is paramount, would like to continue till next meeting to give the shelter a chance to get together with the Fire Dept. and the businessmen. Mr. Gauthier, agrees it should be continued. Mr. Luzinski, agrees, somewhere in the rules & regulations of the shelter should be something to address the pro- MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1984 page four • 7 Crombie St. - Continued blems of the neighborhood, these rules should be updated. Mr. Bencal: the shelter has helped some people, however, I am concerned with the neighbors, I would like to see the committee make a better effort to solve these problems. Would not like to see another tragedy like the one they had in Beverly. Mr. Gauthier, perhaps we should have a special meeting just for this petition. Mr. Charnas, this is difficult, I am for and against this, there is a lot of negative and positive aspects, this was just temporary and there has not been enough done to find a different place. Give the shelter another period of time to get them through the winter but we should get a monthly report from Mr. Stewart and Rev. Cunitz.' As far as the Fire Marshal is concerned, he has the authority to close it anytime he wants. Don' t think waiting is going to help the situation. If in 6 or 8 months they have tried to find a place and failed, we can address it then. Mr. Hacker, feels like the neighbor how said he was on the fence, agrees with both sides, would like to put off the decision for a couple of weeks to give the shelter people time to come to us with plans to clean up the trash, take care of the drunks, etc. and a plan that is acceptable to the Fire Marshal. Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the Public Hearing was closed and no testimony would be taken, also informed them that this would not be advertised again. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this petition until November 7, 1984, at the time the meeting is reconvened the Board would like a report from the Fire Marshal and a report from the night watch person at the police dept. , also give them time to meet with the merchants. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED TILL NOVEMBER 7, 1984 •, 10-102' Hancock St. - Frank & Diane Ouellette Petitioner's are requesting a Variance to convert a four family dwelling unit into a five family dwelling unit in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from Roger LaPointe, 8 Hancock st. ( in favor) , the Fire Marshal, (no objection) and the Planning Board, opposed because of parking. This petition was before the Board in June 1984 for a special permit, it was denied at that time. They are requesting a Variance now. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to hear this petition as there was substantial difference. Mr. Charnas seconded UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO HEAR PETITION Michael J. Splaine, Esq. , 69 Elm St. , Danvers, represented the petitioner. My clients want to make additional living space for them to live in. At the last meeting, the neighbors were opposed, they were under a misunderstanding. He submitted a petition signed by eleven neighbors, in favor of this application. This would be owner occupied. As far as the letter from the Planning Dept. is concerned, this will not exacerbate the parking, there is a three car garage, and room for four additional on site parking spaces. There is a financial hardship, they don' t want to aske the tenants to move. Will convert to attic to living space. Mr. Ouellette explained he purchased the property with the intent of living there, said he was led to believe there was no problem. After purchasing it, realized it was not so simple. The neighbors objected because of the density, later, they came to me and changed their minds. They came to me, I did not go to them. They are still concerned with congestion. I order to make ends meet, I • would have to go with more bedrooms and go with Section 8 housing. The neighbors would like to have my family there. The homes on this street are all basically multi-family. Making this apartment would make it more energy efficient. Speaking in favor: Roland Berube, 20 Hancock St. , I have lived there since 1942. MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1984 page five 10-10' Hancock St. - Continued Owned the property at 10 Hancock St. for 30 years. The neighbors got together and when they understood what Mr. Ouellette wanted to do, the neighbors went along with him. There is plenty of parking. Gertrude Berube, 20 Hancock St. , also in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier, I am in favor of this petition, I was in favor the last time. Mr. Bencal: with some conditions, I would vote for this. Mr. Charnas: very muchin favor. Mr. Luzinski asked to see the petition signed in favor, noted there were no addresses, asked to see the abutters list. Mr. Hacker: originally opposed to this because of neighbors opposition, glad to be able to change my vote, providing 8 parking spaces are maintained and it is owner occupied. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance to allow conversion of an existing 4 family into a 5 family on condition it remain owner occupied, 8 on site parking spaces be maintained and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 22 Irving St. - Joseph Mosca Petitioner is requesting a Variance from square footage for the existing buildings and a Special Permit to allow a fourth residential unit on the third floor of the large building in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Marshal (no objection) and the Planning Board (Opposed because of density) . Mr. Bencal said he wanted to state, for the record, that his grand- parents owned this property at one time, this would not, of course, affect his • vote. Attorney Roy Gelineau represented the petitioner. He submitted drawings showing parking for six cars. Mr. Mosca lives on the second and third floors, he would like to separate them and make two apartments, he will live there and rent out the third apartment. There is adequate parking. This is a mixed neighborhood, across the street is R-1 . This would not exacerbate the density. Speaking in favor: Jospehp Mosca, owner/petition, I have a high mortgage, forced into a situation of being a single person living in a large area, six bedrooms. I think what I am proposing would be better, would have four small apartments. Speaking in opposition: Edward Freeman, 20 Irving St. , this is a single and two family neighborhood and this would change the character of the neighborhood. We have about 15 single family homes and 8 two family homes. Of the 8 two family homes, 3 or 4 of them could possibly become three family. This will add to the density and will create problems. Have lived here 65 years, put a lot of time and work into this home, the people in the neighborhood have put lot of money into their homes, we have tried to update this area. The cottage is on the rear end of his property, in order to park correctly would be difficult. Concerned should there be a fire, this is not consistent with the neighborhood. Can understand that he has a high mortgage, when he bought the property he knew the problems. Marcia Pelletier, 24 Irving St. , concerned with the parking. She was shown on the plans where the parking would be. She stated that this area is presently lawn. This has already been divided, the only thing not there is a kitchen. This should not be granted, the neighborhood is already so congested and there are no other three family in the area and no four family. Francis Pelletier, 24 Irving St. , the first law of investment is to investigate before you buy. Irving St. is really a problem in the winter and this would not help. Mr. Judson, Irving St. , agrees with the others. In rebuttal: Attorney Gelineau, • he has tried to improve the neighborhood, is trying to alleviate the parking problem, plenty of room for fire trucks to get there. Even with the parking there will still be a back yard. