Loading...
1985-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 'J,,,.cwu„1b �, (i�itg of " atem, Massachusetts 000111".1,= �.3? >, .a� Puttra of 4vettl �R.mT.� MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - JANUARY 9, 1985 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, January 9, 1985 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 December 26, 1984 and January 2, 1985• Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , .Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member LaBrecque . The meeting was called at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James B. Hacker. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 28 and December 5, 1984 meetings. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. 59 Leach St. - David & Paul Donaldson Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow six unrelated persons to reside a one dwelling unit in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating their opposition because the property is not in compliance with laws relative to smoke detectors, also, if this permit is granted, this property must comply with any and all regulations which apply .; to rooming houses. Mr. Charnas also read a letter from William H. Munroe, Code Inspector informing the Board that should this permit be granted the property would by definition become a lodging house and therefore fall into a different classification of code requirements. David Donaldson represented himself, he explained to the Board some of the difficulties he has had renting this apartment. In September a petition was sent to the Building Inspector complaining about the renting of this apartment to the four students, as a result of this the Building Inspector took me to court and I was told to go to the Board of Appeal. We would be agreeable to limiting this to the four people, we are not singling out students. We are trying to go along with the law. On October 2nd there was a complaint from the people upstairs regarding noise and we got together with all tenants and told them we would not tolerate a lot of noise. We can understand the objections of the neighbors as far as students are concerned. There have been some problems some'places with students, we do not have problems at our place. We went to the police and they had no record of this property being a problem. I would like a Special Permit for four people, no more, would like these gentlemen that are there now to stay there. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Ward 5 Councillor, Jean Guy Martineau, find it hard to believe this person is here tonight, any talking of this issue is fruitless, we all know where this will lead. I respectfully request this petitioner be denied. Ward 1 Councillor, George Nowark, it would be disastrous to approve this, should consider the people who have lived there for years. Ward 2 Councillor Stanley Usovich, opposed not because of the specifics but because of the ramifications, there is a density problem, this is highly congested area, should stop this before it spreads. Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary, opposed. Councillor at Large Jean Marie Rochna, strongly • opposed, I can' t understand there not being any records in the police department, I get a lot of late night calls, I have had to contact Mr. LaPointe and Mr. McIntosh, I have personnally, more than once, talked to the Police Chief. MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 1985 page two • 59 Leach St. - Continued There must be police reports. Ward 7 Councillor, Jack Nutting, the Salem State College is located in my ward, I am familiar with the problems this can create, late night parties which may start small but they grow, with 4 or 6 unrelated people living together you have the problem of not having a head of household, no one to be responsible for their actions. Catherine Barbaro, 51 Leach St. , I represent the neighborhood association, we have never been contacted. We all came to a meeting just a short time ago to oppose the granting of a Variance to allow a two family to become a three family, we have the same concerns, lack of parking, snow removal, excessive noise, upkeep of property. We are even more concerned with changing a two family into a rooming house, it is frightening. No financial hardship. Granting this would be like a cancer spreading through the City. The following were-recorded opposed: .: Linda & Joseph Gleason, 7 Summit Ave. , Leo Levesque, 10 Green St. , John Kulas, 9 Summit Ave. , Lorraine & Roland Levesque, 10 Green St. , Roger LaMontagne, 58 Leach St. , Mr. & Mrs. Edward L'Italien, 43 Leach St. , Mr. & Mrs. Carlos Martins, 62 Leach St. , Joseph & Paula Palamara, 48A Lafayette Place, Stephen & Frances Schevis, 48B Lafayette Place, Jeannette Savard, 12 Green St. , Richard St.Pierre, 20 Green St. , John Barbaro, 53 Leach St. In rebuttal: Mr. Donaldson said there really was nothing to say, the neighbors were adamantly opposed. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker asked Norman LaPointe the Fire Inspector if the building was up to code. Mr. LaPointe said he did not know, there was nothing on file. Mr. Gauthier: I am opposed, we have had problems on that street for years. Mr. Hacker: I have reservations regarding rooming houses being in residential two family districts. 1. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board • unanimously voted against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY. DENIED 74 Washington Square East - Robert Bramble Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that this petition- for a Special Permit to use carriage house as a single family dwelling in this R-2 district has been Withdrawn at the request of Mr. George Vallis, Attorney for the petitioner. He assured them, all interested persons would be notified and the petition re-advertised if they come back to the Board. WITHDRAWN 16 Ord St. - Henry LaBrecque Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and a Variance to divide nonconforming lot into two lots in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. saying they were opposed because the property is not in compliance with regards to installation of automatic smoke detectors, also letter from the Planning Board stating they were opposed as this would exacerbate density and parking problems. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitoner. Mr. Labrecque purchased this property in August 1981 . He presently lives in the two family that is on the lot, he wants to divide the lot and construct a ranch style single family which he would then live in, would continue to own the two family. Mr. Vallis referred to the deed which describes this property as being two separate lots, he also displayed a plan (not submitted) from the Registry of • Deeds showing two separate lots. He submitted copies of the Assessors Map. Told the Board this was perhaps the largest lot in the immediate neighborhood, all others are relatively small. It is true the neighborhood has built up. In Salem there is an abundance of lots that are undersized, when zoning was changed MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 1985 page three 16 Ord St. - Continued • - in 1965 the City made most single family homes nonconforming. The two family he lives in, which is a duplex, has two bedrooms, he needs bigger home now. He has lived in Salem all his life and would like to continue to live here and in this neighborhood. Just wants to divide this lot and build a single family home for himself. This would not be detrimental, this lot is big enough, would conform to zoning as it was prior to rezoning. There will be adequate parking. Does not want to sell the two family and would have no objection to his continued ownership be a condition. Councillor O'Leary, concurs with the Fire Dept. and the Planning Board. This is congested area and this would block sunlight. Dan Kaderis, 9 Bow St. , not familiar with plans of the house and the location on the lot, my lot abuts the rear of his lot, there is only three feet from my house to the boundary line, the only access to my house is a 7ft. right of way to Bow St. , the lot slopes upward, concerned with congestion and sunlight. Maureen Kiley, 15 Bow St. , never informed he was considering building another house . Don' t think it's necessary. Mary Budka, 12 Ord St. , there is• a water problem and this would make it worse, don' t want water coming into my basement. In rebuttal : Attorney Vallis, surprised there is any opposition, as far as this interfering with Mr. Kadaris's sunlight, there is no way this can affect it. Regarding any water problems, if this is granted Mr. LaBrecque will have to go to all the different departments in the City for permits. We will have off street parking, some of these other lots don't have any parking. What makes congestion is a lot of on street parking and we will not be adding to this. If this is not granted he may have to sell the two family. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: the problem I have is water problem, could we get a report from the City Engineer. Mr. McIntosh, the • Building Inspector explained that before permits are issued this is considered and determinations made. I can get together with the Engineer and the two of us will look at it. Mr. Gauthier: I am familiar with this, this problem has been there and will continue to be there, this won' t make it worse. Mr. Hacker: would like to put this off and make an on site inspection. Mr. Gauthier asked Maureen Kiley about the water problem. Maureen Kiley: We never had a problem with water until we put on an extra room. She showed the Board Members, referring to the Assessors Map, where the addition was. She then complained that having no chance to communicate with anyone with regards to what was going on, came here tonight not knowing what he wanted to do, all we got was this copy of the newspaper add and it really did not tell us much. Mr. Hacker explained to her that sending copies of the ads is standard practice and has been for as long as he had been on the Board and longer, there is a phone number they could have called if they had any questions. Mr. Gauthier: His house will not change the flow of the water. It is possible to put in perimeter drain to help problem that is there. The house could be redisigned to meet all the setback requirements. Maureen Kiley: what if sometime they decided to sell, could they sell separately? Mr. Hacker: as a condition we could make it so that they could only sell to owner occupied. He then asked Mr. LaBrecque if he had any problem with this condition and if he would be opposed to cutting down size of the house to conform with setbacks. Mr. LaBrecque: No problem. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit and Variance as requested on condition the existing two family be owner occupied unless the single family is owned by the same person or persons, a Certificate of Compliance regarding smoke detectors be obtained, oil burner installation and oil storage conform will Fire Dept. regulations, drains or culverts be with the approval of the Building Inspector. Mr. Gauthier seconded. • UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 1985 page four 24, 16, 50 Adams St. , 330 & 314 Canal St. - Esther Realty Inc. • Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow B-2 uses in the R-1 portion of the property. This property is a B-2/R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Dept. and the Planning Board, neither having any object- ion. Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , 63 Federal St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. He displayed plans of the property. Esther Realty is owned by Bertini. Over the past few years Mr. Bertini has levelled a good deal of this. He pointed out the area in question (R-1 ) on the plans. We wish to develope the property. The R-1 section is landlocked, all we ask the Board for is to use the R-1 section in conjunction with the B-2 section. The street that shows on the plans is only a paper street. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Mary Ellen Farrar, 395 Jefferson Ave. , concerned with light, privacy. Asked if these were separate lots. Mr. McIntosh said no, there is the same owner, the lot lines disappear. Ms. Farrar: I understand there is no buffer zone, I am concerned with the people on Jefferson Ave. , this is a residential area, the people there take careof their property. A 30 foot commercial building looking down on these homes is not good for the neighborhood. Mr. Hacker asked her if she would feel better if some trees were planted. She said it would take more that trees, would like to see a 10 or 20 foot buffer zone. Stephen Hall, 397 Jefferson Ave. , would like a 15 - 20 foot buffer zone with some trees. Councillor John Nutting, not necessarily opposed, my concern is not with the Bertinis, they have run busines in Salem for many years. We have to protect the quality of life in the immediate neighborhood. We are not sure what is going to go in there, we are at a dis- advantage. How much of a buffer zone are they willing to give. Att. Serafini, the area of concern seems to be the houses on Jefferson Ave. , we could have a buffer of 20 feet, we would undertake planting shrubs and trees. Councillor • Nutting: can we rule out having a motel? Att. Serafini: I don' t know if we could do that, we are not planning a motel but why should we rule it out. Mr. Hacker: legally I don't think we can restrict something that is allowed. Fire Inspector LaPointe: concerned with the buffer zone and getting fire equipment there, also refuse. Att. Serafini, we would not place any dumpster in the buffer zone. Whatever we do there, we would have to come to the Fire Dept. and work it out. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the Variance to allow B-2 use in the R-1 section on the following conditions: A 20 foot buffer zone in the rear of the properties on Jefferson Ave. (R-1 zone) with a 6 foot stockade fence at the property line, no dumpster or refuse be kept in the buffer zone. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 178 Ocean Ave. - Everett & Patricia Mitchell Petitioners are requestine a Variance from side setbacks to allow construction of an addition in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , objecting because the property is not in compliance with the MGL relative to smoke detectors, oil burner equipment and storage, if heated by oil. Patricia Mitchell, represented herself, she displayed plans, explained that they would like to put an addition, the family is getting bigger and they need extra room. This would be a bedroom. I will be one story. Speaking in favor: Councillor Jean Marie Rochna: this is a classis case of a couple with a growing family. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Gauthier felt this should be a Special PErmit. Mr. Hacker: No problem with the Variance because the hardship is there. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition • on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 1985 page five 36 - 40 Marlborough Rd. (Donald & Paula Marsella) Petitioners are requesting a Variance from lot size requirements regarding lots 28 & 29 on a plan submitted to the Board, specifically a reduction from the 15,000 sf minimum to approximately 9,967 sf as shown. The current owner is Alfred & Ellen Gemma and the property is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department objecting because the property is not in compliance with MGL regarding smoke detectors. Mr. Donald Marsella Jr. , 467 Eastern Ave. , Lynn, represented himself. He displayed a plot plan showing the property as two separate lots, he wants to purchase the lot containing 17,103 sq.ft. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the lot line has disappeared or not. One lawyer says the line is still there, the other says it is gone. We are here just to clear this up. The lot I am going to buy is the one containing the 17,103 sf. Speaking in favor: Donald Marsella Sr. , 37 Marlborough Rd. Alfred Gemma, 36 Marlborough Rd. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: no problem with this but we should address both number 36 & 40 in the decision. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a Variance from lot size requirements for lots 28 & 29 depicted on the plan submitted to the Board and specifically renders lots 153 & 154 on said plan conforming to the zoning ordinance on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 24 Congress St. - Donald Clarke • Petitioner is requesting a Variance from use requirements to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in this B-4 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objections. Attorney Roger Soderberg, 222 Essex St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. Explained to the Board that in the immediate area there is Pickering Wharf, right across the street is Pizzeria Regina, this will be in keeping with the general area. The one thing that is different, this will have it's own parking. The Fire Dept. , Building Inspector, Councillor Nowak, have no problem. They have a liquor license and the Licensing Board has approved this. This is the Galley, just moving across the street. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: I have seen the building and they have done a great job with it. I am very much in favor. It has it's own parking and would not be detrimental. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem with this except for hardship. Mr. Gauthier: A number of businesses have gone bankrupt in that area. Mr. Charnas: could be the change in the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance as requested. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 292 Jefferson Ave. - Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston Petitioner is requesting a Variance from all density and setback requirements in order to construct a new facility in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objections. Robert LeDoux, Esq. , 49 Federal St. , represented the petitioner. The Church was destroyed by fire in 1982, he showed pictures of the Church. We are requesting permission to con- struct a new edifice which will be larger as far as lot coverage. We are • proposing a facility in which we will be able to seat 550 people. We have looked at other lots of land in the city, there is a convent across the street but it cannot house that many people and it would not be appropriate, the old school would not be appropriate. The only site that is appropriate is where the old church was. The topography is difficult and it will have to be back filled. MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 1985 page six 292 Jefferson Ave. - Continued • There is another access and egree on Story St. side. This will not derogate from public good. There is sufficient hardship. They have worked very hard to formulate these plans. He then showed drawings of the new proposed facility. Will be cedar shingled roof. This will be something we can be proud of. Speaking in favor: Roland Pinault, 11 Horton St. , Terry Ogasian, 13 Raymond Rd. , Councillor Rochna, Councillor Nutting, Suzanne Poirier, 8 Cottage St. , Father Bourgeois. Attorney LeDoux submitted a petition signed by citizens of Salem in favor of this project. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: How high is the steeple. Att. LeDoux: 82 feet. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the Variances requested on condition it be designed in keeping with plans submitted to the Board and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be held on January 16, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk i . ` .coankb, (Qity of "Salem, Ansour4usetts 's Poura of 44veal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - FEBRUARY 20, 1985 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, February 20, 1985 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 6, 13, 1985• Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present were: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James B: Hacker. Mr. Bencal and Mr. LaBrecque were appointed voting members. 50 Winter Island Road - Winter Island Commission The petition for a Variance to allow the hangar to be used for storage and work space for various tenants was continued from the January 16, 1985 hearing. Mr. Bencal said he felt the Board could not hear this petition tonight as only three members are present that were present at the last hearing. Mr. Hacker agreed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this petition until the March 20, 1985 hearing on condition a waiver be signed regarding the time element. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL MARCH 20, 1985. 40-42 Winthrop St. - Anna & Argia Miglioccio The is petition for a Special Permit and/or Variance to convert three family dwelling into four family dwelling and variance from parking requirements in this R-2 district was continued from the January 16, 1985 hearing. This was continued to allow petitioners to get plans. Argia & Anna Miglioccio represented themselves. The submitted plans to the Board. The first floor is presently a six room apart- ment and we want to separate it into two three room apartments. Mr. LaBrecque asked it there was any parking. Argia Miglioccio: we have a two car garage and there is some space for another car and there is room on the street. Mr. Bencal: Any other on site parking? Ms. Miglioccio: they could park down the street. Mr. Hacker explained to them that they would have to show some on site parking. Argia Miglioccio: I don' t understand what difference the parking makes. If I rent a six room apartment they could have three or four cars, if it is two small apartments they would probably only have one car each. Mr. Luzinski: Is there access from both streets? No, only from Endicott St. Mr. Luzinski: Do you live on the premises? Yes, we live on the second floor. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: this is a mixed neighborhood, probably more multi-family than single. Mr. Charnas: concerned with parking. Surprised no one showed up to oppose this, since they haven' t I could vote for it. Mr. Hacker: think they should maintain six spaces on site. Mr. Charnas: is there any way they can fit six cars other than piggyback. Mr. Bencal: don' t think they can get six cars there. The Board Members went over the plans and discussed ways of arranging the parking. Mr. Hacker explained to the petitioners • that the Board was considering granting this on condition they maintain six spaces, Could grant this tonight and have them consult with the Building Inspector regarding the parking. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow a fourth unit on condition they maintain six on site parking spaces, the building remain owner occupied and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Labreque seconded. The Special Permit was granted by a vote of 4 -1 . Mr. Bencal voting to deny. GRANTED MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1985 page two 56 Almeda St. - Ugo Dibase Mr. Charnas will not sit on this petition, there is a conflict of interest. Mr. Hacker will be sitting on this petition, he obtained an opinion from the City Solicitor which said there was not conflict. Mr. Bencal will be acting secretary. This petition was originally before the Board in 1973. At that time a Special Permit was granted to allow the erection of a temporary building and a chain link fence around the boundary lines, for the storage of equipment and building materials for a period of three years. Petitioners applied for an extension of this permit on March 1 , 1977 and were denied. They also applied for an extension on May 17, 1977 and were again denied. This was appealed and in 1980 the case was remanded back to the Board of Appeal. Somehow the case was lost in the shuffle and was just now brought to the attention of this Board by Councillor Leonard O'Leary. Mr. Hacker invited Councillor O'Leary to address the assemblage. Councillor O' Leary: the neighbors brought this to my attention. This was a temporary building for a period_ of three years, it would go along with Colonial Village. Since then Colonial Village has been sold, Mr. DiBiase no longer owns it. The area has been built up and this building does not look good, it is a concrete block building. Mr. Bencal: in the original decision granting this, it states that a chain link be erected, has this been done? Councillor O'Leary: No. Mr. Bencal: Has there ever been a fence. Councillor O'Leary: No. Mr. Hacker asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak in favor of upholding the 1977 decision denying the extension. Laurent Levesque, 32 Hillside Ave. , I live across the street from this. That building was supposed to be temporary, he put up a cement block building and should not have, it is now an illegal building. How could the paper work be lost, I have asked about this for five years, what • happened to the papers on this. Raymond Letarte, 15 Colby St. , I have lived there for over 20 years. This is an eyesore. This is an R-1 district, the noise from diesel trucks is bad, including Sundays, there are dogs barking at night, there is drinking and parking, it is a bad situation. Gilbert Letarte, 34 Hillside Ave. , lived in the area for over 20 years. This Board and all citizens should want to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Extending this would be legally and morally wrong. This large white elephant is derogating from the intent and purpose of the district, the activity around this building is detrimental to the neighborhood. We aske this Board to deny and special permit or variance and we request this white elephant be removed. The homeowners were against this in 1977 and have been seeking to have this monster removed all these years. This request is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of an R-1 district. We feel the time for a temporary permit is over, please restore our neighborhood to an R-1 district and remove this architectual nightmare from our city. He submitted a copy of the 1977 decision and a petition signed by neighbors and abutters requesting this building be removed. Other neighbors wishing to be recorded as favoring the removal of this building were: Beth Baldini, 100 Colby St. , MaryAnn Letarte, 15 Colby St. , Diane Clark, 38 Hillside Ave. , Carol Stetson, Hillside Ave. , Roland Lessard, Hillside Ave. , Joe O'Neil, 42 Hillside Ave. , Jeff Clarke, 38 Hillside Ave. , Joan O'Neil, 42 Hillside Ave. , Lucielle Levesque, 32 Hillside Ave. , and Edwin Stetson, Hillside ave. Michael O'Brien, City Solicitor, gave background on this case. Councillor O'Leary asked the City Solicitor's Office to look into this situation, it is unclear as to whether a Special Permit or a Variance was requested in 1977 , the petition was denied. The applicant filed a complaint is Superior Court and new hearing was held in May, 1977, this was denied, June 29, 1977 another • complaint was filed in Superior Court appealing the May 1977 decision. The records of the Court indicate that both cases were remanded back to the Board in 1980, for whatever reason, it never came back to the Board. Fire Inspector asked on of the neighbors about tankers being there. He was told that an oil truck MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1985 page three • 56 Almeda St. - Continued comes every day, runs hose around building. Attorney Peter Beatrice, Attorney for Mr. DiBiase, wanted to be put on record as objecting to this hearing tonight, the time is unreasonable, thinks the City has waived it's rights. On the right side of the building there is rubbish, it is not ours, the demolished trucks are not ours. He displayed pictures of the building (not filed) . The building has been up for 12 years, this case should have been heard five years ago. Mr. Hacker: addressing Mr. Beatrice, as recently as two months ago I asked you the status of this and you said it was in court, you say it is unreasonable as far as time goes and yet you tell me it is in court. What is the building being used for? Mr. Beatrice: there are materials stored there, we have no tanks, very little activity. In 1973 they gave this variance, so called, because it was not detrimental and did not deviate from the Zoning Ordinance, also stated in the decision it did not affect the other lots in the area. Mr. DiBiase needs this building, we don't have any work there. As far as it being a blight, that is a matter of opinion. Regarding the dogs, that is for protective purposes. We feel the building should be allowed to remain, same reasons as when we came in 1973. Mr. Bencal: what happened to the fence. Mr. Beatrice: don' t know. Fire Inspector, Norman LaPointe: how many guard dogs are there? Mr. Beatrice: don' t know. Mr. LaPointe: the police have no record of them. Mr. Beatrice: I have never seen the dogs, don' t know how long they have been there. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: are there any services such as sewerage, water, etc. there? Councilln.0' Leary: No. Mr. Hacker read a letter from the Planning Board dated Feb. 28, 1977 in which they strongly opposed extending this permit. Mr. Luzinski: the time for a temporary building is long gone. Mr. Bencal: it was to be a temporary building, 12 years stretches • this. The chain link fence which was supposed to be there and which was a condition was never installed. Mr. O'Brien, the City Solicitor informed the assemblage anyone will have the right to appeal any decision made tonight. Mr. Bencal made a motion to uphold the previous decision and to have building removed and bring grounds to its original state within ninety (90) days of the date the decision is filed with the City Clerk. Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion. The Board voted 4 - 0 in favor of the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 370 Essex St. - Salem Public Library At the request of Mr. Albert Pitcoff, speaking for the Board of Trustees of the Library, the Board unanimously agreed to continue this petition until the March 20, 1985 meeting. CONTINUED TILL MARCH 20, 1985 21 North St. - Richard Soo Hoo (Owner) Dr. Alvin Rosen (Petitioner) Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow the premises to be used as a dental office in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, letters in favor from Suzanne Audette, listing broker for Vernan A. Martin, Inc. Realtors; Francis J. Murphy Jr. , owner of Murphy Funeral Home, 85 Federal St. ; a petition signed by twenty abutters and neighbors, all in favor; and a letter from Norman LaPointe, Fire Inspector which stated the Fire Dept. conditionally has no objection, but it the variance is granted they will want communication regarding the instal- lation of automatic smoke detectors. MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1985 page four • 21 North St. - Continued Mr. Hacker called for a vote to determine whether there were enough changes since this piece of property was before the Board. On December 12, 1984 the Board denied a Variance and Special Permit to use the building as a law office and to allow extension of nonconforming side setback in order to construct an addition. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to hear the petition. Mr. Charnas seconded. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Attorney Richard Stafford, 222 Essex St. , Salem, represented the petitioner and the owner. He explained they would like to use the premises as a dental office. There have been variances granted to other properties in the area for business uses. There is adequate parking, he submitted plan showing seven parking spaces, only required to have three. This plan has been shown to the neighbors. Dr. Rosen will be good neighbor. The City Planner has a proposed parking layout, the one we have submitted tonight is our preference. The traffic in this area is voluminous, does not lend itself to residential use. This will be beneficial to the neighborhood. Dr. Rosen: Been in practice in Salem for a few years. The nature of my practice is periodontist, traffic would be less than a regular dentist. They will not have to back out onto North St. I hope to maintain an office that will be beneficial to the neighborhood. The neighbors seem to be very much in favor of this, I enjoy Salem and would like to stay here. Speaking in favor: Councillor O'Leary: a dental office would blend in with the area. Mr. Bencal asked if the parking meters would be removed. Councillor O' Leary said no. Gary Sackrider, 19 North St. , in favor. Marlene Kelley, Real Estate Broker, anyone interested in residential use is turned off because of the businesses in • the area. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Soo Hoo: Would just like to repeat that we have had some problems selling this, he pointed out the businesses in the area. Would like to ask the Board for some relief so I can sell to Dr. Rosen. Mr. Charnas: Likes the point that a periodontist generates less traffic, very much in favor. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variance as requested on condition automatic smoke detectors be installed in accordance with the Salem Fire Dept. and seven (7) parking spaces be maintained on site. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 13 Washington Square West - Essex Institute Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the first floor of the Andrew- Safford House to be used for commercial, office space in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating if the variance was granted the fire alarm system would have to be updated. Anne Farnum, Director of the Essex Institute, represented the petitioners. We filed this petition thinking we were in an R-2 district but we found we were really in an R-3 district. This is the smallest building, it has no endowment funds. She displayed pictures of the building. She explained the building is in need of repair, the roof leaks, the chimneys, downspouts, etc. all need repairs, the estimated cost will be 40 to 50 thousand dollars. We have been running in deficit and cannot keep up this way. Our plans are to lease this, just the first floor. We are not planning on doing major renovations at this time. The City Planner says he sees no inconsistencies. The tenant will pay rent, heat and • utilities and any renovations done to the interior. We have no tenant as yet. We will consult with the Fire Dept. at the time we rent this regarding the fire alarm system. We feel it best to have the house occupied and in use, best for the neighborhood. We will be leasing it over the next four or five years. MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1985 page five 13 Washington Sq. W. - Continued • More people will get to see this. We expect to sign a five year lease. We are in the process of revitalizing the area. Renting for four or five years will help us maintain it and give us some space to work of the other houses. I have notified all the abutters myself. Mr. Hacker: I spoke with Mr. Kavanaugh and he is in favor, this would not contradict with any planned changes in the area. Speaking in favor: Ken Boyles, Manager of the Hawthorne Inn; Bruce Michaud, Manager of the Witch Museum, in favor, would like to see it written into the lease to please ask patrons not to park in front of the Museum. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Liz Wheaton, Chairperson of the Historical Commission: If they put any sign there, they will have to come to the Historic Commission. John Carr, Member of the Historic Commission and the Essex Institute, would like to see a six year life to the Variance. Mr. Hacker: in view of the fact that it is historical and they indicated five years, I think five years is fine. Mr. LaBrecque questioned whether a variance could be limited. Mr. Hacker and Mr. Charnas both said a variance could be limited. Mr. Luzinski asked if the building would return to its original use after the five years. Ms. Farnam said yes. Mr. Charnas: the hardship could be the lack of funds for upkeep, could lead to deterioration, in favor for the five years. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variance on condition fire alarm system is updated as required by Salem Fire Dept. , the variance to expire five (5) years from the date this decision is filed; six on-site parking spaces be maintained at all times. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • 10 Harris St. - Jeanne Sweet Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow her to move three back steps to the east side of the property and to add a porch and living. This propery is located in an R-2 district and is jointly owned by petitioner and Linda Paolucci, William Huber III. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept, no objection. William Hubner, 10 Harris St. , representing the petitioner and the joint owners, explained the plans to the Board. This will add 12 feet on the side, it will be a living room and a porch. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit on condition, three parking spaces be maintained on the premises at all time; any extra advertising costs caused by any errors in advertising be borne by petitioner. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 31 Fairview Rd. - Francis & Patricia Welch Petitioners are requesting a Variance from front setbacks to allow a deck in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating they were opposed because the property is not in compliance with MGL regarding smoke detectors. Francis, Patricia and Thomas Welch represented themselves, they displayed pictures of the property. The deck is existing, we were unaware that the requirements for the front were 15 feet. Mr. Hacker: You will have to come back to the Board for side setbacks, you will save money if you withdraw this petition tonight and make a new application for the March 20th meeting. All you would then have to pay is to readvertise. The Welch's agreed •) to Withdraw. Mr. Charnas made a motion to all petitioners leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1985 page six •) Mr. Hacker reminded the Board members of the meeting with the Planning Board at _ the home of Abbey Burns, Chestnut St. at 7:30 p.m. , March 4, 1985• This is of course an informal gathering, not a meeting. Mr. Hacker also reminded the Board that Mr. McIntosh, the Building Inspector would be leaving the City of Salem shortly and suggested the Board take him out for dinner. The date decided on was March 19, 1985 at Tamany Hall. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. , next scheduled meeting will be held on March 20, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , One Salem Green. Mr. William Burns Jr. , Federal St. , asked to address the Board regarding 95-97 Federal St. , owned by Jessica Herbert. He told the Board that she is selling these as Condominium units and when she came to the Board it was just for apartments. He asked the Board if the Salem Condominium Conversion Ordinance was still in effect. Mr. Hacker said he spoke with the Building Inspector and the City Solicitor and felt the Condominium Conversion Ordinance should still be enforced. Mr. Charnas felt the board should not be discussing this at this time, it could be a violation of the open meeting law. Mr. Hacker advised the people present to bring any complaints they may have formally to Building Inspector, if he fails to act they can appeal to the Board for action. He agreed with Mr. Charnas that they should not discuss this tonight. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk • aitu of "Salem, 4Hassuchusetts .} Puara of '4veal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MARCH 20, 1985 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, March 20, 1985 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 6, 13, 1985• Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Bencal. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member, and Acting Secretary. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to accept the January 9, 1985 minutes,with corrections, Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 50 Winter Island Rd. - Winter Island Commission This request for a Variance to allow the hangar to be used for storage and work space for various tenants in this R-1 district has been continued from the January 16, 1985 meeting. Mr. Hacker read a letter from Gary Moore, Manager of Winter Island, requesting Leave to Withdraw. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant petitioner ., Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN The next petition before the Board is that of the Salem Library. Due the large number of people interested in this petition, Mr. Hacker adjourned the hearing, to be reconvened at Old Town Hall. Mr. Hacker called the meeting back to order at 7:20 p.m. 370 Essex St. - Salem Public Library Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance from density, setbacks and parking requirements in order to construct an addition and to rehabilitate existing structure in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and letters from the following: the Historical Commission which opposed any proposal which would disturb the fountain and yard, the Salem Fire Dept. , no objection, the sprinklers will be added as the work progresses and the fire alarm system will be updated. The following letters were all read into the record and are in favor of the petition: Elizabeth Hourihan Hinchion, 6 Cushing st. , Sarah Pickering, 18 Broad St. , Ward Two Councillor, Stanley Usovicz, Jr. , Kathleen Wilson, Program Director for the House of Seven Gables Settlement, Nadine Lada, 4 Holly St. , Daniel Foley, 114 Federal St. , Reverend Steven Crowson, Rector of the Grace Church, Nancy Albert, Director of the Henny Penny Nursery School, David Lash/Lynn Stevens, 151 Chestnut St. , Andrew Quinn, Chairman for the Salem Commission for the Handicapped, Mayor Anthony V. Salvo, Mrs. R. L. Wiggin, Librarian, Dr. Richard Pohl, 18 Summer • St. , Dr. & Mrs. Robert Alexander, 361 Essex St. , Dean & Elizabeth Lahikainen, 318 Essex St. Due to the large number of people present, Mr. Bencal made to limit discussion to twenty minutes, Mr. Strout seconded. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Mr. Patrick Cloherty, Director of the Library, represented the Board of Trustees. He stated this could be granted without derogating from MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1985 page two 370 Essex St. - Continued • the intent or purpose of the Ordinance and would not be detrimental to the public good. He submitted Exhibit #1 which contained a letter from Mayor Salvo, which was already read into the record, the the signatures of 1 ,324 citizens in favor of this proposal. Exhibit #2, containing a copy of the flyer which was distributed throughout the neighborhood on March 2, 1985, notifying the neighbors of a meeting on March 13, 1985 for presentation and examination of the renovations plans, also the names and addresses of the people who attented this meeting (27) . He explained that the Trustees met March 19, 1985 to consider some of the concerns of the neighbors and made some changes, for example, we will not have the new exterior chimney in the rear, will construct inside the building, will lower the height of the chimney and agreed not to add levels to the proposed ground floor. At the West side of the Library building we propose to construct a new handicapped-acces- sible walkway, new secondary entrance and an outside elevator. He then submitted Exhibit #3, a letter from Richard P. Thompson, 374 Essex St. , the immediate abutter of the west side, this letter expressed Mr. Thompson's approval of the plans and his concern about parking on the greenspace, strenuously opposed to that. Mr. Cloherty then displayed plans of the proposed project, the elevator will be high, displayed pictures of the locus. Exhibit B, containing a plan of land and synopsus of negotiations with Mr. Frank Hale, 5 Munroe St. , regarding the purchase of a triangular section of land which abuts the library. The library abandoned the idea of purchase when Mr. Hale informed us of his asking price, $10,000. The neighbors expressed concern with parking and requested a survey of library users, which the library did, he then submitted Exhibit #5A containing a synopsis of this survey which was taken the week of Sat. March 2 through Friday, March 8, 1985. Exhibit 5B, • synopsis of neighborhood automobile ownership, Exhibit 5C, synopsis of an hourly count of automobiles parked on-street in the library neighborhood, by block, from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. , from March 2, to March 8, 1985. Exhibit 6, contains a review regarding the need for the ground floor extension for activity & meeting room. He explained this meeting room/activity room needed as integral part of children's room, majority of programs will be day programs for children. By having the meeting room separate will not have to shut down use of children's library when having activities as often happens now. We need height variance for elevator, in the rear we have eliminated the outside chimney and reduced the height, we will restrict basement addition to one story, there is no solution to parking, the Historical Commission does not want us to remove the fountain and use the green- space for parking. Speaking in favor: Rev. Crowsen, Essex St. , residents of Salem should encourage the growth of the library. Don Hopkins, Essex St. , strongly in favor, urge the granting of the variance from parking. Julie Clay, 587 Essex st. , believe the parking issue is a non-issue, the Board is here to weigh the interests of the neighbors. Ann Farnum, Director of the Essex Institue, the library should be accessible to all the citizens, not just the immediate neighbors, very much in favor. John Thomas, 2 Cheery Hill Ave. , no place can beat the Salem Library. Kenneth May, Larchmont Rd. , when I heard about this having opposition, I was distressed, traffic and parking will not be increased by the library, heartily endorse this. Mary Ballou, 395 Essex St. , we all move here knowing the Library was there, parking is not an issue. Arthur Errion, 359 Essex St. , Salem has superior library and staff, parking will always be a problem in Salem. John Carr, 7 River St. , I am member of the • Historic Commission and father of two children, as a parent I whole heartily en- dorse this project. Bessie Sargeant, Director of the Phoenix Center. James Coughlin, 38 Mason St. , Patricia Welch, 31 Fairview Rd. Charles O'Donnell, Buchannan Rd. MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1985 page three • 370 Essex St. - Continued Bob Eagles, address unknown. Pat Donaldson, Dearborn Lane, the Library is a constant source of enjoyment. Should keep the fountain. Lawrence Day, 33 Walter St. , we are fortunate to have such a library and such a qualified staff. Sam Cole, 335 Essex St. John Basilia, Beckford St. , Christine Sullivan, 22 Chestnut St. , parking should not be factor, Mr. Atkins, Mr. Swinarski, both addresses unknown, Alice Horne, Coordinater of the reading circle for the Council of Aging, have been a life long user of the library, Connie Arlender, 91 Federal St. , the children need more space, Mary Stack, 17 Naples Rd. , Jim Carr, King St. , Claire Hooley, 22 Becket St. , there is no room in the children's room, need more space, Sue O'Neil, Ward St. , Mr. Dogget, Pope St. , ruth Raymond, 2 Holly St. , Councillor Centorino, there will be a parking problem no matter what. Mr. Carlton, 26 Barnes Rd. , Mrs. Pangello, 27 Buffum St. , Karen Driscoll, Karen Driscoll, address unknown, Mrs. Devereaux, 4 Liberty Hill Ave. , Kathleen Piemonte, 22 Crowdis st. , Judith Long, 4 No. Pine St. , Kay Hogan, 23 Grove St. , Mr. Thomas, Skerry St. , Richard Mitern, 106 Federal St. , Mrs. Butler, 35 Chestnut St. , Alice Johnson, 4 Hamilton St. , Maryann Ferry, 5 Orne Sq. , Charlotte Fermon, address unknown, Charles Ranen, 2 Holly St. , Thomas Furey, 12 Pope St. , Catherine Donohue, 6 Cambridge St. , Lillian Salvo, 18 Summer Rd. , Councillor Leonard O' Leary, there are two issues here, and both should be addressed separately, renovations and parking. I voted for the million dollar appropriation for remodeling of the Library. Cathy Harper, Ordman St. , Donald Gleason, 9 Moffatt Rd, Darlene Mills, 15 Federal St. , Mr. Lipman, Federal St. , Cynthia Chagnon, 97 Columbus Ave. , Kirston Yale, 153 Federal St. Speaking in opposition: • Robert Hale, 5 Munroe St. , the Library is proposing to do a number of things that will effect the City. There are not a lot of cars parked on Essex St. because cars are not allowed to park on Essex St. A lot of the downtown area has been torn down for parking. The library has one of the few green spaces in Salem. I have listened to people say they are in favor, I wonder if they are aware of what is going one at the library. The library ran ads in the newspaper, they solicited people in favor, said if people wanted the library to endure they should support this. I think there should be a handicapped access' the library has a lot of violations, think of the long term situation in Salem, should a library in this bad a location have that much money spent on it. I object to the fact that we have not seen much in the way of plans. People cut across my fathers land, parking is problem, people park of the wrong side of the street, there have been numerous accidents in that area, if you extend the library you will be extending the traffic. At the meeting of the fourteenth there were several objections, one is the chimney, no one objects to the library, I don' t and my father doesn' t, we would like to see the library survive. What they've been saying is misleading. Elaine Kruger, 358-3582' Essex St. , we are not really opposed to the library although we have been labelled the opposition, I love the library, the fact that we are all here tonight is beneficial. There has been a lot of misinformation. The green space might be taken out, if is was taken out it would not be enough to help parking situation. I would like to read a statement I have prepared for the neighbors. (This statement is on file) Ms. Kruger also submitted correspondence to and from Chief of Police Charles J. Connelly dated October 25, 1983 & December 9, 1983 (on file) . She also submitted a colored coded assessors map of the area showing the offices/commercial, muliple units/rooming houses, and other large group meeting places, such as churches. • (on file) . Eleanor Connolley, 135 Essex St. , I am all for the handicapped access and certainly want the library fixed. Am opposed to the addition, it will be 9ft from my property line. The addition would provide a small amount of space, the top part would not be for public. The renovations could be done utilizing the existing building. This request should be denied. Mr. Thomas Kruger, 358-3581 MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1985 page four • 370 Essex St. - Continued Essex St. , have been present at the meetings the library gave. I came into this with an open mind. The library has many violations some of these won' t be attended to. Money appropriated was for renovations, not for expansion. There will be an impact on parking. No much is being done with the third floor, could use that rather than adding. Maureen Connelly 135 Essex St. , not opposed to the renovations. The addition would nullify and substantially derogate from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, overcrowding the lot would reduce air and light and increase the congestion, the could effect a plan to renovate without so many enfringements on the neighbors. Len Owens, 356 Essex St. , I am for the renovations, against the addition. He submitted a letter from his wife, Luna Barrett Owens, 356 Essex St. (on file) . Better way to utilize the existing structure. We want to keep the fountain and the green space. Frank Hale, 5 Munroe St. , he pointed out to the Board and the assemblage where the addition would be and where his property line is, only about 21 feet away. Concerned about fire. The third floor of the library is vacant, they could utilize that, the addition is not necessary. Katherine Connelly, Federal St. , offended by the library's position. John Shirley, 354 Essex St. , we support the library and the renovations, concerned with traffic and parking, there is also a safety factor involved, attended the meetings, no need for addition. David Fix, 16 Summer St. , favor of the renovations but no addition. The money appropriated for fixing the building, the Trustees voted this down, they wanted to expand. Virginia Connelly, 135 Federal st. , renovations, yes, handicap access, yes, addition no, not needed. Mrs. Elizabeth Callahan, 7 Munroe St. , no addition. Brian Connelly, 188 Federal St. , no pleased with the library trustees and their encroaching and the affect of this on the neighborhood. Councillor . O'Leary, read letters that were presented to the Council, copies of these letters were not submitted, therefore are not on file. He also read the Council Order from the December 3, 1984 meeting, Ordered that the sum of one million dollars be appropriated for remodeling, reconstructing or make extraordinary repairs to the Main Library. I voted for the renovations, not for expansion. Brenda Connelly, 188 Federal St. , for handicap access & renovations, no addition. Nancy Shirley, 354 Essex St. , opposed to addition. Debby Callahan, 7 Munroe St. opposed addition. Patrick Toomey, 2582' Essex St. , no addition. In Rebuttal: Mr. Cloherty read from exhibit #6 which deals with special comments on the need for the ground floor extension as activity space. (on file) . There seems to be some confusion regarding the basement extension, we have agreed it will not rise higher than eight feet maximum. The Trustees regret we can not come to an amicable agreement with the neighbors, we represent all the citizens of Salem, this plan as presented is for the public good, this will provide 3500 sq.ft. for the children's room. We are not just talking about the safety of the building, we are talking also about the security of the ,children. Our prime concern is the safety of the children in the building. Hearing closed Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Kavanaugh, the City Planner, his thoughts on this petition. Mr. Kavanaugh: would like to see the issues treated separately, deal with the handicap access, elevator and renovations first, the addition and then parking, all separate issues. I would be in favor of the addition. As the City Planner I would be happy to assist the Board of Trustees in any way I can. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Cloherty if any changes were made when they met with the neighbors. Mr. Cloherty: • yes, we made three changes, location of chimney, height of chimney and to keep the addition one story. We certainly would like to see the fountain and the grass area stay. Mr. Bencal: both sides have presented valid arguments, I agree the issues should be separate. MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1985 page five 370 Essex St. - Continued • Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petitioners a Special Permit to the proposed / renovations, handicapped access and elevator. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow construction of a single story addition and egress at the rear of the building as per plans submitted with the condition that all aspects of the plans and alterations be done in con- junction with the City Planner and the Library Commission. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant a Variacne from minimum parking requirements. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 31 Fairview Road - Francis & Patricia Welch Petitioner is requesting a Variance from front & side setbacks to allow a deck in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, an attached letter from Thomas Welch and a copy of Section V B 11 of the Zoning Ordinance which refers to extensions of nonconformities. He read letters from Lillian Larocque, 33 Fairview Rd. and Dorothy B. Budgell, 391 Lafayette St. , both opposed. . A letter was also read from Capt. Robert Turner, Salem Fire Marshal which stated Mr. Welch is in the process of obtaining a Certificate of Compliance. Mr. Thomas Welch, represented his parents. He displayed pictures of the former front porch looking at it from • Fairview Road and some pictures of the new deck. He also showed before and after pictures of the house. He explained there was no way to get out in the back yard, the house is only five feet from. the back and there is a fence. This will provide a way out of the house in case of fire or anything. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the petitioner grant the petitioner the VAriance requested on condition the structure comply with the building code and with all Fire Department codes and regulations relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 11 Hersey St. - Robert & Judith Armstrong Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to remain a three family dwelling in this R-2 District. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from Fire Marshal stating the structure is not in compliance with MGL relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Armstrong represented himself. He explained they wanted to sell the property as a three family, it has been a three family for fourteen years. In October of 1978, the Board of Appeal granted a Special Permit to use the property as a three family on condition that should it be sold it would revert back to a two family. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Bencal: I spoke with one of the abutters and was told there was no problem with the petition and would be in favor provided it remain owner occupied. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow use as a three family on condition a Certificate of Compliance be obtained from the Fire Marshal and the property remain owner occupied. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1985 page six 14 Curtis St. - Charles McManus Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing three family dwelling into a three unit condominium in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the building is not in compliance relative to installation of smoke detectors. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner. He submitted copies of letters sent to the present tenants informing them of their intention converting to condominiums. He also submitted letters from two of the tenants, one from Bernadette & Glenn Dube which stated they would be terminating their tenancy effective April 30, 1985 due to personal reasons. The second letter from the tenant on the third floor, Claire Garrett, stating they are negotiating for the purchase of their unit. The first floor is vacant. Will be doing renovations, electrical and wiring for smoke detectors. The rents are such that there is no impact. This is a nonconforming structure, we can provide one parking space, it is already a three family, there will be no change in use. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: they have done everything according to law, I am in favor. Mr. Hacker: I am in favor, we can' t do anything about the parking situation, I would like as a condition that the rents be substantiated and the plans stamped. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition the present rents be substantiated to the Board, a Certificate of Compliance be obtained and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit. Mr. Gauthier seconded. Messrs. , Hacker, Gauthier, Strout and Bencal voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Luzinski voted in opposition. GRANTED 4-1 . 26 Cherry Hill Ave. - Steven Paecht Petitioner is requesting a variance from lot width in order to construct a single family dwelling in this 5-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Planning Board stating their opposition because of the lot width and wetlands to the rear of the property. Timothy Kavanaugh, Esq. , represented the petitioner. He submitted copies of the newspaper articles regarding the sale of this land by the City of Salem. The land was auctioned and Mr. Paecht was the highest bidder. He also submitted a copy of the Assessors Map, showing the other lots in the area with less than the required 100 foot frontage. The width presents a problem but there are many in this neighborhood without the necessary 100 foot frontage. The City auctioned this property and Mr. Paecht bought it with the hopes of building on it. The lot has been abandoned since 1939• He will not develope near the wetlands in the rear. He is under a purchase and sale agreement, a copy was submitted. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Councillor Leonard O' Leary, when this came to the Council, I voted against it, it is my opinion this is an unbuildable lot. Mr. Robert Gerolamo, 22 Cherry Hill Ave. , submitted a petition in opposition signed by twenty (20) neighbors. I am willing to pay the City a reasonable amount for this lot, this along with my lot would make a buildable lot. Alma Ford, 28 Cherry Hill Ave. , opposed. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, I had written to the committe that set up the auction, this probably should not be developed, we may be doing an injustice by allowing this. John S. Thomas, 2 Cherry Hill Ave. , should not set precedent for 50 foot frontage. In rebuttal: Attorney Atkins, would like to reiterate, Mr. Paecht bought this in good faith, it will be nice house, there are quite a few lots in the area that do not meet the 100 foot frontage, the abutters had the chance to buy this lot and • they did not. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal asked Mr. Paecht about ledge and blasting. Mr. Paecht said everything seemed okay. Mr. Hacker, I have a problem with the hardship, may be better to leave it alone, if we grant this, we have another 50/60 more coming before us with the same situation. MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1985 page seven • 26 Cherry Hill Ave. - Continued Mr. Bencal, that should have nothing to do with this case, it the neighbors were interested they could have made a bid. Mr. Strout, concurs with Mr. Hacker, can' t see squeezing in a house there. Mr. Gauthier, as long as Mr. Paecht will not be stuck with losing his money, I also concur. Mr. Luzinski, also concur. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Messrs. , Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Bencal voted in favor. Petition was denied 4-1 DENIED 4-1 63 Bridge St. - Frank & Joan Livas Petitioner is requesting a Variance from setback requirements and use in order to construct an addition in this B-4/R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the property is not in compliance with MGL relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Livas, 131 Essex St. , Hamilton, represented himself. He submitted a copy of the Assessors map. The building would be 42' x 75' , with this building we would be able to remove three trailers that have been there for years. Would eliminate the problem of turning around. We employ about twenty people, we install equipment on trucks. This would have a cement foundation and slab floor. There will be no change in the type of work we do. Would improve the entire area. There will be no fabrication, the building will not be heated, will be just for storage. Speaking in favor: William LaPointe, address unknown, on record as being in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier, this would improve the neighborhood. • Mr. Hacker, agrees, would like to make it part of the conditions that no fabrication be done, just storage. Mr. Gauthier, also as part of the conditions, the removal of the trailers. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance on condition the trailers are removed from premises, no fabrication to be done, cold storage only, building to be unheated. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 36 Dearborn St. - Richard & Rita Savickey Petitioners are requesting a Variance from side yard requirements in order to construct a two car garage in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application a letters from the Fire Marshal stating the property is not in compliance relative to smoke detectors and a letter from Mr. Staley McDermet, 30 Dearborn St. , stating his opposition (on file) .1 Attorney William Donaldson, Lynde St. , represented'the petitioners. My clients have owned this property for five years, they have renovated the building and made it into a very attractive house. He display pictures to the Board. He also displayed pictures of the prototype garage without the copula. All the abutters and others in the neighborhood have signed a petition in favor of the plans, he submitted this petition which contained twelve signatures. Mr. Donaldson explained that Mr. Pitcoff, 38 Dearborn St. , has expressed a problem with parking of vehicles on the property and we have worked out an agreement with him that we would like attached to the decision, this agreement stipulates that no recreational vehicles will be kept on the premises, no truct shall be parked on premises except for brief and infrequent times and no truck shall be parked on the southeasterly side of Dearborn St. , the petitioner shall be in full compliance with • all laws of the state and ordinance of the city and the fire department relative to smoke detectors. To put the garage in a different location would cause my clients to lose some very fine hedges and yard area. Speaking in favor: Albert Pitcoff, 38 Dearborn St. , when they came to the Board two years ago, I was opposed. MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1985 page eight 36 Dearborn St. - Continued • We have had some problems and have no spoken for two years, there has been commercial vehicles parking there. We have now worked out something that we can agree on. This will let them have what they want and I will have what I want, removal of the trailer and the commercial vehicles, these conditions will satisfy me, don' t think having them pull out onto Moulton st. would be a good thing. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker, the problem I have is that I thing those conditions are unenforcible by this Board. I don' t see a hardship. Mr. Gauthier, the neighbors have made an agreement, if they are happy, I would vote for this. Mr. Hacker, I don' t think we can enforce a condition that says they can' t park on a city street, there are other places on the property they can put the garage. Mr. Strout, I agree this is not enforcible. Mr. Luzinski, I think the hardship would be if they were forced to come out on to Moulton St. Mr. Bencal, I don' t see any hardship. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance to allow construction of a two car garage on condition a Certificate of Compliance be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hacker and Mr. Bencal voted in opposition. Petition denied 3 - 2 DENIED 3-2 The Board voted unanimously to send a letter of recommendation and appreciation to Richard McIntosh, the Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Office, for the fine job he has done and the help he has given the Board. Mr. McIntosh will be leaving April 1 , 1985• Hearing adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday, • March 27, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk r� 01itu of "Sttfem, 'Mttssar4usetts • ". �� �narD Df ��ettl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MARCH 27, 1985 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, March 27, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing was duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on March 13, 20, 1985. Abutters and other interested were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Charnas, Gauthier, Strout and Associate Member Bencal Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal Was appointed a voting members. 81 Fort Ave. - Janet Maguire Petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setbacks to allow an enclosed porch which encroaches to within seven feet of the side line in this RC district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Inspector and Councillor Nowak, both in favor. He also read a letter from Richard McIntosh, Zoning Enforce- ment Officer, notify Mr. Maguire of the violation regarding the side yard setback. This letter was dated March 6, 1985. Mr. Robert Maguire, represented the petitioner, he explained the deck was erected with the belief that we owned the property at / least 40 to 50 feet from where we actually do. We built the deck and thought at the time we complied with the ordinance. We had a building permit for the deck. Speaking in favor: Margaret Harrington, 4 Blaney St. , thinks this improves the area. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier, don' t believe the abutting property will ever be built on, in favor. Mr. Hacker, what would the hardship be? Mr. Charnas, built in good faith and with a building permit, that could be the hardship. Mr. McIntosh, the house is not the 40 feet from the side, this makes it nonconforming, could be a Special Permit. The Board Members went over the plot plan which had been submitted and agreed that a Special Permit could be granted. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow the enclosed deck to encroach to within seven feet of the side line. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Lot 274 Barnes Road - John M. Ingemi Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot size in order to construct a single family dwelling on lots A & B, each lot containing 15,000 square feet, in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Inspector, no objection. Attorney John Serafini, 63 Federal St. , represented the petitioner. He displayed plot plans to the Board. This petition almost speaks for itself. His father will construct a home on lot B and we will of course go to the Planning Board for their approval or rather for Subdivision Approval Not Required. Mr. Gauthier, this is certainly clear cut, should be no problem. Attorney Serafini, the only problem being it is in an R-3 district which calls for 25,000 Sq. ft. minimum, in an R-1 it would be a legal sized lot. Mr. Gauthier, this one of the .,` few times I have seen a legal size lot. Mr. McIntosh asked Mr. Serafini if they would have any problem with the 40 foot required side setbacks. Mr. Serafini, I don' t think its a problem. Mr. Charnas, what about hardship. Mr. Serafini, it is a pecular lot, would not be conducive to multifamily. Would like to build single family home with all all dimensional requirements. Mr. Hacker, essentially we are treating this as if it were an R-1 zone. Mr. Serfine, why don' t we cover MINUTES - MARCH 27, 1985 page two Lot 274 Barnes Road - Continued • f everything by granting for single family with all dimensional requirements. Mr. / Bencal, I have no problem with this. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier, made a motion to grant the Variance as requested on condition that all density requirements pertaining to an R-1 district be met. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 21 Arbella St. - Janet Frazier 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, a letter from the Fire Inspector, no objection and a letter from Christine and Theresa Miaskiewicz, 18 Arbella St. , in opposition. Attorney John Serafini, 63 Federal st. , represented the petitioner. The petitioner lives there with her son, her income is about six thousand a year, her son works at E.F. Hutton. Bought the property about a year and a half ago. It is an R-2 zone so what is needed is a Special Permit. The objections stated in the letter by the Miaskiewiczs are valid, they would be valid all over the city. In my opinion, your granting this petition would in no way make life more difficult in the area or in the city. I would not be against the public good, there are five parking spaces. Mr. Strout, are there any other three family homes in the area. Mr. Serafini, yes and it is near a business zone. Mrs. Frazier, right across the street is zoned R-3. A petition with sixteen signatures was submitted in favor. Speaking in opposition: Councillor Usovich, I was contacted by the Miaskiewicz sisters, they are concerned about the parking, I am also concerned about it, not sure they can meet the requirements • of the five spaces. Parking situation in that area is bad, granted the petitioner did not cause the problem, but it is there. In rebuttal: Mr. Serafini, all the arguments have been covered, Mrs. Frazier is providing parking for the people who live in her building, she lives there herself. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker, I normally have a problem adding units like this but where there are already three family homes in the ares I see no problem. Mr. Charnas, I am against piggy back parking in general. Mr. Bencal, I don' t like piggyback parking either, it is a highly congested area. Mr. Hacker, could the problem with piggyback parking be helped if parking spaces were assigned. Mr. Gauthier, I can live with the piggy back parking. Mr. Hacker, if it is granted would like condition it be owner occupied. Mr. Charnas, could we limit the number of cars there? Asked Mr. McIntosh if this could be enforce. Mr. McIntosh, would be very difficult. Mr. Bencal, we would be better off leaving it at the five spaces. Mr. Hacker, we have passed three family without the five spaces, don' t think one more unit will make any difference in the congestion of the area. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition it remain owner occupied, five on site parking spaces be maintained and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. Mr. Hacker, Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Strout voted in favor, Mr. Charnas and Mr. Bencal voted in opposition. Special Permit denied 3-2 DENIED 3-2 • MINUTES - MARCH 27, 1985 page three 108 Jefferson Ave. - Salem Hospital • Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow commerciall and/or industrial uses in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Inspector requesting the conditions set forth in his letter be made part of the minutes and decision should this be granted. Attorney John Serafini, 63 Federal St. , represented the petitioner. this property is well known, it is the site where New England Telephone was, it really should be a commercial zone, I think it was inadvertently left out when zoning was changed in 1969• The hospital could not pass up the opportunity to purchase this property. We need some flexibility as to use for this building to make it worth while. This request is not unusual, the phone company has been out of there about six or seven months. Mr. McIntosh, the nonconforming use has not expired. Mr. Bencal, you would use this primarily for parking, how many spaces for hospital use and how many for the building? Mr. Serafini, there will be about 238 spaces, the hospital will get at least 135 of these. We will get right to cross over on to Dove Ave. Right now we don' t know what we will do with this building, perhaps retail, would like to have B-2 uses granted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas, generally in favor, but feel that if we grant this without restrictions we would be granting a pig in a poke. Mr. Hacker, would you feel more comfortable if there was a time limit. Mr. Serafini, the Hospital is non-profit, anything made here will got back to the hospital. Mr. Gauthier, what they may be asking for is to perhaps expand, maybe their laundry etc. Mr. Hacker, Salem Hospital has been a good neighbor, this is right in the middle of business area, if people had any objections they would be here. I don' t think the hospital will put anything there that will jeopardize the City. It would not reflect badly on the hospital if we limited the time, about five years. Mr. Serafini, a time limit would not make it • work the expenditure of funds. If the new zoning goes through, this is going to be a B-2. Mr. Hacker, would you have any problem if we limited it to only B-2 uses. Mr. Serafini, that would be fine. Mr. Charnas, I am not comfortable with this, we should at least limit the time. Mr. Serafini, would not like time limit, could go through the allowed uses in B-2 and perhaps eliminate some of them. Mr. Charnas read all the permitted uses. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Kavanaugh, the City Planner for his input and about the upcoming changes. Mr. Kavanaugh, this could either be a medical district or because of Jefferson Ave. it could be a B-2 district, either use would not be inconsistent with the area or with future changes. Mr. Hacker, I see what your are saying Mr. Charnas and to a certain extent I agee, the Salem Hospital has been here a long time and they have a certain amount of credibility. Mr. Gauthier, we are dealing with respectable people. Mr. Hacker, I find it hard to believe they will put something there that would take away from their professional integrity. Mr. Kavanaugh, would just like to reiterate on the credibility of the hospital. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition: All underground tanks once used for gasoline be purged of gasoline vapors and be pressure tested for their structural integrity, the results to be reported to the Fire Inspectors office, the testing of the automatic sprinkler system, and the results of the test, to be submitted to the Fire Inspectors office, the installation and/or updating of the automatic fire alarm system to reflect new occupancy and the fire lane must be maintained around the buildings. Mr.Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - MARCH 27, 1985 page four 50 Grove St. - Barnet Weinstein • Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or a Special Permit from dimensional requirements as set forth in Section VI Table II of the Zoning Ordinance. Property is located in an Industrial district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Inspector, no objection. Attorney Richard Stafford, 222 Essex St. , represented the petitioner. Displayed plans to the Board and the assemblage. The buildings were used as one building, if you consider them one building, less than 50% will be removed. To be on the safe side we have asked for a Variance. We don't meet the front or side setback requirements. This building is going to be replaced almost on the exact foot print. He displayed drawing which showed what the project would look like when finished. This will be first quality construction and will increase property values. The floor levels on these buildings do no meet at this time when rebuilt they will. He submitted a letter from Edward A. Potvin, Executive Director of Bass River, Inc. and a petition in support of the project. Mr. Bencal asked what would be going in there. Mr. Weinstein answered, his company is there now, Bass Products, upstairs there is a commercial photographer and downstairs is Bass River Inc. When I purchased the property it was suffering from neglect, I have replaced roofing, new electrical system, renovating existing building (white) , new parking lot, fence, landscaping, am trying to upgrade the place and get more tenants. The old building requires large amount of work and the best thing to do is take it down, join the two buildings and attract light industry. What we do is assembly and we have our offices there and like I said, tha photographer upstairs. Over the past three years it has improved the character of the area. Architect Erling Falck displayed renderings of what the property will look like when completed, showed pictures as . it is now. We first looked at this with the idea of renovating but after seeing what has been done to the building of the years the best solution is to remove it. Speaking in favor: Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, this is one project the City should support, it would mean more jobs coming into the City and it is in the best interest of the City. Robert Smith, Boxford, I have notices a change in the area and if he keeps going it will be great. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier, this is the best thing to happen to Grove St. in a long time. Mr. Hacker, the hardship is the building itself. Mr. Charnas, this buill beautify the district, will be an asset to the City. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit and Variance from all dimensional requirements in order to demolish the structure that fronts on Harmony Grove Ave. and Grove St. and replace it with a new structure having a foundation footprint virtually identical to the demolished building on condition all work be done in strict accordance with plans of file and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. unanimously granted. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 396 Essex St. - David & Deborah Clark Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that Mr. Luzinski would now be a voting member. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow the carriage house to be used as a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Inspector, no objection. Attorney Richard • Stafford, 222 Essex St. , represented the petitioners. He submitted a petition MINUTES - MARCH 27, 1985 page five 396 Essex St. - Continued signed by ten neighbors in favor of the project. This may be the first petition under the new ordinance. People at one time had to tear these buildings down because they could do nothing with them. This carriage house meets all the requirements necessary. Mr. Clarke represents quality work. He is a contractor. Mr. Clarke displayed pictures of property on Becket St. that he restored and explained he has property on High St. that is just about completed. I feel our carriage house will be a good example of what the Council was looking for when they put the ordinance in. The renovations will be costly and the only way to justify the expense is to have an income. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Strout: How many units will there be in the main house? Mr. Clarke, three. Mr. Hacker: I would like a condition that no windows be put in the rear of the building and to limit the main building to three units, with the carriage house making a total of four units. Mr. Charnas: this will improve the neighborhood, I am in favor. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to convert the existing carriage house into a single family dwelling on condition the main structure contain no more than three (3) dwelling units and the carriage to contain one unit, no windows in rear of the building with exception of velux windows on the second floor, six on site parking spaces must be maintained, and a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 30 Swampscott Road - Rocky Mountain Realty Trust (Pet) Joseph Ragone (Owner) • Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow residential use in this Industrial district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Inspector, no objections. Attorney Richard Stafford, 222 Essex St. represented the petitioner. We have approval of the Conservation Commission, the Planning Board received plans last week. This will come under the new business district zone and we will file under that at a later date. This will house the resident superintendent on site. The tenants are concerned with security. This will provided twenty four hour security and will be bonded. On that basis we believe this is an accessory use. There is not much activity, most use is storage. Don' t think this will set a precedent, it is unique with the uses on the property. He submitted a copy of the type uses that might be there, some light industry uses and storage. Will preserve the area. He displayed plans of the residential building, will be complimentary with the terrain. This is the first major developement in the area, it is under a Purchase and Sale Agreement. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, this allows us to bring good clean business into the City, we should encourage this. Security is one of my concerns. Attorney Stafford: if residential use is allowed, it should be as an accessory use, would tie it together. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: this is good use for this site. Mr. Hacker: glad to see company go the extra mile to make the buildings compatible, would like the residential use as accessory use. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition for a Variance to allow the security building to be used for residential use on the condition that plans be approved by the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission, the residential unit shall be for the sole purpose of security for the proposed plan on file and will cease if it is not used concurrent with the plans of file, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Charnas seconded. • UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - MARCH 27, 1985 page six 26 Bridge St. - Nondas Lagonakis • Petitioner is requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks in order to construct an addition in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas stated Mr. Lagonakis rets property to or from someone in my family, this will in no way affect my decision. I do not feel there is any conflict of interest. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Fire Inspector, no objection and a letter from Councillor Nowak, in favor. Attorney Richard Stafford, represented the petitioner, he submitted a petition in favor signed by six neighbors. He stated: this is a very simple request, the liquor store has been there a long time (Cosgroves) , the bottle bill has made it necessary to have additional space to store bottles and cans, this will be used for storage only. David Brennan, operator of the liquor store, basically we asked Nondas to put addition on the building mainly because of the bottle bill. Speaking in favor: Councillor Usovich, in favor because it will get rid of some trailers on the property and will change look of the package store. In opposition: Neil Tobin, representing John Spinale, we are opposed because by expanding the building they will lose parking, my client already has trouble with people from the package store parking and this will exacerbate the problem of them parking on my clients property. In rebuttal: Mr. Brennan: I am not aware of my customers using his property for parking. Mr. Charnas: How many spaces are there now and how many will be lost? There are about twenty to twenty three, we will lose about five. Mr. Hacker: How many in the store at one time. It varies, during the week maybe seven, eight people, we are busier on weekends, most business is done from 4 o'clock on. Hearing closed. Mr. Strout: how many trailers are there? One Mr. Hacker: I find the trailer objectionable. I can tell you from experience the bottle bill is a • problem, never enough space. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Tobin, you mentioned you clients had trouble with people parking on his lot, I would think it would be the other way around. I think this would be a positive thing for the neighborhood and I would be in favor if the trailer is removed. Mr. Gauthier: I agree with Mr. Hacker, the property is being kept up, it will help his business, I am in favor. Mr. Hacker: I would be remiss in my duty as Chairman if I neglected to mention that there is presently a suit between Mr. Spinale and Mr. Lagonakis, the building in question is supposed to be secured and should be secured. Mr. Strout: Will you be lining up the parking lot? Mr. Brennan, we hope to. Mr. Stafford: it there is concern about spill over on to Mr. Spinales property perhaps a barrier could be put there. Mr. Hacker: considering the traffic on Bridge St. a. barrier could do more harm than good. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the Variance requested from side and rear setbacks to construct an addition on condition underground gas tanks must be removed or the situation remedied to the satisfaction of the Salem Fire Department, a minimum of ten ( 10) parkings spaces be maintained on premises and hottopped and lined; storage trailer be removed, and all work be done in accordance with plans on file. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting adjourned at 9: 15 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be April 17, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully �submitted, �o . Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk (I1itu of "Salem, 'Mttssar4usetts MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - APRIL 17 , 1985 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, April 17, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of said hearing was duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on April 3, 10, 1985• Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members Present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski and Associate Member Bencal The hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member. Mr. Hacker welcomed Mr. William H. Munroe, the new Inspector of Buildings and Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the February 20, 1985 minutes, Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY SECONDED 50 Winter Island Road - Winter Island Commission Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow camping of not more than sixty (60) recreational vehicles overnight in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application. Mr. Gary Moore, Manager of Winter Island, the application states all the information that I could tell you. There is a change in policy, ` the Park & Recreation Commission worked jointly on this application. I just want to emphasize that this has been an ongoing and very successful program at Winter Island. There are about five different groups that use this. They bring a lot to the island, this is a very positive use for the island. Would ask your continued support of this application. Mr. Bencal: have you experienced any problems with these campers? Mr. Moore: since I've been manager I've not even experience a squabbles. These campers are handles on a first come first served basis. Speaking in favor: Ralph Hobbs, Secretary of the Winter Island Commission, I was at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting and witnessed there vote for approval of continuing this program. These people, mostly older, cause no problems down there. Howard Knight, Vice President of Wally Buyam Club in the New England Area, I am one of the people who enjoy the facilities at the Willows and the Island, we have enjoyed them in the past and hope to continue in the future. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: I have been impressed with the campers down there, they are always well behaved and I think I am anxious to have them back. Mr. Hacker: I agree, this seems to be one of the noncontroversial issues. I have never heard a complaint about the campers. This is a credit to Mr. Moore. Has done a good job running the program in general. Mr. Gauthier: I was very fortunate to be able to spend four or five evenings at the Winter Island with people who are retired and come back for the summer, thinks its a great thing for the City, they take care of the place and treat it as if it were there home. Very much in favor. Mr. Bencal: I am as enthusiastically in favor of this as anyone, I think it great we can do some- thing like this to promote the island and keep it going. Mr. Charnas: I don' t think anything has changed from the last time we granted the petition. Mr. Hacker: I would like it conditioned on the approval of the Salem Park & Recreation r• Commission and it should be a condition in the upcoming years and it should be a one year permit. MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1985 page three 33 Dunlap St. - Continued • or at the most two people. I have tried to make the most important points, density and absentee landlord, density is usually relative to parking and we have the parking, as far as absentee landlord, you are going to have one anyway. Mr. Munroe: as the one who has to defend the decisions of the Board I would just like to state that I find it difficult to support someone who recently purchased property knowing it was two family and wants to convert. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Councillor McCabe, don' t think widening the driveway is the solution, there must be a hundred cars parked on the street on any given night and to widen this driveway to make parking lot is not acceptable. Mr. Gauthier: at this point they are not using the back yard at all, they are proposing to cut the size of porch and perhaps put six parking spaces, I find it hard to say it is going to increase the density, they would have them out back instead of backing out on to Dunlap St. Before I vote on this I want to know why, right now they are backing three out on to Dunlap and I can only see this thing alleviating this problem, why do you feel it is going to increase the density? Councillor McCabe: basically I feel the distance between the two houses very narrow, right now you could squeeze one car now, there would be five or six houses looking out on to a parking lot, I would have to be against any increase in this area, it is a problem area. Alice Jordan, 32 Dunlap St. , directly across the street, when Mr. Collett pur- chased the property at 22 and 33 Dunlap St. he must have known it was R-2. When Mr. Vallis referred to three families they have been there for years and years I was born there and lived there all my life, there have been no changes on this street. If you grant this you will be setting a precedent for all the • other homes to be converted into three family homes because structually they are basically the same. You will start something that will snowball. I strongly believe we should keep the character of the neighborhood in tact. It is a very congested street, it is a wide street and has been used as a short cut to Peabody. They have tried to make it a one way street between certain hours of the day, plus the driveway do not have much frontage and most have been put in in recent years and have been hottopped. As I said I have lived there all my life, I have no more rights than Mr. Collett, however, he knew when he bought these pieces of property they were two family, I reiterate, if your grant this you will open a pandora's box. Mr. William Manning, 31 Dunlap St. , I was born there 69 years ago and have been paying taxes there the past 48 years. Would like to refer to the parking, I am retired for 6years, three times a day I walk the dog up Dunlap St. , I can give accurate count, last week the total vehicles were 138. This is a lot of vehicles. In winter it is worse. I am an owner of three family, only one car there at this time, built originally as three family. There are landlords in the area who do not allow there tenants to use their driveways. Mr. Hacker: we are not concerned with the parking because he has provided parking, what we are concerned with is how this is going to add to the density. Mr. Manning: fine, let me address the house, the work that he has done, the porch that he is talking about is four feet wide, there is eight feet from base of porch to my fence. Last winter when they plowed snow was left by my bedroom window, kept piling up. What he has done is no so glowing, , some clabboard replaced, roof of porch was replaced, it was rotted, the porch floor was done. Mr. Hacker: has he done a satisfactory Job? Mr. Manning: No. Stanley Wright, 30 Dunlap St. In rebuttal: Attorney Vallis: as far as the parking there would be at least five spaces in the back at least for the tenants there. If it remains two family there will still be parking the the back. I would like to reiterate, your faced with a studio apartment on the third floor or large apartments. Granted he know what he was getting into, he is here because he feels its better to have a smaller apartment. As far as setting precedent, each case is handled on its own merit. MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1985 page two • 50 Winter Island Road - Continued Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition, overnight camping of not more that sixty (60) recreational vehicles at one time shall be permitted at Winter Island during the period May 1 , 1985 to October 15, 1985; the location of the vehicles shall be approved by the Salem Fire Marshal to guarantee access by fire apparatus; written approval from the park & recreation commission be submitted to the Board of Appeal. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 33 Dunlap St. - James Collett Jr. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection, and a letter from the Planning Board expressing concerning with regards to. density and parking. Attorney George Vallis, represented the petitioner. I know this is a little difficult, I know that the Board is often faced with petitions to convert into three sometimes four units, you should take into consideration the petitioner is requesting a Special Permit not a Variance and there is a distinct difference. Special Permit is allow if the petitioner can show it is not detrimental or is not in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. There are some situations which may justify conversion from a two to a three family. We have a petitioner here who is not an occupant of the property, this makes hime fall into the category of an absentee landlord, which is a dirty work. This makes • it perhaps a contraversial petition tonight. Should consider perhaps a new concept, I happen to attend the Rotary Meeting about a week ago when Senator Berry addressed the Board, he submitted a copy of the article written in the Salem Evening News concerning this meeting dated April 10, 1985. He read some of the speech. (on file) The cost of housing is so high today, 100 and 200 thousand. Mr. Collett is a young fellow, works for the airlines, married, moved to Salem about five years ago and would like to become part of the neighborhood. Would like to give you an idea of what kind of a contractor we have here, in the past five years he has purchased not including his own residence, five pieces of property, his own makes six. He display before and after pictures of Mr. Colletts property on Wisteria St. , and other properties. All are two and three family, has put a lot of money into them, has upgraded the properties, does not cut corners. He does complete interiors. Just purchased this property on Dunlap St. recently and has replaced porches, new roof on porch, repainting exterior, complete interior, landscaping. When you take into consideration how this is going to be detrimental to the neighborhood you have to consider, what does the neighborhood consist of and is it going to create a density problem. He has adequate room for five parking spaces. Will not exacerbate density problem, it would alleviate any parking with this particular property. Presently there is only one parking space because there is a porch, he is going to tear down this porch narrow it so there will more than enough room to park cars. So that there will be no runoff problem he willinstall 3/4 inch stone six to eight inches of pea stones. This should rid area of any drainage problem. He submitted packet which included a plot plan, assessors map, a drawing of the present layout and the proposed layout of the third floor. There are three • family in the area. My client has two options, if granted this would not be a large unit, about 500 sq. ft. sort of a studio apartment. if it is not granted he is still an absentee owner, he will continue what he is doing with the house, but what he will do on the third floor, he would incorporate it with the second floor and rent to a larger family. With a studio apartment you would have one MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1985 page four 33 Dunlap St. - Continued • I believe you have a difficult situation here but the city is going to have to address it, I believe you are going to have more and more of these, the City is crying for housing. In this situation it is justified. If you turn this down you will discourage a lot of people. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: how long has petitioner owned the property? Mr. Vallis: about 22' months. Mr. Gauthier: when I see these pictures and I see the improvements, he has done more than just touch up. Inmy opinion he has done a good job with everything. When someone buys property and is willing to fix it up and provide parking, I don't think it should matter if he has lived here all his life or not, we don' t throw out the pilgrims. I myself don' t like the work absentee landlord. Some landlords do buy property and don' t maintain it and become slum lords, I don' t think that is the case here. I don't think he is increasing the density. Mr. Charnas: Just because someone buys knowing it is a two family and hopes it will become a three family is no reason to deny him. He knows he takes a risk and the chance he is taking it that;,when he tries to get the three family that the neighbors will complain, as they did tonight. In a situation where the neighbors don' t complain I am will to give the benefit of the doubt, but when they do complain my feeling is that I am against. Mr. Bencal: asked Mr. Collett if he still owned the other properties? Mr. Collett: Yes. Mr. Hacker: I think Mr. Vallis hit the nail on the head when he said this is difficult at best. We should not look at this any differently because he just bought the property than we would anyone who has owned for long time. However, we have made it a policy in the past when we increase density we make it owner occupied. Mr. Collett is somewhat of a professional • developer of property and' I feel dismayed by not having accurate plans, the goestion of whether the porch and the driveway would be adequate and I don' t think we can judge from what we have here. The density question of whether we have apartment on third floor with one or two people or whether we have a family, it's my feeling that there may be more people living there but a family may stabilize the neighborhood. Especially where its not owner occupied. I don' t want to discourage Mr. Collett from purchasing property, he obviously does a good job. I would have a difficult time voting in favor of this. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition on condition six (6) parking spaces be maintained on the premises and the fire alarm system be upgraded. Mr. Gauthier seconded. Mr. Gauthier voted in favor of the motion. Messrs. Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski and Bencal voted in opposition to the motion. DENIED Valley Street Way (Rear) - Paul & Nancy Gallo Petitioners are requesting a Variance from all applicable density requirements in order to construct a single family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, letters from the Fire Dept. , no objection and the Planning Board, opposed because of undersized lot. Attorney Richard Savoy, 222 Essex St. , represented the petitioners. This piece of land has been in the family for many years, they were married last years and proposed to construct a single family home which will be there personal dwelling. The lot is undersized, contains about 7500 sq. ft. and the requirement is 15,000 sq.ft. only 98 feet wide. Because of the way the house is angled to take advantage of the solar energy aspects that he hopes to incorporate there is a • rear yard problem which could be address, the house could be reangled if necessary but we would like to keep it as is. Mr. Gallo went to the abutters and to my knowledge no one voiced any opposition. Submitted petition signed by 17 neighbors in favor. Submitted site plan and rendition of the house. Would like to construct his own home, very talented fellow, would do an MINUTES - APRIL 17„1985 page five Valley St. Way (rear) - Continued • excellent job and would in no way derogate from the nature and tenure of the neighborhood. Would do great deal to add to the neighborhood, would take vacant lot which is unbuildable and put very attractive home on it and put piece of property on the tax roles, give the Gallos their home near the members of their family. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Munroe: the property is a private way and would have to be maintained by the petitioners. Mr. Gauthier: we would have to make a condition that the City does not have to maintain the street, the city only maintains accepted streets, that is why when we grant these we have to make sure we make a condition that the city is not responsible for maintenance. He would plow it himself, take care of it himself and it would not be a burden on our Public Works Dept. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Gallow, how long have you owned the property? Mr. Gallo: about six years, I bought it from my aunt who owned it about 30 years. Mr. Luzinski: I don' t see any difference in the size of this lot than the other lots around it. If the neighbors abutting have no objection, I have no problem. Mr. Gauthier: we have the whole neighborhood in favor, I would be in favor. Mr. Bencal: can we vote on this without seeing plans other than what we have. Mr. Hacker: the Building Inspector will take care of this when he gets his permit. We should condition it as a single family, utiliti)ss be responsibility of owner and that the city does not have to maintain the private way other than that I would have no problems. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem with it, would be nice addition to the area. Mr. Bencal: I concur. Mr. Charnas made motion to grant the Variance as requested and as set forth on the plans submitted to the board, provided that: building erected be a single family dwelling, the the City of Salem does not have to maintain the • adjacent private way, installation of utilities shall be the responsibility of the petitioner, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, set of plans be provided to the Fire Prevention Bureau, petitioner obtain correct address and submit to the Fire Marshal. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 11 Becket St. - Chester Chalipowski Jr. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, letters from the Planning Board and from Councillor Nowak in opposition. Also a letter from the Fire Marshal, stating the property is not in compliance relative to smoke detectors. Mr. Bencal: for the record I am related to one of the abutters, Sophie Wylenski, she has not registered any opinion to me and I feel my vote is in order and I will not withdraw. Mr. Chalipowski, represented himself, I am aware of the congestion in the area, I have sufficient parking unlike other properties. He submitted copies of the parking proposal, and a sketch of the proposed third unit. There is a four unit right across the street and there are three families in the area. Submitted a letter from Sherry Ken, 9 Becket St. , the direct abutter, stating she is in favor of the petition. We have intentions of taking the fence down and making parking, hottopping it. Mr. Charnas asked if he has passed papers on this. Mr. Chalipowski: yes. This is my first house and I bought it with the assumption that I would be granted three family, I was under the impression you pay taxes you are entitled to do what you want. He submitted a petition signed by 28 neighbors in favor of this Special Permit. I intend to put dormers on the third unit. Mr. Charnas: will you be occupying this? Mr. Chalipowski: I have not decided yet. I know it is a congested area, but I have plenty of parking. Mr. Hacker: explained that the Board could make it MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1985 page six 11 Becket St. - Continued • a condition that it be owner occupied. Would that be acceptable to you? Mr. Chalipowski: if that's all the Board will give I guess I would. Mr. Gauthier: you may have heard that the Board has set a precedent that these be owner occupied. Mr. Chalipowski: What if I wanted to sell sometime. Mr. Gauthier: who ever bought it would have to live there. Mr. Hacker: you said the building was 22 feet. Mr. Chalipowski: I believe it is 22 feet wide. Mr. Hacker: how close to property line. About two feet. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: any parking in the back now? No. Mr. Hacker: you said the building was 22 feet wide and the porch is about three feet and your two feet from property line. Is that right? Yes. Mr. Bencal: is lot then as equal in the front as it is in the rear? Mr. Gauthier: little longer in the front from what I can see. It is a very long lot. Mr. Bencal: what is the width in the front. Mr. Gauthier: got to be about 40 feet, otherwise the house wouldn' t fit on it. The lot has to be wider in the front or you couldn' t get a car by. Mr. Charnas: is everyone on the Board satisfied with the plans like this? If there is going to be new construction, this doesn't give the Building Inspector much guideline. Mr. Hacker: I agree, the plans shows either he doesn' t know or you just can' t get a car in the back yard. I would have problems voting on this favorably. Mr. Charnas: I am not against this but I would like the petitioner to come back with better plans. Mr. Hacker: we can either vote on it this evening as it is presented and I would have difficulty voting in favor or you can aske to withdraw and come back with better plans. If we vote on it tonight and it is denied you cannot come back for two years. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Chairman, we have already heard this and based on this I think we should vote on it tonight. Mr. Chalipowski: I'm not sure what the problem is. Mr. Hacker: I have a problem voting on something you've drawn here that is not to scale. Do you want us to vote on it tonight or do you want to request to withdraw. Mr. Gauthier: my advice would be to withdraw and come back with better plans. Mr. Charnas made a motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Gauthier seconded. Messrs. Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier and Luzinski voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Bencal voted against the motion. WITHDRAWN 2A Linden St. - Lucille A. Cyr Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property is not in compliance with regards to smoke detectors, also a letter from the Planning Board in opposition because of density. Lucille A. Cyr, represented herself. She explained her parents built the house in 1925, she has lived there all her life, raised her five children there, they have gone now. I have an empty attic and it would make a beautiful apartment there. There would be no outside work, there are two dormers there, it would be studio apartment, there's plenty of parking. There is two car garage, I use one place there, she showed on the plans where her tenants park and room for another car, five in all. There are numerous multifamily homes in the area. This would not affect the parking in the neighborhood. I have one means of egress and another will be put in. Showed on the Assessors Map where the • multifamily homes were located. Speaking in favor: Cheryl Cyr, 148 North St. MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1985 page seven • 2A Linden St. - Continued No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I presume you wouldn' t mind if we put in as a condition that it be owner occupied. Mrs. Cyr: no problem Mr. Gauthier: she has the parking and she is not increasing the density, as long as she satisfies the Fire Marshal and the Building Inspector I would be in favor. Mr. Charnas: I think its important to note the difference between this petition and the others that have come before asking for three family. Here is a person who has lived there all her life, did not buy the house for speculation, no opposition, acceptable parking and owner occupied, the record should clarify the difference. Mr. Hacker: I am normally opposed to something like this, but where it is owner occupied and with the parking on premises this may be an acceptable solution. Mr. Bencal: I concur, the parking plan as submitted does not have any unobstructed spaces and that has been my problem in the past, I would vote in favor, with the provision the parking be as submitted. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the special permit to convert to a three family on condition, smoke detectors appropriate for a three family dwelling are installed and plans for such installation are provided to the Fire Prevention Bureau; the premises be owner occupied, a minimum of five (5) parking spaces are provided on premises and are to be unobstructed/non-piggyback; and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. Messrs. Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Bencal voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Hacker voted present. GRANTED 1 Outlook Ave. - John Jermyn • Petitioner is requesting a Variance from front yard setbacks in order to erect a passive solar room in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. John Jermyn, 146 Marlborough Rd. , represented his son who could not be here tonight because he had to work. We just have a problem witht he nonconformity on the front. It's one foot on one side and four feet on the other side. The room will be used for relaxation plus getting the benefits from the sun. He displayed pictures of the house. Mr. Charnas: what will be one foot and four feet, the violation or the setback. The setback, we will be in violation of one foot on one side and four on the other. The house was built about six years ago. Mr. Charnas: what would the hardship be? Mr. Gauthier: he may not need a variance. He has a nonconforming lot, could be a Special Permit. We are extending a nonconforming. Mr. Charnas: if the lot is nonconforming we can grant Special Permit. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I would feel more comfortable voting for Special Permit. Mr. Hacker: I agree, I don' t think he needs a Variance. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow the petitioner to have less than the required front yard setback as per plan submitted. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held April 24 , 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green. • Respe tfully submitted k"� a/� Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk o . ' m.ca v,k4p 01itg of Wem, Anssuchusetts Poxrb of �kppeal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - APRIL 24, 1985 A Public Hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, April 24, 1985 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 April 10, 17, 1985• 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. 