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: concerned that the Board, if they grant this, will be opening up a pandora's box, the fact that there are no other three family homes on this street or on Phillips St. leaves me no choice but to leave it as it is. Mr. Charnas: I feel the same as Mr. MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1984 page six 22 Irving St. - Continued Bencal, there are no other threes let alone fours, there is no hardship. Mr. Gauthier: I agree, there is no hardship. Mr. Luzinski: I also agree. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board unanimously voted against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 47 Federal St. - Robert A. LeDoux Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another, a survey office, to another nonconforming use, a law office in this R-3 district. Petitioner also wishes to construct a connecting passage way from 47 to 49 Federal St. Mr. Luzinski explained to Attorney LeDoux that as there were only four members of the Board present to hear this petition, he had the option of withdrawing without prejudice. Mr. LeDoux chose to have his petitioner heard. Robert LeDoux, Esq. , represented himself. He said a Variance was granted to change 49 Federal from a funeral home to a law office; in 1967 the Board granted 47 Federal a Variance to change from a dwelling to a surveyors office. Now we would like to change to law office. On this street there are six law offices, three county buildings, one church. This will not be detri- mental because of the make-up of the neighborhood, the character of the neighbor- hood has changed over the years. As far as parking goes, there are spaces at #47 for three cars and 8 at #49. There will be enclosed stairs for the con- nector, one house is higher than the other. Mr. Gauthier: Why do they have to come to the Board? Mr. LeDoux: Because we are changing uses. Speaking in favor: John King, Esq. and John Whipple, Esq. No one appeared in opposition. SHearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to allow the premises as 47 Federal St. to be used as a law office and to construct a connecting passage way from 49 Federal to 47 Federal on condition a building permit be obtained for the passage way. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 5 Greenway Rd. - Jean Cote Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend the existing 5' side yard so that an addition may be built on the rear of the house to within 5' of side yard in this R-1 district. Mr. Luzinski is Acting Chairman, he explained to petitioner that as there is only four members present, it would take a unanimous vote of the Board to grant this application. Petitioner was given the option of withdrawing without prejudice but decided to have the case heard. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Dennis Cote, 6 Greenmeadow Drive, North Reading, represented the petitioners, his parents. He displayed plans to the Board, this is a 6,200 square foot lot, the cottage is very small, my grandmother who is 95 years old presently lives there, by building the addition my folks will be able to move in and help my grandmother. There will be no blasting done. Speaking in favor: Connie Cote, Linda Vaughn, Greenway Rd. No one appeared in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit as requested on condition the addition shall not exceed the dimensions as stated on the plans submitted and not be closer to the lot line than the existing structure. Mr. Charnas seconded. •� UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Y MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1984 page seven 98 Essex St. - Charlotte S. Clemens • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and a Variance to continue the use of the premises as a tourist home, original application granted February 18, 1981 , in this R-2 district. Variance requested from minimum parking requirements. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated their opposition until such time as the appropriate steps to upgrade the present fire alarm system are taken. Ms. Clemens represented herself, she explained she just wanted to extend the 1981 decision which set a three year time limit. Will conform to the fire department, was not aware of any problems. My guests use the Hawthorne parking lot and .we have had no problem. This will be open all year, it was seasonal. I do not live there, where I did live will be used as additional room for guests. Speaking in favor: Capt. Turner, Salem Fire Marshal, just wanted to clarify the letter, he explained that the system they had when the original petition was granted did comply at that time, regulations have changed since then and the system has to be updated. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas, no problem with the original conditions, no reason to put time limit on. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to use the premises as a tourist home and a variance from minimum parking requirements with all the conditions set forth in the February 18, 1981 decision except that there will be no restrictions with regard to time, and a certificate of occupancy must be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 10:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be November 7, 1984 \ for the purpose of hearing the petition on 7 Crombie St. , the next regular hearing will be November 28, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, � p Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk '.W ,. o,vtoeviyb' .. aitu of "Salem, Massachusetts • N, �OMYa Of ��Jftl� MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - NOVEMBER 7, 1984 A public hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, November 7, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on October 10, 17, 1984. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski and Bencal Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. 7 Crombie St. - North Shore Shelter Committee (Petitioners) This case was continued from the October 24, 1984 meeting. The hearing has been closed. This was continued to allow the petitioners time to meet with neighbors and merchants in the area to try and solve some of the problems. Mr. Charnas read letters from the North Shore Shelter Committee to: Fire Prevention, Mr. Hacker, Mr. Tuttle (City Electrician) . Mr. Luzinski asked about the results of the meetings held. Attorney Lawrence Plavnick representing the Shelter Com- mittee and also a member of same, stated, the Committee will do all it can to find suitable location for the shelter outside the down town area, I believe this • was satisfactory to the merchants. We will police the area with regards to the trash, we cannot, of course, take police action in our own hands. Capt. St.Pierre said it would be inadvisable to take action. We will rely on the police. We will follow the guidelines set down in our proposal. Mr. Tompkins, Tompkis Furniture, for the first time, the Shelter Committee is trying to cooperate. They are not responsible for when the people leave the shelter. Mr. Gauthier: the merchants have not called the police, they have had no calls. We have some comments from the police, would like to ask Sgt. Callahan for his comments. Sgt. Callahan: I went to the last meeting, the police are well able to police this area, during my shift, we have got nothing but cooperation from them. There should be a deadline put on them to find different location. They did have a rocky beginning. Mr. tompkins: We have not called the police because we did not want to bother them with nuisance calls, we now will call them. Mr. Gauthier: I think the police should be called, these are not nuisance calls, this is what we pay the police for, I am sure the police will be glad to go there whenever they are called. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Plavnick if they had a deadline they could live with. Mr. Plavnick: that is hard to answer, we are faced with limitations, we are hoping that by the summer we can find a place, everybody will do their best to find a new location. We would like to be out of that area by the end of June. Mr. Gauthier: I think some of the rules you have set for yourself are too difficult to abide by. Would like a monthly report letting this Board know how you are proceeding, I think this would help us. I did not sit on the Board at the time the first petition was granted, I think big problem is lack of communication and your rules are a bit of a hindrance. Mr. Bencal: I don' t ` think the rules are too strict, if they cannot enforce these rules, they should not be there. I am concerned with the loitering. After the meeting two weeks ago I went down there and was verbally abused, I did not appreciate this at all, here it was just the very night of the appeal. This person was still there the next morning. Mr. Charnas asked Mr. Plavnich if he was familiar with the letter from Capt. St. Pierre and if there would be any problem having these MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1984 page two 7 Crombie St. - Coninued • conditions incorporated into the decision. Mr. Plavnick: we are adhering to these guidelines now, as far as people outside the shelter, we have little influence. Mr. Hacker: should let these people know that if they are a nuisance outside the shelter they will not be let into the shelter, I think it is incumbent upon you to tell them if they are loitering, etc. , it is up to you to do something about it. Mr. Plavnick, it there had been better communications in the past, perhaps we could have done something about it, the meeting with the merchants has established there will be more communication now. Mr. Gauthier: I don' t want to be judge and jury, I hate to say they can only be there five nights, some may need more that five nights. Mr. Hacker: the Shelter Committee set those rules themself. Mr. Gauthier: I don' t care if it takes longer than five days if you are helping people. Mr. Plavnick: the members of the committee are concerned that we would become a haven for people, we would be glad to drop this five day limit. Mr. Gauthier: this should be your decision, some cases may need more than five days, I don' t think they should stay there forever. Mr. Plavnick: these are five consecutive days, they can come back if the need is there. Mr. Charnas: this is an emergency shelter, I am not inclined to make the rules less strict. Mr. Hacker: This was one of their rules, we were given a pamphlet containing these rules, I would be uncomfortable with changing them, I do not have a problem with extending this Variance until June 30, 1985• Mr. Luzinski: I am concerned with the safety factor with regards to the Fire Dept. letter which said they need to upgrade the fire alarm system. Capt. Turner: I met with Mr. Stewart and came up with agreement on a temporary basis, this will meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Gauthier asked Capt. Turner what he . thought the maximum amount of time for extending the shelter should be. Capt. Turner: agrees with the June 30th date. Mr. Charnas: I feel uncomfortable with terminating this at a certain date, would like a letter every 30 days regarding their efforts to find another location. If they have made the effort and not been able to find another location, they should be able to come back to the Board. Mr. Bencal: perhaps we could meet sometime later in a non-meeting capacity to see what has been done, is that within our realm? Mr. Hacker: we could do that but it is applying undue pressure, I would rather they spent there time looking for a better location than writing reports. They have made a firm commitment, public community will be calling the police more, I have no problem granting this till June 30th, altogether we are talking one and a half years, they should have been looking before now, if they try they can find a place, there are places available, they had no funds last year, this year the budget is 63 thousand dollars. Mr. Gauthier asked Mr. Jackson about the contract. Mr. Jackson: I am hesitant to go further than the June 30th date. The feeling of the congregation is, this should be temporory, they would probably extend this again. Mr. Gauthier: I would not have a problem extending this again if they have made proper effort to find new location, we should give them the chance to come back if they can' t find place. They should come back at least two months before this expires. Mr. Charnas: I would like to put as one of the conditions, the Building Inspector close them July 1 , 1985 if they have not come back to the Board of extension. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petitioners the extension requested on condition: rules and regulations described in the North Shore Shelter Committee's proposal, on file, and specifically incorporated by reference in the decision, must be followed and obeyed; police dept. is to be notified immediately when an incident occurs in or around the shelter that requires a police response; the log • that is presently maintained by the NS Shelter Committee is to made available for police inspection upon police request; the route officer be permitted to inspect the inside of the shelter during the course of his duty in order to insure not persons wanted by other jurisdictions are using the shelter as a means of r MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1984 page three 7 Crombie St. - Continued escaping police apprehension; the fire alarm and prevention system be specifically approved by the Fire Dept. ; this variance will expire on June 30, 1985; the Board directs the Building Inspector to close this shelter on July 1 , ' 1985 unless the variance is extended by this Board beforehand; and, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained by December 7, 1984. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. , next scheduled meeting will be held November 28, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, one Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk I y Ctu of "Salem, Massachusetts ` Poxrb of �Vvettl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - NOVEMBER 28, 1984 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, November 28, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on November 14, 21 , 1984. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member LaBrecque. Mr. Gauthier joined the meeting at about 8:00 p.m. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. LaBrecque was appointed a voting member. The Annual Report was submitted for the Board's perusal. Mr. Hacker gratiously commended the Clerk of the Board for the time and effort put into this report. 314 Essex St. - Walter A. Costello, Jr. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the continuance of a noncon- forming use and renovations of the premises in the R-2 district. Mr. Strout will not be sitting on this petition because of a conflict of interest. Mr. Hacker explained to petitioner that as there would only be four members he has the option • of withdrawing his application without prejudice and to reapply at a later date. Attorney Costello, representing himself said they would have the petition heard tonight. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Inspector stating the Fire Department has no objections provided the occupancy conform with all applicable provisions of the Salem Fire Code and the Mass. Building Code. Attorney Walter A. Costello, 2 Salem Green, explained the owner of record is C.F. & B. Realty Trust, of which he is a Trustee, he will be representing them. He submitted a copy of the plot plan, plans of the proposed renovations and sub- mitted copy of the deed. He read a letter to the Board from the Reverend R.B. Szala, Pastor of the First Church in Salem, 316 Essex St. , stating the Church has no objections. He then submitted the letter, which has been placed on file. He said they had met with the Historical Commission but have not been on their agenda. They have not expressed any strong objections, but the renovations will be discussed with them. The Architect is here tonight to answer any questions regarding these renovations. This is the Red Cross Building and has been used by them and others for office use, we will be using it entirely for law offices, actually there is no change in use, just another nonconforming use. Mr. Luzinski: will this just be one law firm? Yes. How many people will be working there? There are five associates and six secretaries. Speaking in favor: Councillor Leonard O'Leary, was at the Historical meeting, don' t think there will be any problems, this will be good for neighborhood, they will be good neighbors. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. LaBrecque asked about the parking. Mr. Costello explained they would be adding five spaces, showed him on the plans where they would be, there is presently no parking there, these would be additional. Mr. Hacker told the Board he sent a letter to the Park and Recreation Dept. as the Witch House is / right next door, and it is his understanding they have no problem with this. Mr. Luzinski asked about the deck. Mr. Costello: the deck will be eliminated. Mr. Hacker: seems to me this is one of the better used for this problem, as long as the Historical Commissions approves, would be in favor. Mr. LaBrecque asked if they could get more parking in. Mr. Costello: would like to be able to ' MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 1984 page two • 314 Essex St. - Continued get in more but as you know this is in the Historical district so we have to be careful, we are showing five parking spaces, if the Historical Commission decides they want more landscaping we won' t be able to have them. This is just a change in use, and we don' t think we have to have even the five, there are no spaces now, these five are additional. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to allow nonconforming use of the premises as professional office and renovations in accordance with plans submitted on condition the occupancy conforms with all applicable fire codes and state building codes, a minimum of five parking spaces be maintained on site and all plans be approved by the Historical Commission. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 33A Bridge St. - Michael Gianelli Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend an existing nonconforming rear setback in order to construct an addition for administration operations in this B-4 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Mr. Norman LaPointe, Fire Inspector, stating the Fire Department had no objections to granting this Special Permit provided the occupancy conforms with all applicable provisions of the Salem Fire Code and Mass. Building Code. Mr. Michael Gianelli represented himself, he explained he is a Certified Public Accountant at this address, would like to extend the building for more admin- istrative space. He submitted copies of the plans and showed pictures of the • property. He also submitted a letter from Rene Tremblay, Witch City Auto Body, 35 Bridge St. , stating they had no objections. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski asked if any work on the grounds was going to be done. He said he may hot top the grade in front for more parking. Mr. Hacker: this is relatively simple, no problem. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to extend rear setback 13 ft. in order to construct an addition to be used for administrative operations on condition the occupancy conform with all Salem Fire Codes and Mass. Building Code. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 47-49 Leach St. - Peter & Deborah Fadden Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Inspector which stated the Fire Department had no objections provided the occupancy comply with all applicable provisions of the Salem Fire Code and the Mass. Building Code. Deborah Fadden, 171 Humphrey St. , Marblehead, represented herself. She said this is the more financially feasible way to handle this property, otherwise we would have to rent to students and we don' t want transients. She submitted letters from tenants of theirs that live in Marblehead. These are to show that we are not the typical absentee landlords, we do keep up our property. We purchased this property two weeks ago, we have room for five cars, we presently have four spaces, but can fit five. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in Opposition: Councillor Martineau, Ward 5, strongly opposed, don' t see any hardship. This is a classic case of absentee landlord, only concerned with making money, living outside the City of Salem. Part of the problem that has developed in Ward 5 & 7, people come from outside the City, buy property, increase units, parking is bad in this area, not adequate at all, the last thing we need is another apartment to increase the already over burdened parking. Catherine Barbaros, 51-53 Leach St. I am speaking for ' MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 1984 page three 47-49 Leach St. - Continued myself and two others, The L'Italiens, 43-45 Leach St. and the LaMontagnes, 58 Leach St. , not sufficient parking, this is very narrow street, parking on one side only, also problem with emergency vehicles getting through, snow removal is problem, 47-49 Leach St. shares a common driveway with 43-45 Leach St. , snow can- not be. piled on sides of driveway as not there is not adequate room, we do not want snow on our property. We have had problems with nonowner occupied dwelling in the past, trash pile up, potential for fire very real, also concerned with noise level, this should remain two family. Mr. LaMontagne & Mr. L'Italien went on record as being opposed. In rebuttal: Ms. Fadden: that is why I brought the letters from my tenants to show that we will keep the property up. We are not here for short term, to make quick profit and leave, we have thirty year mortgage rather than twenty year, we are here for duration, as far as the parking, I was not thinking of using on street parking. The previous owner had arrangement for snow removal and we would make an arrangement Mr. Luzinski asked if there was an agreement with the L'Italiens to use the land for common driveway. Mr. Hacker asked if there was an easement. Mr. L'Italien said there was not, he owns half and they own half. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: I am not too thrilled having another apartment there, there is always the possibility of selling and not being able to use the common driveway. Mr. Charnas: don' t like the idea of changing to three family. Mr. Strout: agrees it should remain two family, it changed to three family the situation could mushroom. Mr. LaBrecque: the plans are not complete, felt they should have come for a Variance. Mr. Hacker: am offended by subtle threat that if this is not granted they will rent to students. Nothing derogatory intended with regards to students. Mr. Charnas made a motion • to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board uanimously voted against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED. 5-7 Green St. - Nicholas delTorto Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a thwo family dwelling into a three family dwelling by adding a basement apartment in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from Norman LaPointe, Fire Inspector, stating the Fire Department has not objection provided the occupancy conforms to all applicable provisions of the Salem Fire Code and Mass. Building Code. He also read a letter from the Planning Board expressing their objection on the grounds this would exacerbate an already existing parking problem in the area. Attorney John Serafini Jr. , represented the petitioner, explained they want to create a basement apartment, it is ideally laid out for this, the front of the house is higher than the rear. He displayed plans to the Board. Petitioner will live in this apartment. There will be some rehabilitating. Regarding the parking, would like to discuss this with the Building Inspector to see if he may have a better way to lay out the parking spaces. Have talked to neighbors, have a petition signed by about 15 abutters but unfortunately it was left in the office. Mr. LaBrecque question the Special Permit, suggested perhaps a Variance was needed. Mr. Serafini explained that the Special Permit is needed because it is just a change in use. Mr. Charnas asked about the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Serafini: there are a lot of two and three family homes in the area, also housing for the elderly. Speaking in favor: Councillor Martineau, Ward 5, also • an abutter living at 89 Leach St. , strongly in favor, Mr. DelTorto talked with me and also talked with the Desrochers, the immediate abutters. This would be in the best interest of the neighborhood, the one condition we would like to see it to have it owner occupied, if Mr. DelTorto sells this, it would go back to being a two family. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Serafini said there were MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 1984 page four • 5-7 Green St. - Continued no plans for resale, feels there would be no incentive to put in large amount of money and then not be able to sell it as three family. No one would want to buy if they could not use the basement. Mr. Hacker asked if there would any problem if it was conditioned owner occupied, if he did eventually want to sell the new owners would have the option to come to the Board. Mr. Serafini, we are only concerned with the marketability. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas, there are three families in the neighborhood, would like to see is owner occupied. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to allow a basement apartment on condition five parking spaces be maintained and laid out at the discretion of the Building Inspector, shall remain owner occupied, if sold, the new owners have the option of coming to Board to continue this use, occupancy shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Salem Fire Code and the Mass. Building Code. Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 20-201 Phelps St. - Andrew Karahalis Mr. Gauthier will be sitting on this case. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing two family into a three family and a VAriance from minimum parking requirements in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the applica- tion and a letter from the Fire Department stating they had no objections pro- vided the occupancy conform to all applicable provisions of the Salem Fire Code and the Mass. Building Code. Also read a letter from the Salem Planning Board stating they were opposed to granting this Special Permit and variance. Mr. • JOhn Karahalis, 20 Phelps St. , represented his son, he explained his son could not attend this hearing as he had classes in Boston. He explained this property was purchased three months ago and because of economics it was necessary to rent both existing apartments. Now my son is having a hard time finding an apartment for himself, he would like to fix this up and live there himself. He has the approval of the abutters. He is a 30 year old bachelor. He submitted a petition signed by six direct abutters in favor of this petition. There are already stairs going to the top floor. This will be a one bedroom apartment. The parking will be piggyback. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Charnas: I don' t like the idea of not having any plans. Mr. Hacker: I have a problem with congestion. Mr. Gauthier: If there is no opposition, I have no problem with the piggyback parking, people all over the City are parking on side- walks. Mr. Charnas: I am informed you are allowed to park on the sidewalk with the permission of the abutting neighbors. Parking is only one of the factors, I am not pleased because the petitioner is not here because he is taking a course. Mr. Luzinski: I would like to see a set of plans. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 23 E. Collins St. - Joan M. McCarthy Petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert a single family dwelling into a two family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating they were opposed to the granting of this petition as the property is not in compliance with the MGL relative to smoke detectors and the inspection and approval of of the oil burner installation and oil storage. Also read a letter from the Planning Board stating their opposition. Joan McCarthy represented herself. She explained her brother would like to live there with his wife. There is large area not being utilized, plenty of room for another apartment. Mr. Hacker suggested she get together with the Fire Dept. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 1984 page five • No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Jackie Coan, 16 Connors Rd. , there are no two family in the area, only single families. The following abutters went on record as being opposed: James & Mary Koen, 25 E. Collins St. , Exilia Herbert, 21 E. Collins St. , Chester & Czeslawa Konopka 19 E. Collins St. , Albert & Eileen Perkins, 14 Connors Rd. , Walter Koan, 16 Connors Rd. , John Canty, 8 Connors Rd. , Mr. Synoski, 9 Connors Rd. In rebuttal: Joan McCarthy, on my side of street there are one family dwellings but there are two families in the area. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I don' t see any hardship. All members of the Board agreed there was no hardship. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board unanimously voted against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 19 Washington Square North - Donald Turner Jr. Petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert a single family dwelling into a 10 room "bed and breakfast" tourist inn and a Variance from minimum parking requirements in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letters from the Fire Department (no objection) and the Planning Department (in favor) . Attorney Robert Kalis, 133 Washington St. , represented the petitioner. He submitted a memorandum to the Board Members (copy on file) . Believes this should be a Special Permit under Section V, III (c) of the Ordinance which says a Tourist Home is a Special Permit use. The word Inn is used this is not really what we are requesting. Definition of an Inn says a kitchen, dining room, drug store, etc. for serving the occupants and only incidentally the public may be provided. Definition of Tourist Home says not more than six rooms for hire, • no more than two persons per room and no meals. He displayed pictures of the house as it exists today, and showed photo copies of house as it looked during a much earlier period. Submitted copies of the plans. Believe we need a Special Permit for a Tourist Home and a Variance to allow use of nine rooms to let, the tenth room will be used by Mr. Turner as a live in manager. Would like to serve Continental Breakfast, coffee, tea, sweetbuns, which will be served on a tray in the rooms. The petitioner has no intention of offering a6y of the services allowed under the definition of "INN" and will not provide any services to the public. If there is a problem with serving the Continental Breakfast, we will give that up, just think it is a nice thing to offer. The plans call for renova- tions, restoring to match the photocopies from the Essex Institute. Don' t believe this involves the Historical Commission. Only changes will be cosmetic, doing nothing to the inside, will put is fire escape. There will be two parking spaces for the use of guests unloading and loading, it is the intention of Mr. Turner to purchase parking stickers for the guests. There are ten rooms we would like to utilize, actually we are only asking for nine guest rooms as Mr. Turner will using one of the rooms. Will not derogate from the ordinance, will not detract but will enhance the area. Eventually will be totally restored. Mr. Hacker asked what the rates would be. Mr. Kalis said between 45 & 50 dollars per night, there are two parlors. Mr. Luzinski: Is there a difference between an Inn and a Guest House. Mr. Kalis; Guest House is not defined in the Ordinance. As far as the hardship, this house which is over 100 years old, contains ten rooms, one will be home for manager, a Tourist Home in this area is allowed by Special Permit for six rooms, it would be a hardship to restrict this to only these seven rooms leaving the other rooms lying fallow. Speaking in favor: Mr. Bruce Michaud, owner and operator of the Witch Museum, I am no opposed at all, would like to see the rooms operated solely for tourists and not for rooming of people. We have a two hour parking limit out front of the museum and we run into problems with the residents that won' t move their cars . If it is run the way it is presented it would add to the security of the neighborhood, that is with MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 1984 page six • 19 Washington Sq. No. - Continued young Mr. Turner living there. There is a need for this type place in Salem. Mrs. Berman, Director of the Essex Institute, very much in favor. Speaking in opposition: Mr. Dozois, 2 Kimball Ct. , concerned with the congested area, would like to see four parking spaces. Mr. Kallis, could make four spaces but would rather not because of asthetic reasons, showed him on the plans how this would cause the loss of any green area. Mr. Dozois, would not oppose the two parking spaces if they enter from Brown St. Mr. Michaud, I would oppose that, it would interfer with parking as far as the museum goes, could the parking be rearranged. Could the parking area be from Kimball Ct. The Board Members, Mr. Dozier, Mr. Michaud, Attorney Kalis and Mr. Turner all looked over the plans and discussed the different ways to locate the two parking spaces. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker, this is a good project, sympathizes Mr. Michaud losing two parking spaces, has no problem granting, no problem calling it an Inn and no problem with allowing the breakfast. Mr. Charnas: I am not opposed to the breakfast, thinks it needs a Variance, not a Special Permit. Mr. Hacker: two or four parking spaces? Mr. Luzinski: I would like to point out that these cars would have to back out, this if very busy area. Mr. Gauthier: What if they changed the angle of parking so they will not be backing out onto major street. He showed them on the plans how the parking could be changed so that they would be backing out onto Kimbal Court. Att. Kalis: No objection to that. Mr. Dozier: That would increase traffic on Kimbal Ct. Mr. Hacker explained to him that the cars would not even be going down Kimbal Ct. , would not exacerbate any congestion. Mr. Gauthier: Thinks it is better to back out onto Kimbal, the Fire Dept. is not happy with backing out onto Washington Sq. Mr. Hacker: What about the pole. Mr. Luzinski: Don' t think • it will be in the way. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance to convert to a bed & breakfast tourist inn on condition two parking spaces be maintained on Kimball Ct. side for the unloading and loading of luggage for the guests; a buffer zone be created between the parking area and Kimball Ct. and appropriate shrubbery be planted; ten parking spaces be maintained in the off street parking garage on a year round basis; live in manager reside on the premises; nine rooms be available for rent; Certificate of Occupancy and any other necessary permits or licenses be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 12 Goodhue St. - Robert Guess (Romar Technologies, Inc. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to install and operate a precious metal recovery process in this Industrial district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Department (no objection) , Planning Board, which recommends the petition be denied unless strong evidence and documentation is presented regarding unclean or hazardous waste; Mr. F. A. Bisegna, Dunkin Donuts Shop, opposed; and a letter from Mr. Guess, introducing himself and giving a brief outline of his business. Mr. Guest, 31 Atlantic Ave. , Beverly, repre- sented himself. He explained he has been a chemical engineer for the past 20 years and has experience in manufacturing and marketing in the chemical industry. Have just recently formed Romar Technologies, Inc. , would like to rent the premises which used to be a boiler plant for a leather co. for the business of metal recovery, namely silver from photographic solutions. My process will meet the State and will exceed the Federal regulations. AFter the • silver has been removed, the solutions will be disposed of properly through the South Essex Sewer District (SESD) . This building was selected after looking all over the North Shore, this is a brick/concrete building and is ideal for this. The building was not on the market, met with the owner and we came to an agreement to rent for five years. It would be my responsibilty to do all rehabilitating. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 1984 page seven 12 Goodhue St. - Continued • It would be done at my expense. Wanted a 10 year lease, but being aware of the new proposed business district that is coming we will have 5 year lease. The building has been used for low quality storage, about two years ago the boilers were taken out. He showed pictures of the building to the Board. It is a derelict building, in disuse and disrepair. The building is completely concrete, don' t know what the Planning Board sees for this building, but it is ideal for this type of business. This business will not involve noise, there are about 2.7 acres, we will not offend anyone by being there, there will be some windows. We will have office, laboratore and work space and will probably use gas heat. Large amount of business will come from hospitals and businesses engaged in developing photographic film. Mr. Guest then gave a detailed and technical description of the process of removing the silver from these solutions. He ex- plained that the process the hospitals are presently using are only about 80% effective and the remaining 20% is going down the sewers. This is illegal, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) are greatly undermanned and policing this is very hard. His process will hopefully be at least 90% efficient. Mr. Luzinski: How far away will you be getting these solutions from. Mr. Guest: As far as economically feasible, picking up these solutions will be part of my service. They will be transported in containers and handled by Department of Transportation (DOT) approved methods, should not be any hazard. After the silver is removed, the remaining material is disposed down the sewer. It will be analized. Silver is the only useful material to be salvaged, the silver in the material is what makes it toxic, after it is removed the state defines it as no longer toxic. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Kavanaugh about the letter which was sent by the Planning Board. Mr. •) Kavanaugh: when the letter was sent the Board lacked the knowledge of what the business was and how it was operated, if the Planning Board heard Mr. Guest they would probably not be opposed. Should have something in writing from EPA and DEQE. Mr. Luzinski asked how many employees there would be. Mr. Guest said he hoped eventually to have 5 - 6 full time employees. SESD would keep samples of the waste. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Fire Inspector, Norman LaPointe told the Board that Mr. Guest has agreed to work with the Fire Dept. regarding corrosives, everything will placarded. Mr. Charnas: at first I was opposed, one of the reasons being, I was not happy about having someone coming into town and only staying five years. After listening to Mr. Guest, I am in favor. Mr. Gauthier: It would help the area, this is a high tech industry, would be good for the city as long as he has approval of DEQE and SESD. Mr. Hacker: I somewhat agree, have always encouraged business in Salem, I would be opposed because of bringing hazardous waste into the city, if it was only generated in Salem I would have no problem. Mr. Strout: I agree up to a certain point, we have Salem Hospital and looking at it from that stand point I am in favor. Mr. Charnas asked Mr. Guest if there are potential customers in Salem. Mr. Guest said he spoke with Salem Hospital and they are presently having the solution trucked away, they are interested in doing business with him. Also other potential customers. Mr. Gauthier: The hospitals need something like this, I will vote for it. Mr. Hacker: Still concerned with hazardous waste. Mr. Guest showed the Board a diagram of the sewer lines and planned floor plans and explained the three stages that will be used for this process. (copy on file) , said he was aiming for process that will remove 100% of the silver. There are people in the City now that are disposing of this solution illegally. Mr. • Luzinski: Thinks this would help SESD, they are already trucking in waste. Asked Mr. Guest how it would be transported. Mr. Guest: Tank truck and container. Mr. Charnas: could we limit the area he can truck it in from. Mr. Gauthier: Why should we if it's non-toxic. The government monitors it. Mr. Hacker: We should vote our conscience. Mr. Charnas asked Mr. Guest if the violators regarding disposal are identified by the State. Mr. Guest said most of them are. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 1984 page eight 12 Goodhue St. - Continued The problem is DEQE has limited power, it is a Civil Action. Inspector LaPointe: DEQE will do nothing until the damage is done. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the request for a Special Permit to allow a precious metal recovery process on condition, all necessary permits be approved and obtained by DEQE, EPA, SESD and any and all Federal and State Regulatory Agencies; all chemicals stored on premises be labelled as requested by the Salem Fire Dept. , a Certificate of Occupancybe obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted to grant the petition by a vote of four in favor, Mr. Hacker voted in opposition. GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 10:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held December 5, 1984 at 7:OO p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully Submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk 01itg of 'Salem, cfflttssar4usetts • %. F Poaib of MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - DECEMBER 5, 1984 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, December 5, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on November 21 , 28, 1984. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Charnas, Luzinski 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 member. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 20, October 17 & 24th meeting. Mr. Charnas seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED Mr. Charnas read a letter from Gary Moore, Manager of Winter Island, requesting the Board allow them to withdraw their petition without prejudice. The Board unanimously allow them to withdraw. Mr. Hacker announced to the assemblage that the petition for 16 Ord St. would not be heard. A vote to allow withdrawal was not needed as this was never advertised but did appear on the original agenda. Mr. Hacker explained to all present that as there was only a four man Board • it would take a unanimous vote for any petitions to be granted. Anyone wishing to withdraw may do so at this time. No one withdrew. 78A Webb St. - James W. Shea Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend an existing nonconforming use into the proposed second story addition in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from Councillor Stephen Lovely, Ward III, in favor, also a letter from Norman LaPointe, Fire Inspector, stating the fire department has no objection but strongly recommends firm stipulations for the operation of this business in this particular area as it involves storage of liquid propane gas. Attorney John Tierney, represented the petitioner. This building is familiar to all, it is a building that was a considerable blight, it was run down and in disrepair. Since Mr. Shea purchased it, he has done many renovations. It is used for storage, would like the addition for more storage and for office space. Att. Tierney submitted pictures of the property, before and after. This will be very much the same degree of use. There are other businesses in the area. This business is the least active as far as traffic is concerned. Will not derogate for the intent of the Ordinance. He submitted a petition in favor signed by twelve abutters. This will only add storage and offices, will not exacerbate traffic. Mr. 'Luzinski asked how long he has been in business. Since 1983, it has been, in fact, a separate lot since 1914. Mr. Charnas asked the Fire Inspector if there is any problem with that area with this business. Mr. LaPointe said no. Speaking in favor: Councillor McCabe, Ward 6, Frank Page, 28 Webb St. Speaking in opposition: Joseph Collins, 78 Webb St. , • this property once belonged to us, this has no land at all, he has tar paper there which is flammable. The roof and down spout is on my property. He parks trucks in the street and sometimes leaves it overnight and weekends. Thomas Collins, 78 Webb St. , is the frame of the addition going to be wood? Yes. My main concern is the storing of flammable material, concerned about fire. MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1984 page two 78A Webb St. - Continued • The houses are not too far apart, with this addition, the hazard is greatly increased. In Rebuttal: Attorney Tierney: This will comply with the fire code, I am not an expert on toxicity, but I am sure Mr. Shea is familiar with the materials used and the codes. Mr. Luzinski asked about the dumpster. Doesn' t belong to Mr. Shea. Mr. Bencal asked what kind of materials are being stored. Mr. Shea answered: Tar, sheet metal,a sphalt. Tar paper doesn' t burn as fast as regular paper. Nothing is heated on the property, it is done on the job. Mr. Bencal: How many trucks? Mr. Shea: three, usually bring them home. Fire Inspector LaPointe: as far as the storage of propane gas, we would determine the area where it would be kept. Control would be firm. Mr. Bencal: asked Mr. LaPointe if they would need A.C. hardwired detectors. Mr. LaPointe. Yes Mr. Luzinski: How much gas do you store? Mr. Shea: 400 gallon cans and fill them when we go to the job. Mr. Bencal: Do you meet any clients there? No. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I think the fact that they have addressed some of the concers I had as well as the neighbors and the fact that the gentleman has taken a blighted area, indicates his willingness to work with the city and improve the area. He should be able to continue and I would be in favor as long as he complies with the fire department. Mr. Charnas: always glad when businesses do well. They have tried to meet the concerns of the neighborhood. Have a problem with a business in an R-2 area that deals with flammables and to allow the expansion of this. There are dwelling units within 20 feet.of this. I am opposed, I think the petitioner will do all he can to control this but I am still opposed. Mr. Hacker: agrees somewhat, thinks this addition is marginal. Petitioner seems to be conscientious, gives something back to the community. If he were to leave, he would expand somewhere else. We have heard no vigorous • opposition, this would be an opportunity to limit the risks. He asked Mr. Shea how many are employed there. Mr. Shea: five and would continue to be five, this is just storage and office, will not store more flammables than is already there, just want more room. Mr. Charnas: I would vote for this if it was just office and no storage of flammables in this addition. Att. Tierney: Mr. Shea has no problem with no storage in the addition, nothing will be stored upstairs, no flammables. Mr. Hacker: If we were to grant this, we could word the decision so that nothing flammable would be stored up there. Mr. Charnas: What is the enforcability of this. Inspector LaPointe: No problem at all. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit to extend nonconforming use into the proposed second story addition as more fully described on plans submitted to the Board on condition: No flammables be stored in the addition, all state, federal, and local codes, ordinances, laws and regulations regarding flammables generally and liquid propane specifically be adhered to, A.C. hardwired smoke detectors be installed, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 14 Forrester St. - Clark & Patricia Finniss Petitioners are requesting a Variance and/or 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 Inspector stating the Fire Dept. had no objections. Attorney Robert Munroe, 81 Washington St. , represented the petitioners. He stated this is presently an owner occupied, 2 family dwelling, they simply want to convert to two unit condominium. They have owned this property for about 3 years, have made many improvements, there will • be no exterior changes. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: is the second unit vacant? Att. Munroe: yes, they bought it vacant. Mr. Luzinski: noticed you have been working on Sundays, are you aware there is an ordinance against that? Mr. Finniss: no, thought as long as it was my house it would be all right. Mr. Hacker: How many parking spaces? Three. Mr. Hacker: I have no problem as long as the three spaces are MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1984 page two 14 Forrester St. - Continued maintained. Mr. Bencal: I spoke with one of the abutters and he had no problem with this. Mr. Hacker: it is a two family and they just want two condominiums, the second unit is vacant so no one will be put out. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow conversion to two unit condominium on condition three parking spaces be maintained on site, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained and it must comply with the fire code regarding smoke detectors. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 21 North St. - Richard Riley Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the building to be used as a law office and a Special Permit to allow extension of existing nonconforming side set back in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating they had no objection but will communicate with Mr. Riley regarding installation of automatic smoke detectors. Attorney Richard Riley represented himself. He explained his law firm would like to expand their law offices, the buildings on both sides of this property are used as law offices, this will not substantially derogate from the neighborhood. Could probably get 7 or 8 parking spaces on this lot. Mr. Charnas: this is a Variance, what is the hardship? Att. Riley: financial. Don' t think this would be desirable for a residence in that area. Our firm presently has three girls and seven lawyers, we divide our time between Lynn and Salem. We would have two permanent secretaries there. Mr. Bencal: Where would they park? Mr. Riley: the girls would park on the side. Mr. Charnas: How far are you • extending the side setback? Mr. Riley: Would stay the same, just 16 feet longer. Speaking in favor: Richard Soo Hoo, owner of the property. This is a continuing effort to upgrade the neighborhood, it is very consistent with uses in that area. Speaking in opposition: Gary Sackrider, 154 Boxford Rd. , Boxford, owner of the adjacent property, 19 North St. , I am opposed because of the size of the addition. There are residences in my building and 21 North St. has been used as a single family home for at least the past few years. This lot is less than 5,000 square feet, primary concern besides the size of the building is parking. They should have at least 10 parking spaces and they can' t do it. There is no parking on the street now. Don' t think they could fit more than 5 spaces, I can foresee a major problem with parking. To grant this permit,you must find that it does not substantially be more detrimental. This is basically a one family home and has no impact of parking, granting this would substantially change this. To grant a variance you must find hardship, there is no hardship here, the whole purpose behind nonconformity regulations is to get rid of them, not to extend them. This is already nonconforming and now they want to enlarge this. If the Board does grant this I would like to see it granted on condition the building is not enlarged. Pat Jukes, 51 Water St. , I am the real estate broker for this property and we have had no one wanting to buy this as a one family. Mr. Hacker: Ms. Jukes, are you opposed to this. Ms. Jukes, no I am in favor. In rebuttal: Attorny Riley: with respect to my brother attorney, if he has a problem with parking there are steps he can take, we will only have four attorneys there, we keep some lawyers in Lynn. I have spent a lot of money on this already. We would not interfere with neighbors parking, the • driveway is separated by a granite wall, will be three spaces between the building on the side.TBere is room for 5 spaces out front, there will be a fence along Att. Sackrider's driveway, there will be no infringement on his driveway. The roof line will be changed so it will slope from front to rear. MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1984 page three 21 North st. - Continued The front will be colonial and there will be a center entrance. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I am not pursuaded by the arguments against this, do not think they are valid, except for hardship. For that reason and that reason only, I would have to vote against this. Mr. Hacker: I agree, a law office is appropriate but no hardship. Mr. Bencal: If we were to grant this, I would like to see something done about the parking. Without the hardship I don't see how we could grant this. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Bencal seconded. The Board voted 4 - 0 against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 12 Gallows Hill Road - David & Jeannine D"Entremont Petitioners are requesting a Variance from setback requirements in order to construct a garage in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. which stated they were opposed to granting this as the property is not in compliance with MGL relating to smoke detectors. Mr. D'Entremont represented himself. I would like to build a two car garage, there is no room on the other side of the house, would like the garage on the left so we would not have to go behind the house. I have a van and my wife has a car, we need this size garage so we can get both vehicles in. They are presently on the street. There will be two driveways and when the kids are ready for cars we will have room for them. We have smoke detectors, I will get together with the Fire Dept. for Certificate of Compliance. He displayed plot plans showing location of the proposed garage, submitted petition in favor signed by eleven • abutters. It will be a prefab. Mr. Bencal: When we have a snow alert, where do you park? Mr. D'Entremont: in the driveway. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: this is reasonable, the garage in the back would take much of the land. Mr. Charnas, hardship is the shape of the land. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition on condition smoke detectors be installed. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 22 Webb St. - Don Luis Jr. (Petitioner) Raymond Page (Owner) Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert former grocery store to a restaurant in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. (opposed) . Petitioner was not present when called upon. The Board took a short recess to allow the clerk to try and contact the petitioner by phone. She was unable to get in touch with him. The meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petitioner the requested Special Permit. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. , next scheduled meeting will be held on January 9, 1985 on the second floor of One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, �� Q Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk I� CO) ' 6 / j