81 Webb St. - Kathleen Ternes-Keefe (petitioner) Phylis Spiliotis (owner) Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or special permit to all premises to be used as a one unit dwelling/veterinary clinic for cats in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from Mr. or Mrs. Shapiro, Shelter Director for the Northeast Animal Shelter, in favor; Donna Copeland, 328 Essex St. , in favor; Michael E. Pelletier, 25 Andrew St. , opposed; a letter signed by nine area residents and addressed to the Mayor, opposed; petition in opposition signed by twenty seven area residents; letter from Kathleen Keefe-Ternes addressed to the Mayor, dated April 23, 1985 with an attached petition in favor signed by eighty four area residents; letter from Anthony S. Fucaloro, One Warner Street, pp 1 in favor; Lenn Kuleza Doherty, 75 Webb St. , in favor; Susan Lee, 22 Pleasant St. , 4 '•'� in favor, letter from the Fire Inspector, no objection. Attorney John Serafini Jr. , represented the petitioner, Dr. Ternes is under a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the property at 81 Webb St. , petitioner wants to change an existing beauty parlor use into a veterinary clinic specializing solely in cats. The opposition think its going to be a radical increase in density, that just isn' t so, this will be . specialty practice, just cats, no dogs or other animals, this is not what is considered a veterinary hospital in the general sense of the work. She will not be living on the premises as Mrs. Spiliotis does she will be living in the neigh- borhood. She will walk to work. Will have incentive to maintain the property.. The main reason she does not want to live on the property is because she would be called on at all hours of the night would leave her virtually no free time. Need to focus of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, couple of points made in the letters of opposition that you can not do a veterinary clinic or beauty parlor within an R-2 district, that is superficial reading of the Ordinance. Under 5 B 10 which is general section which talks about extensions of nonconforming uses, you'll find this section overrides any inconsistent portion of the remainder of the Ordinance, what would apply to us is changes or expansion of nonconforming uses provided that such change or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. This is really the key to the whole argument, Mrs. Spiliotis has conducted a beauty parlor for more than twenty five years without complaint, proposes to change that use by selling to someone who is going to be on site virtually the same amount of waking hours. The intensity is not going to increase any substantial degree. Displayed the plans to the Board. All the parking is going to be on site. Webb St. is a major thoroughfare, traffic is high volume, the proposed change will not add appreciably to the volume. Webb St. is simply a r�•�. busy street. The proposal is to allow traffic to come in on Andrew St. just to get to driveway, about 50/60 feet and exit on to Webb St. The Doctor thinks she will see approximately three patients an hour on an average, this should not greatly appreciate the traffic on Webb St. As long as traffic pattern is inforced MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1985 page two 81 Webb St. - Continued i there should be no problem as far as traffic is concerned. Come in off of Andrew and exit on to Webb, she will do her best to make sure that thats the flow that developes, she's post signs, tell people. Mr. Serafini referred to a large Assessors Map, the area is dotted with existing commercial uses. This would not be an invasion of an unspoiled residential neighborhood it already has mixed commercial uses in it. We do not feel this will be detrimental based on the traffic, based on the use that she wants, based on the precedent you would set. The use is going to be completely contained inside. No exterior change except for door to existing porch and small set of stairs. Clearly an improvement to have off street parking for all the patrons. As she is going to live in the neighborhood she'll have major incentive to keep it up. A special permit is appropriate, how- ever, she also, because of the peculiar nature of the lot meets the requirements for a Variance. We hope for Special Permit but on either theory it would be justified and the Board could support it. Mr. Gauthier: I would find a very hard time finding a hardship for variance. Mr. Charnas: I agree. Mr. Serafini: We are content with either format, the Special Permit makes more sense. Dr. Ternes: my husband and I have lived at 16 Pickman St. for the last 4} years. I love the neighborhood and this building in particular. In order for us to make the office any smaller and more efficient we would need great deal of interior construction. We decided to have office on first and second floor therefore we don' t have to worry about adding a second kitchen which would have been necessary if dwelling was on second floor. There is some concern in the neighborhood that we are going to add hot top, we are, I have great deal of love for landscaping and we will do a job that will minimize the effect of the hottopping, barely notice that it exists. The best satisfaction I get in my profession is dealing with people. Three clients an hours is not a great number of clients, I intent to take a lot of time with them. I want a location where we could be within a general neighborhood area. The hours 8 to 7:30 does not necessarity mean that people will be coming and going through the whole course of that time. On Tuesdays and Fridays no one would come till afternoon time, those are the days when I have surgery. On Monday Wednesday and Thursday the off will be closed from 12 to 4 to do inhouse work and phone calls, etc. So on certain there would be even less than three clients per hours. Mr. Luzinski: are you practising now anywhere? Dr. Ternes: yes, I have the Feline House which is currently a mobile cat only practice and I work out of my house. Speaking in favor: Mrs. Spiliotis: 81 Webb St. , would like to make it clear that this is not a neighborhood shop, I draw from Beverly, Danvers, Lynn- field, Hamilton and Peabody. The people who are talking about this shop have never been in it. I am turning it over to another professional and I am very happy about this, I am sure that as far as traffic goes it should not be any more than what I had. My driveway is not used, it's very difficult to back off because I have big tree at the edge of driveway. Mr. Charnas: how many customers do see a week? Mrs. Spiliotis: right now I see about thirty but I used to see sixty or more for twenty years. I used to have a sign, which is state board requirement, but I did not have to put it back up because I said I was selling the property. Lost the sign in a storm. Amy Hurst, 35 Briggs St. , I have been talking to neighbors at 77 Webb St. and they thought it was good. Mr. Hacker: if those people are here they will have an opportunity to speak but we can' t take their testimony unless they are here. Catherine Lawsen: 32 Webb St. , if it's going to neighborhood clinic most of us won' t be using cars. I have two cats myself. Kevin Kiley, Pickman st. , we have confidence in the Ternes's and what they are going to do with the property. Catherin Mullins, 22 Andrews St. it would add to the neighborhood, we have cats and are cat lovers. Ann Marie Dodd, 32' Essex St. MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1985 < page three 81 Webb St. - Continued • She can only be an asset. Mark Carnevale, 23 Andrew st. , all for it, have two cats. Eleanor Ryan, 18 Pickman st. , all for her clinic, she is responsible person and whatever she says she'll do, she'll do. She is an asset to the neighborhood. Mrs. Raymond Beales, in favor. Christine Verreo, Beverly, Dr. Ternes is my vet and she is very concerned about maintaining property, definitely in favor. Judy Spinale Richards, 2 Pierce Ave. , have known Dr. Ternes for about four years, she is great. Debora Carter, 1 Warner St. , I don' t live in the immediate area, I wanted Kathy to come to my neighborhood, I think this neighborhood can only benefit from this. Martin Richards, 19 Andrews St. , John Cantin, 283 Derby St. , I run Pet shop, I am very familiar with the business and I can attest to the dedication of Dr. Ternes. Alan Heziciah, 1 Collins St. , fully support this. Ruth Callahan, Pickman st. Mary Tiberski, Andrew St. , Peter Kopelas, Broad St. , know her to be very conscientious and caring person, will be asset to neighborhood. Donna Connelly, 26 Hardy St. , Dr. Ternes is my Veterinarian, very caring. Jim Gauthier, 6 Ocean Ave. , Jay Moore, 8 Phillips St. , Jan Ricard, 29 Andrews St. , traffic is bad during the day, would not object if hours were 8 to 5• Concerned will the parking of employees. Mr. Hacker: she has a parking plan if you would like to see it. Shows six on site parking spaces. While I am not jumping up and down saying this is great I am not nearly as opposed as I was. Sue Sikowte, 23 Andrew St. , Vincent Kennedy, 11 Andrew St. support the proposal, the neighborhood will benefit, see no detriment. Linda Banzel 11 Harbor St. Rebecca Kennedy, 11 Andrew St. will enhance the neighborhood. Speaking in opposition: Attorney George Atkins, 301 Lafayette St. , I am representing Michael and Ann Pelletier who reside at 25 - 27 Andrew St. , would like to point out to the Board the fact that • certain things we can agree on, the fact that a Veterinary Clinic is not a permitted use in an R-2 district.is clear, the fact that a Veterinary Clinic is in fact specifically excluded in an R-2 if very clear. It is an appropriate use in a B-4 district. Mr. Serafini has suggested that this Board has the authority and power to waive that exclusion and grant a Special Permit, he refers to section Section 11 , that if you read further refers you to Section 9D which deals with granting of Special Permit, which states, the Board of Appeal shall not have the power to grant any Special Permit when use is specifically excluded from the district. I suggest that due to the language in the Ordinance that you do not have the power to grant the Special Permit in this instance. You can choose to vary the terms of the Ordinance and grant a Variance. The Board is aware of the technical language associated with the granting of a VAriance, would like to point out that one of the real substantial parts of the hardship question relates to the lot in question as it relates to the surrounding area , it's condition has to be peculiar as opposed to the rest of the district. I suggest to you that this lot is not different than any lot in the neighborhood, there is nothing that gives it any peculiar nature. It is basically a residential structure. The proposed use will change its basic nature to commercial structure, in doing that the Board would have to find hardship and other requirements for a variance. Those elements are not present. The colored map Mr. Serafini presented clearly shows this is a residential neighborhood not business neighborhood. I suspect most if not all businesses in the area are nonconforming uses. This may be nonconforming use as a beauty parlor but this proposal is a change in use. I suggest you do not have the power to grant Special PErmit and there is insufficient data for variance. MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1985 page four 81 Webb St. - Continued • Whether it's cats or dogs, or if she is good doctor or not is not the issue. The issue is whether you can grant Special Permit or not. In section VB 3 states under the Specifically excluded section that any Special Permit uses for B-1 ,B-2, B-3,B-4 and I districts are excluded, if you read further in the B-4 section, Veterinary Hospitals are a Special Permit use. Mr. Charnas: your position is that a Veterinary Clinic is no different than a hospital? Mr. Atkins: thats correct. Mr. Gauthier: wouldn' t a hospital include all animals? Mr. Atkins: I don' t think the nature of the animal makes any difference. Mr. Hacker: I would just like to point out that Beauty Parlors are also excluded. Jane Sturgwell, 17 Andrew St. , submitted petition signed by 15 neighbors expressing their opposition. I am vehemently opposed to this clinic at that location. Over the past few years this Board has increased the density at that corner by one rental unit and seven condominiums. The flavor of this street is not commercial, definitely residential. I question that the petition is merely a change in nonconforming use. The beauty parlor was a B-1 use which is allowed in an R-2 neighborhood by Special Permit. B-1 is for neighborhood business, this clinic is not neighborhood business. In the Zoning Ordinance there is a definition of Veterinary Hospital (animal clinic) , which is: a building whose sole use will be the m-efir_gal or surgical treatment of animals, reptiles or birds. If this business is appropriate to an R-2, the other excluded uses include service stations, automotive shops. People would argue against any of those uses. Some people who are here supporting this have been here to argue against increased density, because of the traffic issue. I have always felt that with residential use the traffic is minimal, I am now going to argue increase in traffic. I live on Andrew St. , I have one toddler and an enfant and . they will be playing on that street. The petitioners have stated they will some- time hire another veterinarian and they also say they will conform to the parking requirements, if they do hire someone, whether full or part-time they would increase the need for parking, under the ordinance to nine spaces and they cannot provide this. I also question a parking spot on their plan that as long as you back into it its legal but the ordinance also states that you cannot have legal parking spot if you back onto a public street, also don' t think the footage of this space conforms. Gary Sturgwell, 17 Andrew St. ,I carried the petition around to the neighbors who were opposed, out of the 30 signatures, five are abutters. The code requires there must be 12 feet at entrance and exit, this .would not meet it. There is a fence there that belongs to neighbor the increase traffic in that area would be of some concern to them. Sandra Alexander, 15 Andrew St. , I lived there all my life and I am now raising my family there. I don' t want sick animals down the corner from my kids. Michael Pelletier, 25 Andrew St. , lived on Andrew St. since 1946. Please uphold the R-2 zoning and keep this residential. Mary Ahearn, 11A Andrew St. , increase in density, as a professional I would think that she would be anticipating that she would grow, would be more business. John Suldenski, 35 Andrew St. , I am opposed to a business there, don' t believe this is an allowed use in a residential area. David Goodman, 11 Andrew St. , this is not a commercial area, I would like to point out that a number of people who spoke in favor were clients of Kathys, not neighbors. Ann Pelletier, 25 Andrew St. , everyone hear is a friend of Kathleen's, those of us who are speaking against this are doing it in spite of our friendship. There is substantial neighborhood opposition. Joan Nester, 2 Forrester St. , I am opposed to a business in a residential area. In Rebuttal: Attorney Serafini: lets take a minute to focus on the Ordinance and its definition of Animal Hospital/Clinic. The ordinance defines it as a building . whose sole use will be the medical or surgical treatment of animals MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1985 page five 81 Webb St. - Continued i The proposed use is to have dwelling upstairs and clinic downstairs, so I think you are outside the scope of that definition. The reference in B-4 zone to Veterinary hospital contemplates a full veterinary hospital, a clinic is different, a doctors office cannot be compared to a regular hospital. What we propose is a lot closer to a doctors office than a general hospital. The section under VB 11 , is what we have to focus on. It is true that under R-2 district you cannot put in for the first time a beauty parlor because it is excluded, so if we were trying for the first time, Mr. Atkins would be correct. We are not doing that, we are changing the beauty parlor to the clinic, therefore, V B 11 allows that. In section 1X D paragraph one, describes Special Permits. I states the Board may grant change from one nonconforming use to another. Mr. Charnas: don' t you agree that if this is a veterinary hospital under the terms of the ordinance you will need a variance. Mr. Serafini: no I don' t think so, because of the genesis of this section, the Board has the power to grant special permit. This power is also backed up in section VIII F. Under chapter 40A section VI, gives state power to the Boards of Appeal to change nonconforming uses. Thinks the state mandate overrides any inconsistencies in the local ordinance. With respect to parking, I don' t see anything in the ordinance that says when you add another doctor or veterinarian your spaces have to go up to nine, the section with regards to professional offices sets forth the requirements, you have one space for each professional person, one space for each two employees and its silent beyond that. Think our lot is unique in the district and a variance could be justified but we feel a special permit is a better argument. Hearing is closed. Mr. Charnas: • frankly I've changed my mind three times tonight. Under the definition of of veterninary hospital which states the sole use will be for the treatment of animals, medical & surgical. He asked Mr. Atkins how he could say this particular proposal is a hospital under the terms of the ordinance. Mr. Atkins: two ways, if you read this in its strictest terms you may be able to exclude, but what else would you describe this use as, I don' t see it falling under any other category. In permitted uses its no where to be found. Mr. Luzinski: is the present owner still going to live in the house. Mr. Serafini: no. Mr. Charnas: I think it is crucial to decide if we are talking variance or special permit, because the veterinary hospital is defined as the sole use that this is not a veterinary hospital and we can grant special permit. Mr. Gauthier: I agree it should be special permit. Mr. Hacker: I agree also, a special permit is appropriate here. Mr. Charnas: I don' t see the proposed use being out of line with the current use. If we limited hours to the same hours as the beauty parlor which I believe were 9:15 to 5:30 leaving some leeway. I would be in favor. Mr. Gauthier: I agree. I travel Webb St. alot and I don't think the traffic is that bad. I don' t think this will add to the traffic and I think it will be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Strout: you do intend to keep the third floor as an apartment, not to expand your practise. Dr. Ternes: no sir, we will not be expanding. Mr. Hacker: I could vote for this favorably if we limited the office hours and the size of the sign and the driveway in the rear, rather than hottopped be crushed stone and landscaping according to this plan looks exceptionally good would have to conform to these plans. The hours no longer that what the beauty parlor had. Mr. Gauthier: didn' t Dr. Ternes say they would be closed a couple of afternoons for surgery. The hours would be much less. Mr. Strout: should give them some nights because of people who work, maybe till 7:00, 7:30. Mr. Luzinski: I think I am still . opposed to changing to another type of business. Do you have any plans for the basement area. Dr. Ternes: storage only. Mr. Charnas: should we limit the MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1985 page six j 81 Webb St. - Continued number of employees to one veterinarian and two employees on premises, maybe three employees. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant petitioners request for a Special Permit on condition that the hours the clini may be open to public be 8:45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on three weekdays per week; 8:45 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on two weekdays per week, 8:45 a.m. to 12:00 noon on saturdays; a minimum of six (6) on site parking spaces be maintained at all times; driveway in rear be crushed stone; maximum of one veterinary and three employees be on premises at one time; landscaping be done in accordance with plan submitted to the Board; any signs advertising the business be affixed to the building itself and be no more than 18" x 32" and unlit; smoke detectors be installed in a configuration appropriate for mixed occupancy and plans for installation be provided to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau prior to start of work; basement to be used for storage only; Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier and Strout voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Luzinski voted against the motion. Motion carried by a vote of 4 - 1 GRANTED 57 Highland Ave. - North Shore Childrens Hospital Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to construct an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Inspector, no objection. Barbara Betts, Assistant Administrator for North Shore • Childrens Hospital, represented the hospital. She introduce Dennis Ingrams, one of the architects, from the firm of Hans Finne, displayed the plans to the Board. Mr. Kalderolda from the same firm assisted in the display of the plans. This will be a three story above ground addition, total of 7,500 sq-ft. It will fill in the corner of the building. The applicant submitted to the Commonwealth of Mass. in September of 1982 for a determination of need to provide an expansion of their ambulatory care clinic, needed office space for doctors and a small cafeteria area for employees, that was approved by the department of Public Health. We are presenting this because the code calls for special permit, will be same uses, no additional staff people will be added, no additional traffic will be generated. Building itself fills in the left hand corner of the T, approximatly 50 feet away from the existing building is the property line. Will be a corridor. Displayed a rendering of the addition when completed. Met with the Fire Inspector and will have extension of fire alarm system. The addition itself will be 35 feet high, the existing structure is 58 feet high, this will be two floors less than existing. Total existing is 40,000 sq. feet, this will add 8,100 sq. at. for total of 48,000 sq. ft. No increase, just extension of existing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: this is a good chance for them to expand their facilities for the children and for themselves its a good addition for the City of Salem. Mr. Charnas: I agree, good facility. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant a Special Permit to grant an addition as per plans submitted by architectural firm Hans H. Finney, Inc. , provided the Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1985 page seven • 8 Hancock St. - Roger & Lorraine LaPointe Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing three family dwelling into a four family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from Fire Department, no objection. Roger LaPointe, 8 Hancock st. , represented himself and his wife. Submitted plans showing additional parking. There is a four family next door and one at 11 Hancock and one at 10-102' Hancock St. and is being renovated for five apartments. He went over the plans with the Board and explained the work he would be doing. There will be a total four in the back and can accomodate four more in driveway without having them back to back. It's a wide driveway. There will be a total of eight spaces with no one having to back out. Speaking in favor: Frank Ouellette, 10 Hancock st. , Roger is a good neighbor, this will not be detrimental. Samuel Scholnick, 6 Hancock St. , in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: I am in favor, he has the parking. Mr. Hacker: should make it condition it be owner occupied, I have no problem with this as long as eight spaces maintained and it be owner occupied. Mr. Charnas asked the petitioner to locate the locus on the street map and to point out the other four families in the area. Mr. LaPointe went over the map with him. Mr. Charnas: generally I would be opposed, but considering no one is here to oppose and he has adequate parking, I would be in favor. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow conversion of existing three family dwelling into a four family dwelling on condition, eight (8) parking spaces be maintained; must remain owner occupied; no structural changes except for windows as shown on plan submitted to the Board; and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. • Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 600 Loring Ave. - Village Realty Trust, Mark Klaman Tr. Petitioners are requesting a variance to allow the portion of the premises which is located in the R-3 section to be used for parking. Premises are in a B-2/R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department, no objection but expressing concern with snow removal and rubbish storage. Attorney William DiMento, 990 Paradise Road, Swampscott, represented the petitioners. Submitted plot plan to the Board. Basically the locus is at the extreme of the City. The R-3 district bisects the lot. The building is about 75% complete and has the required parking spaces and everything is fine. There is presently the required 54 spaces and there is an entrance from Loring ave. , a curb cut, meets all requirements, and exit only on Loring Hills Ave. There is the section in R-3 which is not available for commercial use. With the well know parking problem in this area it is petitioners feeling that anything that relieves parking will be benefit to businesses that are there and to the neighborhood. The owners of the property have always allowed the Funeral Home next door to use this area for parking and have allowed other businesses in area. Whether this is granted or not they will still allow this because it is in the best interest of the City and neighborhood. This R-3 small section has no other use, can' t be constructed on, land that has no use except as excessory use. This hardship requirement has been met, there is something unique with this land, has no residential use and therefore eligible for Variance for parking alone. My clients have no problem with requirements A of the Fire Department, in fact endorse it. There intention is for relief of parking in this area. Submitted copies of Assessors Map with locus colored, petition signed by five abutters. This would be a benefit to the neighborhood. MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1985 page eight 600 Loring Ave. - Continued • i For the record Mr. Hacker read the petition in favor. Speaking in favor: Councillor Nutting: this will offer relief in this area. There are a couple of small businesses in that area that do not have much parking. Came here to ask Board to establish at least a few parking spaces for the neighboring businesses. Would like to see parking restricted in front of couple of the businesses and they of course would not like that, this would offer them an alternative. Perhaps could write it in that some spaces be reserved for the neighbors or perhaps go with their word. Mr. Gauthier: how many spaces are you going to have. Mr. DiMento: there is room for thirty spaces. Mr. Hacker: how many do you allow the neighbors now? Mr. DiMento: never restricted them. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: asked Mr. Nutting if he really felt there should be restriction that so many spaces should be saved or rented. Councillor Nutting: it would be nice to have it written into the decision because say five or ten years should it happen to change hands, the new owners said they couldn't use it. Mr. Gauthier: how many spaces are you talking about. Councillor Nutting: maybe five. Attorney DiMento: two problems I have with that. One is legal, that would put cloud on title. - How would that be administered. We have been good neighbors and that should be considered. To have it as condition would be cumbersome and we would hate to be married to that situation. Mr. Hacker: don' t question petitioner would keep it open for parking, I think we could put condition on but I am no so sure that we should, I think its right of person who owns land to be able to sell. I would have difficulty to limit them to five which I don' t think will make much difference anyway. Mr. Gauthier: I don' t either, I. have know Mr. Hart for a long time and I know his word is good. Mr. Charnas: would like to add that this is very appropriate for a variance, this one of the few cases that come to the Board where the hardship is very clear. I am opposed to parking restriction. Mr. Strout made motion to grant a variance to allow portion of lot situated in R-3 to be used as parking on condition snow be totally removed from parking area and no rubbish (dumpsters and/or containers) be kept in the rear of the building. . Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 95 Ocean Ave. - John Suldenski Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this B-4 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department, no objection. Attorney George Vallis, 1 Church St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. Displayed plans of the floor. Would like to make one correction, the applicaton said five rooms, actually contain six rooms. First floor presently contains three bedrooms, second floor is identical, third floor which is vacant contains about 1400 sq. ft. of livable space and would like to convert to five room apartment. Submitted site plan, this shows parking for five cars. Petitioner would furnish parking in the rear. The porch is in disrepair, he will remove this and allow room for cars to turn. Way it is now cars have to back out on to street. Mr. Suldenski presently owns six properties in Salem, has always taken care of them, has always done extensive work. Displayed for the Board's perusal, pictures of Mr. Suldenski's properties, showing the work he has done. We are for a Special Permit because the property is located in a B-4 district i . and residential use is prohibited, it is presently a two family which is non- conforming. Submitted copies of the Assessors Map showing the area, there are some three family, some two family, mixed uses. We are here under the provision of the Zoning Ordinance that says notwithstanding anything to the contrary MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1985 page nine the Board may grant Special Permits for alteration of nonconforming and it is . not substantially more detrimental that the existing nonconforming use. I submit that the change from a two to a three is not substantially detrimental. Submitted petition in favor signed by twenty five abutters, all on Ocean Ave. I know the Board in the past has placed as a condition that it be owner occupied. Mr. Suldenski lives on Andrew St. , unfortunately he cannot live in every building he owns. He is not the usual absentee landlord, when he buys property he spends a lot of money and fixes it up, he does take care of his property. He has already done a lot of work, he is planning to either rebuild the porch or tear it down. He would agree to a condition that if the property is ever sold it would have to be owner occupied. He does not intent to sell or to convert to condominiums. Mr. Strout: Asked if there would be dormer? Mr. Suldenski: no, velux windows for ventilation. Mr. Charnas: how much will rent be? Mr. Suldenski: presently getting $550, would be about the same. Speaking in favor: Wayne Chandler, 80 Ocean Ave. , any improvement to the house would be good for the area. Speaking in opposition: Theresa McCauley, 93 Ocean Ave. , concerned about parking, he says he will put in five spaces, can we be sure. The Board assured her that she could be. There's no windows. Mr. Gauthier explained about the vellox windows. Mrs. McCauley: would not want anyone living there with no ventilation. Mr. Hacker explained to her they could put condition that he maintain five spaces. Mrs McCauley: what about the porches, will he remove them. Mr. Gauthier: my recommendation would be to remove them. Mrs. McCauley: what would they use then. Mr. Gauthier: they would have to have two egresses in order to get permit. Mr. Suldenski: showed on the plans where the egresses would be. Mrs. McCauley asked how long he has owned the property. About a year. Mrs. McCauley: still c� have broken windows, pigeons flying in and out, I don' t see where he' s done much repairs. Mr. Hacker: are you satisfied with the plans or are you still opposed. Mrs. McCauley: I am still opposed. Councillor Nutting: just came from property. Excellent idea to remove porches. Would like to make sure this is parking lot and no piggyback parking. Mr. Gauthier: would like to explained to Mrs. McCauley about conditions that the Board could set. If we set these conditions would you then be in favor, if it would improve your property. Mrs. McCauley: what if they rent to college students. Mr. Hacker: we have no control over that, can' t restrict who they rent to. Mrs. McCauley: what happens with the big dog they have and the dog house. Mr. Hacker: we cannot tell landlord if he can have pets or not, thats his decision. We could have him fence property off so it will not annoy you, you would not be able to see it. By having to have five spaces, it may be they would have to remove the dog house. Would like to ask Mr. Suldenski why, not two hours ago he was opposed to a business in a residential zone and now he wants residential in a business zone. Mr. Suldenski: I own the house directly across the street from 81 Webb St. , they came and opposed me saying they wanted a two family house. The reason I opposed them is because I want to retain the residential area. This property is nonconforming, it is already being used as residential. Mr. Hacker: I understand that, the other property was already being used as a business. Mr. Suldenski: it is the type business. In rebuttal: Mr. Vallis, don' t think the neighbors have anything to be concerned with, he is taking parking off the street, will pave or use crushed stone, whatever the Board wished, if theres a dog there, no objection to removing dog house, will fence it, will conform to any conditions. The neighborhood will be proud of this house when it is finished. Will not be detrimental, will be harmony, there are residential there. MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1985 page ten • 95 Ocean Ave. - Continued Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: neighbors are sometimes confused. I would be willing to vote for this with these conditions, porch be removed, provide proper:i circulation by the addition of four velex windows, hottop driveway, get rid of dog house, do exterior repairs, maintain five parking spaces, and all work be done within six months. Mr. Charnas, is that a motion. Mr. Gauthier: I would like to make this a motion. Mr. Hacker: would like some discussion before motion. Mr. Charnas: it is my feeling that this section of Ocean Ave. would not be adversely affected this, the problems can be fixed by conditions. I would be in favor with the conditions Mr. Gauthier mentioned. Mr. Hacker: I am more concerned with the neighbors, I agree the house was in bad repair and he has done work and probably would continue to upgrade whether we grant this or not in order to get the kind of rents he wants or needs to be successful, the problem I have is that we have continually denied permits for extra units that are not owner occupied, we denied one last meeting and that was a good developer. I think we have to protect the area. I think it should be owner occupied. I am uncomfortable with limiting the next owner if we don' t do it with this owner, I would not be in favor of this petition. Mr. Gauthier: there are a lot of people in Salem who basically take and make a two to a three, a three to a four, I'm one of them and I can' t live in all my units. I feel that if we set condition that satisfies neighbors we could grant this. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to convert from a two to a three family dwelling on condition, porch be removed; provide proper circulation by adding four velex windows, hottop driveway, fence area • in, remove dog house, exterior repairs, maintain five parking spaces, all work to be done in six months or it will revert to a two family, and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, velex windows to be type that open. Mr. Charnas seconded. Mr. Charnas, Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Strout voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hacker and Mr. Luzinski voted in opposition to the motion. DENIED First St. - Salem Housing Authority Petitioner is seeking a Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chapter 40B, §21 to allow construction of six buildings, each building containing two units for low income housing. The property is located in an R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Fire Department, no objection, a letter from the Planning Board requesting the opportunity to review the proposed plan in detail. Mr. Hacker: before we start, this was filed under 40B which has a different time requirements that 40A. When this was brought to our attention, I spoke with Mr. Farrell and he was as cooperative as he always is and he wrote a letter waiving his time rights so we could schedule it at a regular meeting. Just wanted the record to show Mr. Farrells cooperation. Mr. Charnas: before we begin, should we continue this based on the letter from the Planning Board? Mr. Hacker: think we should listen to the proposal, and ask City Planner for his opinion. Attorney William Lundregan, Salem, represented the Housing Authority. This is a petition under 40B, the Architect is here and I will ask him to explain the plans. This is an R-3 zone which permits multi-family, we are here because we are putting more than one building on a lot. We have met with the City Planner and have gone over the plans with him and he did have some suggestions, one was the siding be changed from vinyl to wood, we agree with that. Also made suggestions with regard to landscaping and it is my understanding the Architect incorporated these into the plans. Introduced Bill Hammer, the MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1985 page eleven First St. - Contined Architect, who displayed the plans to the Board and the assemblage, also displayed model of the project. This is only funded for twelve units, half will be two bedroom and half will be three bedroom. Due to the difficulty of the site there wasn' t enough units to really justify the site developement cost to bring in services and to blast ledge, etc. off the top of site, so there is low section. Taking some grade and pushing it down, but will need some fill in order flatten this out. These are two story, plus basement. Architec- ture is traditional, will use wood siding, this is funded by E.O.C.D. , they prefer vinyl. There is no problem with utilities. We would like to have wood deck but may not be able to due to budget restrictions. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: would like to hear from the City Planner. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner: speaking for myself, we met with the Housing Authority and made some suggestions but I would like a couple of hours to go over the plans in more detail. Mr. Gauthier: could we vote on this subject to Planning Board approval, I think it is a waste of time to come back. Mr. Hacker: the reason they came to us under 40B is so they did not have to go to all the other Boards. We could continue till the May 15th hearing and vote on it then. Mr. Kavanaugh: I would still like to meet with them myself. Mr. Hammer: Everything we do is with the approval of EOCD, they have the final say. Attorney Lundregan: could we set up a special meeting. After setting a date when all interested parties could get together, Mr. Luzinski made a motion to continue this until APRIL 29, 1985 at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL APRIL 29, 1985. • Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p•m. , next scheduled hearing will be a special meeting for the Salem Housing Authority on April 29, 1985, the next regular meeting will be May 15, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. { .- ,Respec�tfullly' /submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk _,.Loau Ctg of 'Sttlem, 4Rttssuchusetts Pourb of �kppeal ea� /J MINUTES BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - APRIL 29, 1985 A special meeting of the Board of Appeal was held April 29, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green. This meeting was held to hear the continuance of petition submitted by the Salem Housing Authority for Comprehensive Permit under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B §21 . Board Members Present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout Meeting was called to order by James Hacker, Chairman at 7:00 P.M. First St. - Salem Housing Authority The petitioners are requesting a Comprehensive Permit under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B §21 to allow construction of six buildings, each building have two units for a total of twelve units for low income housing in this R-3 district. Mr. Hacker explained this was continued from the April 24th hearing. The continuance was to allow the Petitioners and the City Planner a chance to review the proposal to get any recommendations the City Planner might have. Mr. Charnas read the letter from the City Planner and after a brief discussion the Board agreed with these recommendations and agreed to incorporate them into • the decision. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Comprehensive Permit as requested on condition: 1 . A detailed landscaping plan, defining the type, size amount and and caliper of landscaping be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department; 2. A drainage plan for the site, particularly as it impacts the abutting parcels, be submitted to the review and approval of the Planning Dept. ; 3. Parking spaces be a minimum of 9' in width and 20' in length and shown on a plan; and a minimum of eighteen ( 18) such spaces be provided and shown on a plan; 4. The exterior of the building shall be wood shingles; 5. A lighting plan for the development be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Dept. ; 6. A designated snow storage area shall be delineated on the plan at the end of the cul-de-sac. This area shall be located such that melted snow will drain away from the cul-de-sac and access driveway to avoid any possibility of icing; 7. Concrete curb stops in the parking area as shown on the plan shall be adequately anchored; • r S MINUTES - APRIL 29, 1985 page two First St. - Continued 8. Pathways from both the access driveway and parking spaces to the buildings shall be stone dust; 9. The Salem Fire Protection Code regarding blasting shall be strictly adhered to (M.G.L. 148, §10A. and 527 C.M.R. 13.00) . Any blasting or drilling which may be necessary shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday. 10. A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit shall be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 7:40 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held May 15, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, o Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk i. 3� Ctu of Salem, fflassuchusetts PuarD of �kFvettl / MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - MAY 15, 1985 A public hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday,May 15, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusettes General Law Chapter 40A. Members Present: Messrs. , Hacker, Charnas, Luzinski, Strout, Gauthier and Associate Member Bencal The hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. , by the Chairman, James Hacker. 36 Forest Ave. - Michael Cormier/David Rosenberg Petitioners are requesting a special permit to operate a miniature golf course in this B-4 district. Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that a letter has been received from Mr. Cormier & Mr. Rosenberg requesting leave to withdraw their application. He explained they have that right up until the time of the hearing. If they reapply it will be advertised again and abutters will be notified. WITHDRAWN J80 Ocean Ave. - Frank W. Chandler Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. Chandler represented himself. He displayed plans to the Board, floor plan, site plan showing parking for five cars in the rear and an assessors map, color coded showing the different uses in the immediate area. Submitted a petition in favor signed by nine abutters. Seven are direct abutters, two are tenants in his building. Mr. Hacker: how wide is your driveway? Mr. Chandler: about twenty feet. Parking spaces are nine and one half by eighteen. Will put a dormer, will be necessary for head space. Showed on the plans where it would be located. I live on the first floor. Would prefer not hottopping. There is a fence all the way around. Mr. Gauthier: any parking in rear now? Mr. Chandler: we park piggy back now. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: I don't see any problem with it. As long it's owner occupied and meets requirements of Building Inspector. Mr. Hacker: I agree, would like it conditioned that a 20' driveway be maintained and the parking spaces be defined. Mr. Charnas: Ocean Ave. has lot of traffic anyway, this will not exacerbate it. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the Special Permit to convert two family dwelling into a three family dwelling on condition, a 20 foot wide driveway be maintained, five defined parking spaces be maintained on site, be owner occupied, A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED r MINUTES - MAY 15, 1985 page two • Mr. Gauthier will not be sitting on the next petition. Mr. Hacker appointed Mr. Bencal a voting member. 256-258 Lafayette St. - Lafayette Real Estate Trust Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert carriage house to four condominium units and all necessary variances in order to construct fourteen condominium units in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Salem Historical Commission, dated May 15, 1985. (on file) , letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. Hacker asked Attorney Wysor, why the two separate petitions. Attorney Wysor: the special permits and variances are different for both projects, they have been treated as one proposal though as far as the plans are concerned. Mr. Hacker: would you put any visual aids you have on the Board. Mr. Wysor: these are pictures of the site, taken over the weekend, this is the Ives Greenhouse property. This is a deteriorating site. The greenhouse building is partially boarded up, glass nearly all broken, weeds are growing up, retaining wall fell down. We propose to retain character of this site in terms of historic buildings that are on it and in addition clean up what has become eyesore. It is a big problem for the City. The site we are concerned with has existing carriage house, we are proposing and what has been approved by the Salem Historic Commission is to move carriage from its present location to the front on Lafayette St. The carriage house is deteriorating and is being used for storage. This will be restored. Mr. Hacker: I think it would be appropriate at this time to note that in June of 1983 a petition similar to this came before the Board, though its two years it is appropriate that we decide if there is substantial change. It is my opinion there is. Mr. Charnas: we should hear from petitioner why he thinks its different from other petition. Attorney Wysor: main reason its different, I may get into the petition for 260 Lafayette St. Mr. Hacker: we will only discuss this petition at this point. we'd like to know what is the substantial difference between this petition and the petition that was filed previously. Mr. Wysor: the biggest change is the preservation and saving of the carriage house, which is an historic building; also, it is to be relocated so it will a focal point in what is hoped to be a new historic district, second, is the means of access to this project. There was substantial criticism in the prior petition as to access which was designed from Laurel St. , now we propose a driveway from Lafayette St. Thirdly is that these developers have proposed to provide parking spaces on Laurel St. for residents of Laurel St. , not for use of this proposed development. Mr. Charnas: how many spaces? Mr. Wysor: six, there will be a total of 36 spaces. Thirty will be for use for the condominiums. Mr. Hacker: at this point I would like to make a motion to hear this, is there a second. Mr. Bencal seconded. Motion unanimously carried. Mr. Wysor: after carriage house is relocated is to refurbish the exterior, maintaining lines as they are currently. We have agreed with the Historical Commission that no changes to this building will take place without their consent. We propose to put four condominium units in the carriage house,connected to the carriage house building are proposed a total of ten units which would be of a town house Variety which are designed to comply with and to accompany the architecture of the carriage house. The architect is here tonight to answer any questions. The green areas on the plan displayed represent landscaping, grass, • shrubbery and trees. We will landscape the site as much as we can and still be able to provide the required parking. We propose hedge and/or fence to screen parking. The lighting will be screened from the neighbors. The total number of MINUTES - MAY 15, 1985 page three 256-268 Lafayette St. - Continued • units will be 14. Speaking in favor: Robert Bowes, Esq. 301 Lafayette St. , representing Mr. Little, who is president of corporation that presently owns the property. Two years ago the Board indicated they would favor the plan with some adjustments, one of which was moving the carriage house out front. Speaking for myself and the firm, we are right up the street from this property and we favor this plan as well. Attorney represent Edward Mello, 254 Lafayette St. , present owner of the property immediately to the right, submitted letter from Mr. Mello dated May 10, 1985. Mr. Charnas read the letter into the record (on file) . Mr. Rosbick, Laurel St. , no objection. It is a eyesore as it is now. Won' t make any difference as far as traffic. David Guy, 7 Linden St. , no objection, will be asset. Leo Cretien, 9 Linden St. , no objection, right now it is an eyesore. Lionel Dupuis, 9 Linden St. Robert Roy, 248 Lafayette St. , will enhance the area. Mr. Tondreau, 127 Canal St. , William Tracey, 1 Laurel St. , was opposed, situation has improved. I was concerned about traffic on Laurel St. , entrance would have been Laurel St. only, that bothered me. I now find the entrance is now on Lafayette St. , that takes care, in large, of the objections I had. The present plans show no entrance whatsoever on Laurel St. and my support is based on this fact. Also; speaking_ in favor.: Councillor Jean Guy Martineau, I have reviewed the plans with Mr. Belisle and the developers. They have tried to address concerns that were here two years ago. I think they have done one heck of a job. I am still not convinced this is the proper way to go and whether this would be good for the neighborhood. I have talked with few of the neighbors, 75% are in favor. Would • like drainage problems discussed. I think they have addressed most of the other objections. This property has been going down and down, and the way it stands now we could have a fire and a tragedy in that area and it doesn' t seem to me we could wait another two years before another plan, if another plan ever comes before this Board to give hope that this area will be restored. This plan has been well thought out, addressed the concerns that were here before and unless I hear anything from the few people that are here opposed, I would have to be recorded as strongly in favor of this. We have to develope this area, this plan does not over develope. Mrs. Cretian, 9 Linden st. , for the past two years we have problems with young people hanging around there. Robert Hussey, 3 Laurel St. , still think the number of units is high, but some compromise must be reached. No objection as long as entrance is on Lafayette St. Walter Power, Chairman of Planning Board, there will be another public hearing if this passes tonight, we will have site plan review. This plan fits in very well with the historical aspect of this area, will enhance this street. Speaking in opposition: Mr. Jones, 13 Linden st. , the deterioration of that property began when it was planned by one of our developers to develope that property, we couldn' t just let it go down the pot. The storage in the carriage house has to be present owners because nobody else has been in there. Think it is fine to move carriage house and will enhance street. In order to Grant this they need to show a hardship, I haven' t heard any hardship. Dr. Winer';e249. - Lafayette St. , it is important this property be developed, I think the number of units going in far exceeds what it should have. Concerned about traffic, parking. Charles McManus, 253 Lafayette st. , too many units, like what they are doing with carriage house but they are overdeveloping. We are replacing one single family home with twenty units and I just can' t see it. Jim Connolly, 13 Laurel St. , • traffic, agree there are too many units involved, very much opposed. Mr. Roland, 12 Laurel St. , in favor except for the number of units. MINUTES - MAY 15, 1985 page four 256-258 Lafayette St. - Continued Vivian Gianoulis, representing parents who live at 263 Lafayette St. , they want something done there, but not that many units. Too much traffic, concerned with parking. Dorothy Cohen, 5 Linden St. , concerned with number of units, too many. Concerned with drainage. Dorian Brooks, 253 Lafayette St. , basically opposed to the number of units, but I am in favor of developement of the area. Rebuttal: Attorney Wysor, would like to address several of the issues that have been raised. First of all, with respect to drainage, we show on site plans submitted two surface storm drains, which would run and we also indicate a line that would run down the driveway. He showed on the plans where this was. With respect to underground wiring, the Historic Commission has suggested and the Planning Board also recommended that we bury all the new electrical wiring and that will be addressed at site plan review. New wiring will be underground, it is the preferred way to do it. In terms of traffic and density, he displayed map of the area, color coded, showing the multi-family dwellings. Some of the buildings contain as many as twelve units. This development is consistent with what already exists on Lafayette St. The parking problem is no problem as there is off street parking sufficient for all the units proposed, in fact, it exceeds requirements. Access is going to be on to Lafayette St. , we will provided parking for neighbors who live on Laurel St. Mr. Charnas: could you point out on the plan, the 36 spaces. Mr. Wysor showed him on the plan. Mr. Hacker: are deeding these spaces to the people on Laurel St.? Mr. Wysor, they will be given an exclusive easement. Mr. Charnas: I have question about hardship, which hasn' t been addressed. Mr. Wysor: main hardship on this site is lot width, it cannot be built upon without variance. What exists now is a deteriorating situation, it is a health hazard, very difficult site, it is a nonconforming use that exists there. The hardship is that without consent of this Board, this site �• cannot be developed. Additional hardship, there are two buildings of historical significance, when I say two I am referring to the overall plan (including 260 Lafayette St. ) , on this plan, the Carriage House is historical and should be saved, without the variances that building can' t be saved. Mr. Charnas, instead of a drywell would you be willing to tie into storm drain system on Laurel St. Mr. Wysor: yes Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I am concerned with the number of units, it seems neighbors are concerned with density while they agree something must be done with the area and certainly anyone would agree with that. We could be adding a lot of units not only tonight but in the future, I just don' t know if I could go along with adding 18 units. Seems to be a lot. Mr. Charnas: I think we have to make it clear that we are only dealing with only one petition. Not the 260 petition. Mr. Hacker: I am in favor of developing something here, I am concerned with density, the biggest problem I have right now is that I haven't heard a legimate hardship. Mr. Charnas: I think the hardship may be the shape and configuration of the lot. Mr. Hacker: They could probably meet some of the requirements they are asking us to vary if it were a smaller project. I have difficulty with this. Mr. Charnas: I am very impressed with the steps the petitioner has taken to pacify the neighbors. I think there is a hardship, it will enhance the neighborhood. I would be in favor with conditions. Mr. Luzinski: I like the concept of the plan but I think it is over developed. Would like to see 24 foot driveway. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant request as more fully described on plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Mr. Charnas, Mr. Strout and Mr. Bencal voted in favor of the petition. Mr. Hacker and. Mr. Luzinski voted in opposition to the motion. PETITION DENIED 260 Lafayette St. - Lafayette Real Estate Trust • Attorney Wysor asked the Board for Leave to Withdraw. The Board unanimously granted this request. WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE MINUTES - MAY 15, 1985 page five 8 Meade Court - Stefan M. Hedio 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 letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. Hedio represented himself. This building was a three family when I bought it, it is being used as a three family and I would like to have it as a legal three family. As far as the smoke detectors, I had it hardwired at my own expense for three family. I just want the building to be right. Mr. Gauthier: do you have any idea how long it has been a three family. Mr. Hedio: to the best of my knowledge .about five years before I bought it. I knew it was a two family when I bought it, it was being used as a three family. I live there. I have talked to the neighbors and they had no objections. I have parking for six cars. Mr. Charnas: this reads variance but you only need a special permit. No one spoke in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: I have no problem with this. Mr. Hacker: as long as six spaces maintained and remains owner occupied, I have no problem. Mr. Charnas: I agree, I move the petitioner be granted a Special Permit to convert to a three family on condition six on site parking spaces be maintained at all times, non-piggy back and the premises remain owner occupied. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 63 Bridge St. - Frank & Joan Livas Petitioners are requesting a Variance from setback requirements and use in order to construct a storage building in this B-4/R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application. Mr. Hacker: this came before once before and we were remiss, the petitioners did not catch it either. We granted this a few months ago and the ad ran as an addition. As a result of this error, the petitioner is back before us, we picked up the cost of advertising. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker reviewed the previous petition which was granted March 20, 1985• Everything he is asking for in this petition, he asked for in the previous petition, the only problem was it was advertised incorrectly. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant petition to construct storage building with same conditions as before, those being: trailers to be removed from premises; building is to be used for cold storage only; no fabrication to be performed in the new building; building to be unheated. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 17 Verdon St. - Laurent J. Bedard Petitioner is requesting a variance from lot size in order to divide a parcel of land into three lots, none of which will have the required 15,000 square feet, in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application. Mr. Bedard represented himself. He explained he wanted to divide these into lot A, B and C. Lot A would have 12,030 sq.ft. , Lot B, 8,099 sq. ft. and Lot C, 8,098 sq. ft. These lots would be consistent with the other lots in the area. I have no immediate plans to build on these lots, but maybe sometime in the future. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem with this, most of the lots are between 7 and 9 thousand sq. ft. in this area. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant petition as requested. Mr. Charnas seconded. •) UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 9:20 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held June 26, 1985• Re ectfully su itted',/ Brenda M. Sumrall, Clerk .�,.cowiy,b Ctu of "Salem, Aassachuse##s Pours of 4peal J MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - June 26, 1985 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, June 26, 1985 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 12, 19, 1985• Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Bencal Meeting was called to order by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to accept the minutes of the March 20, 27 & April 17,1985 meeting. . Mr. Charnas seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the petition of Robert Alexander D.M.D, for a Variance and/or Special Permit for 99 Highland Ave. (R-1 ) had been withdrawn prior to the hearing. No vote was necessary. 7 Crombie St. - North Shore Shelter Committee Petitioners are requesting a variance to allow temporary emergency shelter for the homeless in this B-3 district. This would be an extension of a variance which was originally granted on January 25, 1984 and extended thereafter until June 30, 1985. This variance would be to allow the premises to be used for an addition sixty (60) 1 days or until August 30, 1985. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from Fire Department, which states they have no objection to the premises being used for a shelter but they can no longer allow the method of transmitting alarms which is presently being used there, this system is reflective of a temporary occupancy and was approved only as a stop gap measure. A complete and comprehensive fire alarm system must be installed and approved. (letter on filed) . Mr. Charnas also read letters from the North Shore Shelter Committee, one to the neighbors dated June 7, 1985 regarding the search of the Committee for a relocation site, also a letter to Chief St. Pierre, same date, also regarding their efforts to find a suitable site. Mr. Charnas read note from the Chief to Captain Caron instructing him to increase patols in the downtown area, when possible during the period 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Letter from the Health Department, requesting the shelter correct violations per- taining to State Sanitary Code. (all letters on file) Attorney Lawrence Plavnick represented the committee. The letter from the Health Department refers to the Salem Area Urban Mission which is located above Bowmans Bakery and is unrelated to us. Mr. Hacker: before you begin could I ask question, I have a problem dealing with this as an extension should it not be a new variance. Att. Plavnick: the way we phrased it came from discussion that we had at the prior meeting in late October, early November, we talked about the possibility of extending the variance, I believe that was the terminolgy used. With that in mind, I phrased it as an extension. Mr. Charnas: on the last decision, dated November 7, 1984, condition number seven states "This Board directs the Building Inspector to close this • shelter on July 1 , 1985 unless the variance is extended by this Board beforehand" , so we would consider this an extension. Att. Plavnick: by. way of history of the shelter, June of 1983 a group got together and formed the committee, to bring together people who recognize that a need exists on the North Shore for the homeless, MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1985 page two • 7 Crombie St. - Continued and to make a commitment to deal with one specific issue, that is shelter, provide them with roof over their heads. With that in mind and through the benevolence of the Crombie St. Church we set up temporary quarters in the Church. In October of 1984 we came to the Board and requested extension of the Variance that the Board had granted. We requested that extension for primarily one reason and that was to obtain the time to get permanent location. After couple of meetings withtthe Board and with neighbors, you granted an extension till June 30th 1985 with some conditions. First that we upgrade fire system, more strigently enforce security around the shelter and we enforce the rules and regulations that we set up, to increase communications with local merchants and neighbors in the area, and we go find permanent site somewhere else. Since then we have complied with request of fire dept. at that time, we will deal with any problems mentioned in the Fire Dept. 's current letter, we have incorporated a security program as best we could to deal with problems in the area, have cooperated with police, we have met with neighbors and merchants to address their concerns and we have dealt with the primary question and . that is finding a permanent site. All this while we were operating a shelter on an ongoing basis and provided shelter for up to 25 people on a dailey basis. We instituted a site search committee, we developed priorities for a permanent location, we viewed many properties throughout the North Shore area, we negotiated extensively for one site in Beverly, those fell through, we established a building fund, looked for support throughtout the community, we have raise about sixty thousand dollars. Went to local financial institute and have obtained mortgage commitment, won support of Welfare, have obtained support of numerous people in the area. Submitted a signed Purchase and Sale Agreement for property in Beverly, 142 Park St. , what • we are asking from the Board is a 60 day extension till the end of August to enable us to make the transition from the Crombie St. location and out of Salem. We promised we would find a site by June 30th or we would be out of Salem and we have done what we promised. We want to meet with the members of the community of Beverly that are affected and deal with their concerns, we want to go before what ever Beverly Boards we must to obtain the necessary approval and permits, we need time to make the transition, including making changes to the property. We will assure the Board that what ever comes of this that in 60 days, if granted, that we will be out of the Crombie St. Shelter and out of the downtown area. Speaking in favor: Rev. Charles Navle, Crombie St. Church, heartily recommend you grant the 60 day extension, the church has already granted them the extension, they have shown good faith. Robert Wall, 13 Crombie St. , given the way they have established themselves in the neighborhood and with the relationships with neighbors I have no problem withtthe 60 days. Jim Davis, 7 Crombie St. , been there two months and it has helped a lot, I am a sober alcoholic and this is a great thing, wish we had it all over. Frank Montessi, 15 Crombie St. , I've always been in favor of the need for a shelter, unfortunately the shelter has generated certain problems that have not been the most savory, can find no fault with the staff and their operation and the way they have tried to handle the problem in Salem. Richard Russ, 260 Washington St. , I volunteer down there, I see people freezing and need help and they get it. Janice Aruba, 10 Norman St. , I have seen no problem at all. Gordan Cole, 9 Crombie St.., I have worked with the shelter and am one of the assistant parsons, I believe the Board should grant them the two more months. • MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1985 page three 7 Crombie St. - Continued • Speaking in opposition: Stephanie Montessie, 15 Crombie St. , I have been against this right from the beginning, I am tired of the strange people in the neighborhood, have had lot of problems with people coming in and relieving themselves in the front yard, people hanging around, fighting, Jim Stewart has worked real hard, I must say that, the shelter committee has worked very hard but I am tired of it, let them go to Beverly, go someplace else, let some other community take them over and try it for awhile. Anthony Pulado, Warner St. , vehemently opposed, the area has become blighted, no offer of rehabilitation for these people, many of these people are not from the Salem area. Steve Tompkins, Tompkins Furniture, the last three or four months it has been getting worse and worse, in April alone I had to call the police 7 times, once we couldn' t open the front door, three drunks spread across the front door of our store, when they did remove them I went out back and there were three drunks spread over my car, one drinking rubbing alcohol. Enough is Enough, you gentlemen should ask yourselves what you would do if your livelyhood depended upon drunks being in front of your store or your home every single day. Donna Gateway, owner of the White Hen Pantry, we've had quite a bit of trouble with these people, I do not want to see this extension, I feel Mr. Stewart has done a lot for these people, we must live, we are being stolen blind, it is getting worse, please do not give them the extension. Beth Alexander, 361 Essex St. , we are sympathic but we are fed up with it. When it first opened, we kept a low profile, see what happens, but I have notice the problems, the drunks, people approaching me personnally, the yelling, people sitting on my steps, garbage. We are working hard to make this more residential, paying taxes, I don' t think we should have to put up with people approaching us. Enough is enough, it's not just adults, there are children who use the YMCA, they could be approached for money also, it's not • just Crombie St. its the whole are, I know they are people coming from the shelter, I've seen them going in and out, I'm glad they have perhaps found a place, however, according to the paper, the people in Beverly are protesting and a Purchase and Sale agreement does not really mean anything. Rich Lusbinder, 366 Essex St. , would like to have it closed, last Saturday we had festival and had visitors from all over the State, the Mayor, City Council walking around, I saw at least three of the regulars that hang out in front of our house, one with no shirt, I'm sure they are not competent, no reason for us to extend, it is a state problem. Melissa Belisle, 5 Barton Square, I would like to see tourism growing in Salem, but with people hanging around I think it discourages it. I go to dance class in the area and they are always peeking in the windows, its very discouraging. Dick Pabich, Salem Inn, we are trying to promote tourism in Salem, problem we run across is we do have transients flow into the Inn, it happens all the time. We have a responsibility to our own people but do we have to take people from California, and it happens. Its time the temporary shelter is closed, its no longer temporary. Mr. Rudolph, 248 Washington St. , gave history of the different places he has worked in the past, different states, moved to Salem few years ago, this situation is obnoxious, what do you do with these people, say they don' t exist, they do exist and they exist all over the country, some of these are young people, do we turn our back on them. Patricia Flynn, 10 Norman St. , opposed, I just wonder how temporary temporary is, I can' t live with this, these people need a home, yes, but whats wrong with Danvers, aren' t there institutions for them, must we have them wandering around our neighborhood, urinating on our buildings, sleeping in our halls, I am very much opposed. • In rebuttal: Attorny Plavnick, we never intended this to be a permanent shelter, we have promised we will be out of Crombie St. in 60 days, all we are asking for is these 60 days. We understand the objections, asking the shelter to leave is not going to solve the problem, the problem will continue to exist, we are trying to find a location in which we can effectively deal with one aspect of that problem, that is to put a roof over their heads. We work with other organizations to help MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1985 page four • 7 Crombie St. - Continued with this problem. That is not issue tonight, we are here to deal with just 60 days. Thank you. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: since I was one of the members to extend himself and paid for the new fire alarm system for them to stay there for a year, I would love to hear from the Police Chief and hear his report regarding this neighborhood. Chief St. Pierre: don' t want to give the impression that I am against a shelter, we need a shelter, but it has to be a regional shelter, the problem we have now is we are bringing people in throughtout the region, the past few months the problem has escalated. We are no longer dealing with Salem people we are dealing with people throughout the region as a result the police problem has escalated, this is happening at a time when we do not really have the resources to deal with it, we are short handed, I have problems throughout the city. There is problems there, the quality of life of the people uptown is being adversely affected, I hate to be the cause of the shelter closing, but I represent the entire city. My department cannot be that effective preventing these problems, it is a bit out of control, crime has increased sharply, in the past five months of this year we have had 57 incidents in that area, that have resulted in police intervention, we have arrested 24 people who use the shelter, we've had to put into protective custody 16 other people, at the present time we have an investigation underway involving an assault on resident of the shelter and it appears he was assaulted by other members of the shelter, he is in serious condition, back in May we had incident involving self inflicted stab wound, this happened inside the shelter, the point is these people running the shelter are doing their best to run it the right way, they cooperate with the community, always • worked with my department, but it is getting a bit out of hand, they are unable to adequately search these people, they will find ways to bring in weapons, drugs, etc. , another problem we are having, people were only supposed to be staying there five days, they are staying a lot longer, it is posing problem. We are getting people from all over the country, I have statement from fellow who comes from Medford, in relation to the assault case we are investigating, he has been there since the Salem Beverly bridge burned back in November. I believe the state is abdicating their responsibility, they should step in, they should open up Danvers State, they should provide shelter for these people. Right now, to put them into an urban setting here in Salem is really causing problems and effecting the quality of life of the citizens here. We are doing our best to combat the problem but again, we are short of man power. The people running the shelter are good people, they are doing their best, they have a monumental job. Thank you. Mr. Charnas: of the 24 people arrested, how many were local people? Chief: I could go through it, I have it right here, I would have to go through all these arrest sheets. Mr. Charnas: could I see them. Chief St. Pierre gave Mr. Charnas the reports to look through. Mr. Gauthier: I see the police chief and sargent from Beverly are hear, maybe we could get their feelings on the shelter moving to Beverly. Chief Finnegan: I don' t thing it is appropriate for me to say anything at this time. Mr. Luzinski: asked Mr. LaPointe, the Fire Inspector, if this is extended they would have to put new fire system in, is that right? Even if it is only for 60 days? Mr. LaPointe: yes, definitely would have to. They would have to do the whole building, Church and all. Would be very costly. Mr. Luzinski: I would like to address this problem with Mr. Plavnick. Do you realize the expense you would have if we extend this for the 60 days. Att. Plavnick: this places a tremendous amount of pressure • on the Board and I must say, this is an entirely new issue, one that was brought before the Board today, was not brought to the attention of the shelter committee until the time of meeting and to place a condition like that on us under these circumstances I find unfair, I understand the concern and we have made every effort to deal with the problems, but to place in the position where we have to deal with the monumental task of converting that entire building in 60 days so we can stay there is incomprehensible. Mr. Gauthier: I don' t think its incomprehensible, don' t MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1985 page five 7 Crombie St. - Continued think its unfair, like I told you last time, we pleaded with the Fire Marshal and we felt sorry for your cause and I paid for the fire system, you had plenty of time, you've had a year to either relocate or bring the building up to standards. The Fire Marshal has bent for a year, he's putting his job at stake, if we had a fire he would be put to task so I don' t think Mr. LaPointe is being unfair, I think its unfair for you to say that he is not doing his job, he has bent over backwards and so hasn' t this Board. Mr. Hacker: I see Mr. Plavnicks point and I agree to a certain extent but this is something we have to deal with, if we grant the permit they have to decide if they are going to expend the funds. At this point we have to make the decision whether we will grant the permit or not. I do agree with Mr. Gauthier, the Fire Marshal did extend himself at our request;_: Mr. Plavnick: I did not mean to imply that the Fire Marshal did not do his job, that"s not the issue, I only meant to indicate that at this point in time, that until this meeting I was not aware of that condition. Mr. Gauthier: you were aware a year ago. Mr. Hacker: they were made aware a year ago the understanding was they would have to comply after that time. Mr. Charnas: most communities just talk about the need for shelter but they want it someplace else, this community actually went out and accepted it which is more than the vast majority of communities do, we tried it and I don' t think it works, the testimony here has been to that affect, when we consider voting to extend this if its one day, one hour. or sixty days, we must decide that its not substantially detrimental to the public good and I don't see after listening to the testimony, particularly from the Police Chief, regarding some of the ' incidents, how I can determine that this is not substantially detrimental to the public good, for that reason, I would be opposed. Mr. Strout: we are also talking • about the quality of life in the area, this why we are here, to protect the community, our local business people are suffering from it, I have to concur with Mr. Charnas. People are staying at the shelter a lot longer than the five days, tourists are being bothered, we see it everyday, on a 90 degree day they are sprawled out on park benches, I am appalled by the whole thing. Mr. Gauthier: I myself am very opposed but would like to do it legally, I would like to get a condition from Mr. Plavnick, I know that if we turn this down tonight they could appeal it and they could be there a long time and there is nothing we could do and nothing the City of Salem could do, but if they are real in what they are saying I would like a letter from the shelter that if we extend this for two months that you will leave and will not ask for extensions and will not take any legal matters, just walk out of the neighborhood and we will never see you again. I think this is the best way to handle this. At least the people in the neighborhood will know that in two months you will get out. Mr. Charnas: I'm not sure that would be legally binding. Mr. Hacker: it appears to me that we have two victims here, one is the homeless and the other the people in the neighborhood. If this were any other person or business wanting to extend a variance and we had complaints like this I don' t think there would be any question we would deny it. The problem we have here is we are dealing with human beings, the committee has done a good job, they have not met all the conditions, they are inflicting a problem on the neighbor- hood and I think we have to look at the neighborhod as well as the people, if they could locate in a different area that wasn' t so heavily congested they may have a better chance, whether it is in Salem or another community. The problem is not the shelter and what they are doing, the problem is the location and are we going to let it exist. When they first came the neighbors were opposed but were willing • to try, last time they said the problems we were concerned about are here but we can live with it another nine months now the committee is coming back and I don' t think a legal point is what we should consider here, whether they will appeal it in court or not, I think we should look at what is the best for Salem. I don' t believe that at this point in time the shelter is good for Salem. Mr. Strout: MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1985 page six 7 Crombie St. - Continued Aren' t we going to be in this same position 6 months from now if this Purchase and Sale does fall through and they don' t have another location. Mr. Gauthier: not if we get a commitment from them, they are giving us their word. Mr. Hacker: I think there word is good, they will do as they say, unfortunately last time we gave them permit we thought they were going to correct these problems. Mr. Strout: the next few months are critical for businesses, you might as well forget about their summer, they are going to be haunted by people in the streets, I can' t say I am for this at all. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested with the same conditions as the previous variance. Mr. Strout seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 13 Pope St. - Charles Brett Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to construct two buildings, each containing two units and a Variance from density requirements in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department, no objection, however, the building located on the property presently is in violation of the smoke detector law. Letter from the Planning Board asking the Board of Appeal consider the impact upon utilities, traffic, drainage and other neighborhood concerns when making their decision. Letter from Maynard and Barbara Allen, 15 Pope St. , opposed. Attorney George Vallis, Church St. , Salem represented the petitioner. Showed the Board copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, this is tax title property, the City obtained this property some years ago for nonpayment • of taxes. Mr. Brett will have to go to land court and .try to clear the title, he is willing to do this, it is a length procedure and somewhat costly. One of the conditions of the sale is the granting of a Variance to allow construction three buildings, you will see on the plan we are showing only four units, two buildings, one building facing Proctor St. , one facing Pope St. We were supposed to close in May, the application and plans came late and as result we have an extension signed by the Mayor till July 1st. Hopefully, if the Board grants the petition we can get another extension. Submitted pictures of the property, as you can see there is a brook and this creates some problems. It gets flooded, looks like the brook is a disposal for all the junk in the neighborhood. He then displayed renditions of the proposed development. The problem raised by the neighbors (letter from the Allens) comes as a surprise, we can get into that later. Apparently over the course of the years she has used the back property as a yard and I'm sure she' ll present a picture or plan showing the part of the land she uses which is partly on the building we are planning to construct. My client is not building on the other side of the Allens, I am sure we can work something out as far as a trade off. Getting back to the renderings, we propose to put fence around, location of fence can be changed to accomodate the Allens. As you can see from the plans we will have eight parking spaces, will be two spaces per unit. I understand there is a traffic problem on Pope St. , it is a one way street, my suggestion and I submit to you that the construction of these two buildings will not exacerbate parking problem of increase traffic, Mr. Charnas: is this under a Purchase and Sale Agreement. Mr. Vallis, yes, copy is there. Originally we were planning of putting six dwelling units, no longer intend to do that. We certainly can do something for the Allens, maybe give them some land over on other side, maybe some of the rear property. • This will obviously cut down our total amount of land. Mr. Charnas: I think you will have to show there is a hardship. Mr. Vallis: only one hardship, we are MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1985 page seven 13 Pope St. - Continued • seeking variance for one particular reason, we are only 17 feet from property line where you require 30 feet, if you look at the shape of the property, no matter where you put the building you will violate some setback, all we need is density. A single family house is not economically feasible. We do have to go to the Conservation Commission and I'm sure they will ask us to clean the entire brook, which we intend to do. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Joyce Bowen, 35 Pope St. , the land was sold for A- real value, about $8,200 dollars, perhaps someone would be interested in buying it and living there in single family home. ' Submitted petition from neighbors opposing, 17 signatures, this variance. (on file) . She also read a letter to Councillor Frances Grace, from Anthony Fletcher, City Engineer, dated Sept. 21 , 1981 , on file, also Council Order dated Sept. 10, 1981 ordering the stopping of all building in this area until the flooding conditions are solved. We protest the development of nonresident developers and the impact they have on our neighborhood, although Mr. Brett is currently submitting plans for four units, his original submission to the Planning Board shows a potential for ten units, even four will show increase in traffic, the historical value of our neighborhood should not be further defaced or destroyed, to allow this could set precedent for further development in the Proctor Pope area. Maynard Allen, 15 Pope St. , displayed plot plan, when I bought my property and he told me this way my land, one day I decided to put pool in and I petitioned the City and found out it wasn' t my land, we have been using the land for about 15 years, plus it was used before that. I understand we can go to Land Court and take over the property, no from the city but from private individual, beside that happening I am against it, we have problem with flooding. The last house built there involved • blasting and caused damage to my house, I had law' suit against blasing company, they went out of business, we got nothing from that. Too many problems in that area more building would just add to them. George Baliotis, Ideal Finishing, 59 Boston St. , we are at the bottom of the hill and receive all the flooding, my only fear is, the brook situation is such that since they put up the apartments up the top, Dibiase Buildings, , several years ago, the situation has gone from bad to worse, the pressure from the brook coming down the hill has actually lifted up the manhole cover, I don't know what can be done, but hopefully something. This is a serious problem. Barbara Allen, 15 Pope St. , when we were going to put in the pool, it was about four thousand dollars, the price went up to six thousand because of the wetland, said there was no way it could be put in as an ordinary pool. Our cellar is flooded every single year because of the brook. Mrs. Brophy, 25 Proctor St. , concerned with traffic, Rebuttal: Attorney Vallis, the general concensus is the brook, it is there, the situation exists. Mr. Brett obviously, if he didn' t have his studies done by the surveyor, would not be interested in building there if he feels he's going to have flooded cellars. He understands and he intends to file Notice of Intent with Conservation Commission and explain to their satisfaction how the brook will be handled and whatever suggestion they might have. At least for the 'first time in many years there will be a professional engineer making a study and hope to correct some of these problems, right now it is a junk heap. The fact that Mr. Brett is a non-resident builder should have no influence on your decision. However, he does intend to have his daughter live in one of the units and he would not want her living there if it were going to be detrimental. The other problem raised, traffic, is not really a problem, we are providing 8 parking spaces,that should more than take care of the parking for these two buildings. The amount of property to be developed is in keeping with the neighborhood: Biggest problem in • this area is Salem Heights. This will enhance the value of property around there, that area right now is a blight. Mr. Hacker: were you aware of that Council Order, MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1985 page eight • 13 Pope St. - Continued dated September 1981? Mr. Vallis: no I wasn' t, after reading it, I'm not sure it deals with this. They are talking about an overall problem which exists in the entire area, North River, Boston St. , everything. I don' t see how a minor develop- ment like this is going to create any kind of a problem. Mr. Charnas: is your client concerned about this easement by prescription business? Mr. Vallis: its the first I've heard about it, I know thatFwe are going to get plan and it will show basically what we have here, you know yourself you can' t have adverse possession against any municipality, I'm willing, and there's plenty of land on other side and I'm sure some arrangement can be made. Mr. Gauthier: would like to ask Mr. Allen how high his house if above the street, the first floor. Mr. Allen: I am at street level. Mr. Gauthier: how deep from first floor to basement floor? Mr. Allen: about six six. Mr. Gauthier: my problem is I have to disagree with Mr. Fletcher when I read the letter, he claims that Pope St. is below the North River, mean high tide is eleven forty six, the grade at the bottom of the brook is twenty eight that means we're sixteen-and half feet above the river, the problem is whoever built Mr. Allens house built is so it's going to flood no matter. I could be worked out by decreasing the flow, lower the brook, putting it below the house. We could put condition that the developer drop the brook to Mr. Allens advantage. This has been an eyesore and I agree with the people, the flooding the area is a serious problem, at this point it is a city problem. Mr. Charnas: unlike other petitions of this kind, I haven' t heard anything about traffic or noise or anything like that, only thing we've been hearing is the water problem, the question remains whether this would exacerbate it or not, my feeling is we should not vote tonight, should continue and get opinion from the City Engineer. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Vallis, would you • have any problem with having this continued until the next meeting: Mr. Vallis: could the Board grant this on condition it meet City Engineer approval. Mr. Gauthier: we could sit with the City Engineer, sometime this week or the first of next week. Mr. Charnas: I would be uncomfortable voting on this now. I was decided the Board would write a letter to the City Engineer to set up a time when Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Vallis and the Allen's could all meet and look at the situation. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue until the Board receive an opinion from the City Engineer. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED. Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that this was continued and will not be advertised again. Anyone interested can call the office and find out when this is on the agenda. Mr. Hacker had to leave, Mr. Luzinski will be the Acting Chairman. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member. 50-502' Webb St. - Paul & Margaret O'Toole Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert from a two family into a three family in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Planning Board, opposed because of overall density, a letter from the Fire Department, no objection. Paul & Margaret O'Toole represented themselves. We are seeking permit to convert from two to three family, main reason is financial. The first of September,we are expecting a baby, our first, after baby is born she is going to stay home, will not be working. We are hoping this conversion will offset, • at least partially, the loss of income we will be experiencing. Presently the third floor has front and rear stairwell, we are also to extend our driveway into the back yard to the required parking spaces, showed on the plans where the driveway is and where the parking will be. We will have the required smoke alarms. I have talked to all the neighbors and none of them have objected. Submitted a petition signed by the abutters in favor. He displayed pictures of the property. The MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1985 page nine • 50-501 Webb St. - Continued third floor is set up perfectly set up for an apartment. Mr. Luzinski: has it ever been a three family? Mr. O'Toole: it looks like it could have been. There are pipes coming up but there's no kitchen, there was gas fixtures. There are other three family dwellings in the area. Margaret O'Toole: I would like to comment on the traffic on Webb St. , don' t think the traffic is caused by the people who live on the street, its caused by people coming and going to the Willows. Speaking in favor: Joe Kobierski, 48 Webb St. , I have lived there for forty years, I have no objection, as far as traffic that has always been a problem. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: driveway does not seem to meet the 12 foot requirement. Mrs. O'Toole: it does, that is an error. Mr. Gauthier: would like to see parking moved to within the two feet they are allowed to pave so they can back out. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition, on site parking be moved to two feet from the property line bordering lot 227 on the plan filed with the Board; a minimum of five parking spaces be maintained on site, premises must be owner occupied, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 33A Lafayette St. - Louis Goutzos Petitioner is requesting a special permit to construct an addition in the rear of the property in order to expand photography business in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Planning Board and the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner, displayed • plans to the Board. The proposed addition would be in harmony and will blend with the existing house. If you are familiar with the conditions of the special permit granted in 1980 you will note he has complied with all the conditions. The addition will be 20' x 301 , it is needed for additional space for his business. The present room he has now, the ceiling is 8' high and its not adequate for his needs. He is not increasing his business, he is a one man operation. Its because of the quality of the pictures, the new addition will be 14' high, the higher ceiling the quality of the pictures will be much improved. That is basically the reason for the addition. He displayed pictures of the property. He is a good neighbor, he lives there, when he put up fence, he put it up two feet onto his property to satisfy neighbor. Mr. Bencal: are there any signs on the property? Mr. Vallis: there was one, it was stolen about two years ago. Mr. Charnas: any problem with Historical Commission approval. Mr. Vallis: no real problem, the Historical Commission is only concerned with the front, not whats in the rear. This will not be seen from the street. Mr. Gauthier: I think the roof line should be changed, would look better. Mr. Vallis: this is just rough sketch, it will be tied in better. No one appeared in favor. Mr. Roger Estelle, live directly behind Mr. Goutzos. Not opposed but concerned about the height of the roof. Mr. Gauthier: they are asking for 14 feet. Mr. Goutzos: we can drop it to 13 feet. Mr. Estelle: okay, we were just concerned it would be higher than the existing building. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem with this. Mr. Gauthier: I feel and I hope they will blend it in with the structure. Mr. Bencal:: I notice on the other decision (1980) nothing was mentioned about a sign, I think that if any sign is put on it must be in compliance. Mr. Charnas: just want to make sure the conditions of the previous decision have been complied with. Mr. Vallis: they have been. Mr. Charnas made • a motion to grant the special permit on condition the addition be designed to blend architecturally with surrounding buildings, the ridge line of the addition be MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1985 page ten 332 Lafayette St. - Continued • no more than one foot higher than the existing ridge line of the existing dwelling, any sign erected be no greater than 1 ' x 1811, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. 159 Lafayette ST. - Arthur & Robert Marchand Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert four family dwelling into a five family dwelling in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Marshal and Levesques Funeral Home, 163 Lafayette St. , no objections. Attorney George Vallis, Church St. , represented the petitioners. The Marchands were born and raised in this house, their father built the house after the Salem Fire, they maintain the building very well. They have 11 ,000 Sq. Ft. , approximately, there is no problem with parking, there is large garage in the rear, one of the bays is used for storage the other two hold four cars, each bay hold two cars and there's four parking spaces on the site so there's a total of eight parking spaces and they will not increase because one of the cars is owned by Mr. Marchand's son who occupies the third floor. The only construction being don is basically a new kitchen. He displayed plans of the proposed fifth apartment, he propcses to put a deck on the rear of the building, the deck will not go beyond line of building. His son will live there, it is owner occupied, we have no objection that it remain owner occupied. Mr. Charnas: how many five families in the area? Mr. Vallis: quite a few. Mr. Gauthier: in that immediate block there must be a dozen or so. Speaking in favor: Councillor Nutting, I would like to commend the Board for all the past activities and we are proud of them. As far as the Marchands, Mr. Vallis referred to their house as a house, I • think of it as a home, it is a beautiful, well landscaped home, at Christmas time they are a top attraction, I'm here,not to tell the Board what to do, but to speak highly of the Marchands. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: I know the family very well, I think it's great, see nothing wrong with this, they have plenty of parking, I am really in favor of this. Mr. Bencal: I concur, as Board members are aware I generally frown upon extending uses, but the petition has shown parking which is so critical in the City and as the family has owned the building for so long, I would be in favor. Mr. Charnas: I would just like to add that this is different from others in that no only is there plenty of parking but it will not effect the traffic on the street. I am in favor. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition it be owner occupied, a minimum of eight (8) parking spaces be maintained on site, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 20 Rawlins St. - Dana & Claudia Nicgorski Petitioners are requesting a Variance from all applicable density requirements in order to construct a 26' x 36' garage in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, objection because they dwelling in not in compliance with smoke detector requirements. The Nicgorskis represented themselves, submitted drawings of the garage, we mainly want this for car and boat. There is a six foot stockade and :chainlink fence. If this is granted we are going to make this a two family and expand the downstairs for ourselves. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. • Charnas: there is no opposition, I have no problem with it. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition premises comply with Fire Department regulations pertaining to smoke detectors, maintain five on site parking as long as it remains a three family. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board voted four to one in favor, Mr. Bencal voted present. GRANTED x MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1986 page eleven 134 Boston St./7-9 Watson St. - Scott Galber, Moose Realty Trust Petitioner is requesting a Variance to subdivide parcel of land to physically divide the property back to original two separate buildings. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. Gauthier .will not sit on this petition as he is an abutter. Mr: .Galber was given the option of withdrawing his petition and coming back at a later date or having it heard by a four man Board. It was explained that he would need a unanimous vote for the petition to be granted. Mr. Galber said he would like to have the petition heard. Mr. Galber represented himself. He explained the property was originally built as two separate buildings, displayed plans to the Board. There are presently five units there and I have only five parking spaces. This is probably the ugliest building presently in the City. What I would like to do is remove this middle section, it is a mickey mouse addition, no foundation under it. Would like to remove it for a number of reasons, parking is the big thing, I will create more parking spaces, showed the parking plan. Will landscape around the edges and will put in six parking spaces, I am not adding any units, the parking will not be piggy-back. The building is deplorable, would like to sell off the back house, probably*to an owner occupant, it is a two family, that way I'll have the money to renovate to a point where it should be. Mr. Charnas: is it occupied currently? Mr. Galber: some of the units are, the beauty shop just moved in on the first floor, before it was an ugly store, but to fix up like I really want to would be quite expensive. Just forgeting the other buildings, the addition looks ugly. The hardship is parking, this would create more parking, the building is more difficult to market as one building . Speaking in favor. Jay Burnham, 22 "Summit . . St. , I own property at 3 Watson St. , provided that he adheres to the plan I have • no objection, it will upgrade the area. Mr. Bencal: How many units in the front building? Mr. Galber: two plus store, the other house is a conventional two family. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: this will make the neighborhood look better, I have no opposition. If he stays with all the proposals, I would be in favor. Mr. Strout: I have no problem with this. Do the customers of the store park on the street? Mr. Galber: yes. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition the petitioner comply with applicable laws regarding smoke detectors, minimum of five (5) nor.-piggyback parking parking spaces be provided on Boston St, one ( 1 ) space on the Watson St. property, and a Certificate of Occupancy for both buildings. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. Hearing adjourned at 10:15 p.m. , next scheduled hearing July 24, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk • ('gitu of Salem, 'Mttssarhusetts ,, Yf�F poxrb of �1}pud ��� MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - JULY 17, 1985 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, July 17, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on July 3, 17, 1985. Abutters and other interested persons were 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, James Hacker. Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the petition of Charles Brett regarding 13 Pope St. would be continued until the August Meeting, pending a report from the City Engineer. This petition was previously continued from the June 26th hearing. 256-258 Lafayette St. - Lafayette Real Estate Trust, George Belisle Tr. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert the carriage house to four condominium units and all necessary variances in order to construct twelve condominium units in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Department, no objection, the Planning Board, no objection. Mr. Hacker: Gentlemen, to refresh your memory, this petition was before us a few • months ago, so the first point of order would be for the petition to show the substantial difference. Attorney John Serafini Sr. , representing the petitioner: the Board can rehear a petition that has been denied within two years if two things occur, one, by vote of four out of five they decide there are substantial changes from the previous petition and secondly if there is unanimous or all but one member of the Planning Board voting in favor. We have the vote of the Planning Board here which was a unanimous vote for approval. He submitted copy of this vote. Addressing the changes, the specific changes are in the number of units requested. Before it was nineteen, we have reduced it to sixteen. Instead of the five units on the 260 Lafayette St. , we are only asking for four, there will be four units in the carriage house which will be relocated, and eight units will be placed on the land behind the carriage house. The reduction, plus the vote of Planning Board satisfies the statutory requirement. Mr. Charnas: the last time there was a separate petition for the house on the corner (260 Lafayette) and I don' t believe we heard that one, it was withdrawn. Mr. Serafini: yes. Mr. Charnas: that would not go towards the substantial difference. Last time the carriage house plus the rest of the proposal was for fourteen and this time it is for twelve. Mr. Gauthier: I feel that two units less there is a substantial change. Mr. Charnas: I agree, the change from fourteen to twelve is a substantial change, I could vote on this. Mr. Hacker: I disagree, I think the reduction of two units in a project this size is not a substantial'difference. Mr. Charnas: when you say a project this size are you including the house on the corner? Mr. Hacker: no, I don' t think we can address that now, they asked leave to withdraw, I'm talking about just the regular units. I think for just lowering it this small amount we are setting a precedent. We have had four applications just on this . petition in the past couple years, not counting the 260 Lafayette St. It's a waste of the clerks time and the Boards time. Mr. Gauthier: it is quite a reduction, this is not a large project. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to re-hear the petition as submitted. Mr.Charnas seconded. The Board voted four to one, Mr. Hacker voting in opposition, to hear this petition. MINUTES - JULY 17, 1985 page two • 256-258 Lafayette St. - Continued Attorney John Serafini Sr. , represented petitioner. The procedure set forth for rehearing sometimes serve a good purpose and in this case the statutory provisions provide that particular purpose because the interest in this project far exceeds the size of this project. I think this interest is demonstrated by the number of neighbors here. Tonight will provide a chance to see if the efforts of the developer to satisfy community concern will bear any fruit. They have done large amount of work and they have tried to address the concerns set forth at the last meeting and to answer their questions. This is a multi-family zone, it allows for multi-family dwellings. There is a lot of land, does not have adequate frontage. The shape of the lot is pecular. It is because of this pecular shape that any responsible developement would be difficult and would be financially burdonsome on any just trying to develop that one lot. The condition that exists there now is a blight on the entire area, it allowed to continue would seriously deteriorate that area. The pecular shape of the lot provides the hardship. The history of this property and the other property (260 Lafayette) is well known to everyone here. The final result of this proposal, if acted upon favorably, will be that from Laurel St. down, on Lafayette St. , you will have three prime example of Victorian style houses, the house on the corner will be preserved, it will contain four units, the carriage house, which is in a very badly deteri- ating condition, is to be moved and will coincide with the particular house that now is on the corner of Laurel and Lafayette, those two homes will be adjacent to an existing home. As you come down Lafayette St. you will have a vista of fine architecture. Behind these three houses will be the balance of the condominium units. Parking is going to be off street and adequate, at least two spaces per • unit, problable be thirty three spaces available, all work to be done in connection will rubbish, snow removal and whatever, will be the responsibility of the Condo- minium Association. There will be no snow that will remain on the property, they will contract to remove all of that. All drainage will flow towards Lafayette St. , so that the concerns of neighbors in rear will be addressed, these can be conditions, if granted. There was some concern from the Tourist Home relative to deteriorating wall, that will be repaired and replaced. From the standpoint of public benefit, this certainly impact in an immediate beneficial way. Lafayette St. is of mixed uses, businesses, many multi-families, and other residential uses, this will not detract from any of them but will enhance that whole area. The Planning Board, which is not particularly know to be very easy with their approvals has looked this over carefully and has unanimously decided that it would be in the best interest of the City to have this project there. The Historic Commission is in favor, the City Planner will speak tonight in favor, the Chairman of the Planning Board is very much in favor of this project. It appears to me we are taking something that is producing a minimal number of tax dollars, you will increase that by probably tenfold. Bank financing has been arranged. On the basis of the efforts made to satisfy the neighbors, community needs, on the basis of the public support by the public agencies in the City and the fact that many of the neighbors that were here last time and expressed concern have since signed petition in favor, he submitted copy of this petition signed by 32 neighbors, the Board should grant this petition. Speaking in favor: Leo Cretian, 9 Linden St. , have lived there 35 years, I am in favor, right now it is not very nice to look at. We have had trouble before • with children in there playing, we have called the police. Mrs. Cretian, 9 Linden St. , last meeting we had there was concern about traffic, don' t think this will make any difference, Lafayette is a main street and there is a lot of traffic. Also concerned with parking, they have plenty of parking. I think this will be benefit to us. David Guy, 7 Linden St. , this abuts my property on two sides, the greenhouses are in terrible disrepair, mainly because of vandalism. This will increase the value of our property. People have to recognize that if this does MINUTES - JULY 17, 1985 page three 256-258 Lafayette St. - Continued • not go through this property will become a blight. I am really in favor. There is no way someone is going to put in four or five units, this may be our last opportunity to get something like this through, for the sake of this neighborhood and for Salem this should be granted. William Tracey, 1 Laurel St. , when this hearing was held a year ago I was adamantly against this, when this came up a couple of months ago I appeared in favor, as I am now. The original plans the only ingress, egress was on Laurel St. , this made it hopeless for Laurel St. , this is why I was opposed. I went to the meeting and this has been changed and the entrance and exit would be on Lafayette St. only. On that basis I changed. Someone mentioned that Laurel St. should be made one way, I disagree with that. It should remain as it is. With the many involved I am sure it will not become a dump. In closing I just want to say, I have changed, I have good reason to change, in addition to the entrances be changed the developers indicated there might be parking made available for some of the residents. Charles McManus, 253 Lafayette St. , we have agreed to support this if they dropped two more units on the site. Mr. Hacker: we are not concerned with that now, right now we are looking at what they have proposed. Mr. McManus: I am opposed to it now. Dr. Winer, 249 Lafayette, I am neighbor to Mr. McManus, he read a letter dated July 17, 1985 to Mr. Hacker (on file) . This letter, opposed the petition unless the number of units were reduced to a total of ten, it supported the conversion of 260 Lafayette St. , said letter was signed by eight abutters. Christopher Hopkins, 259 Lafayette St. , we're concerned about traffic on Lafayette St. , I do a lot of walking and it's very hard crossing the street. Concerned about the number of units. Obviously something has to be done but I question the need for this many • units. Should limit it to ten total. Mr. Charnas: one of the gentlemen who spoke mentioned the developer would be willing to limit it to ten, if thats the case, before we hear the opposition we should hear from the developers if that is the case. Attorney Serafini, this is a development that just occurred and in speaking with the principals, if that reduction satisfies the major concerns then we will do that, limit. it to ten units... Mr. Hacker: what your saying is the building on the right would be reduced to ten units. But you are still coming in for the building at 260 Lafayette St. Mr. Charnas: the way the petitions have been advertised they are separate and must be considered separate anything said about parking on the house at 260 has to be discounted. David Striker, 259 Lafayette St. , in favor of the ten units, the traffic is a concern and also the density. Dorene Brooks, 253 Lafayette St. in favor of the ten units. Sharon Hopkins, 259 Lafayette St. , in favor of the ten units. Gerard Kavanaugh, Planning Director, would like to urge the support of this Board for this project. This project has a number of benefits for the City, this will be an historic district area, this is a major entrance into the City. This section of the City is a wealthy example of Victorian Architecture. Very important for the City, for the Administration and for myself that we make every effort possible to preserve this area of the City. This property is located within this district and is a major proponent in the initiation of this effort to preserve this area. Over the last five to six months I have spent a good deal of time on this project. I have met with the developers on any number of occasions and requested a number of changes which I felt was in the best interest of the neighborhood and the City. At all times I have received the cooperation from the individuals involved. We have addressed the issue of parking, design and location of carriage house, addressed the issues of grading, landscaping and we have attempted to address the • issue of density. We have research the density of every parcel within two blocks. We have found the density of this property is consistent with many of the properties in the area: I feel strongly that the developers have done everything they can to address my concerns, the concerns of the administration and the concerns of the neighbors. MINUTES - JULY 17, 1985 page four 256-258 Lafayette St. - Continued • Speaking in opposition: Henry LeTourneau, 13 Linden St. , two of the people who voted in favor of this are being bequeathed or deeded two parcels of property. That's not important except for one thing, the total amount of property including the parking lots which are being bequeathed amount to 1300 sq. ft. The lot is too small to begin with. This could pose a problem in the future. From my property the average size parking lot is 9 x 20, they are planning on putting in 6 parking spaces adjoining my property, going down Laurel St. , three that are already there which represents approximately 80% of the block from Lafayette St. to Linden St. If that offers something historical, I don' t see it. I don' t see how this parking lot will enhance my property. They have offered to put in a six foot barrier which would cocoon the area, can' t look down the street, the ocean breeze will be blocked, can' t see where thats going to help me one darn bit. Originally I think the Planning Board approved this for nine or twelve units. I don' t think the property has expanded since then. I don' t feel the number of units being requested is in line with area. Lafayette St. is a nice street. I would be willing to go along with less units. Robert Hussey, 3 Laurel St. the Planner and the Mayor have expressed some excitement about this plan, it is confusing, first they want this number of units, then this number of units. They say hardship is because it is an eyesore, it is an eyesore because it is not taken care of, then they say there is financial hardship, could not make money if there were only eight. They don' t even own it yet. They said the Historical Commission was in favor, my conversation with member of the commission is that they were not pleased with the number of units. I am opposed. As far as Laurel st. is concerned, they are taking an historical building away from us and putting in a parking lot. Thats not going to help us at all. Beatrice Kellehier, 13 Linden St. , I am opposed • mostly because of the pollution the cars will cause. Charles McManus, just to clarify things, we who spoke earlier in favor, we are in favor of the ten units. In rebuttal: Attorney Serafini: The developers have tried to address the major concerns of the majority of the people in the area, they ahve agreed to the ten units, four in the carriage house and six additional units. It is no secret that in many cases there is a difference of opinion, it is up to the board to decide what is best for the neighborhood. This should be granted with the changes we have agreed to. They will reduce the number of units to ten. Hearing is closed. Mr. Gauthier: I would like to see the drainage, if we do act on this tonight, tied into the storm system. Mr. Serafini: they are going to be. Mr. Gauthier: it doesn' t show on plans. Mr. Hacker: What about the deeding of land to some abutters. I don' t care if you deed it over or not but is this the land that will remain for this condominium project? Mr. Serafini: yes. Mr. Hacker: I have a problem, what are we voting on this evening. I got the impression from the people they wanted less units and less building space. If we are just giving less units, we are not helping them. Mr. Gauthier: if we grant this it should be with the approval of the Planning Dept. , the Design Review Board and the City Planner, Historical Commission. The Board spent a good deal of time going over the parking plans. Mr. Hacker: I still have a problem, what we have is two separate petitions on the same plan and the same. parking facilities, while I agree we should disregard it, I don' t see how we can. Mr. Charnas: I have a problem voting on it where the plan doesn' t accurately reflect what's being requested. They have changed the number of units and I don' t think it's enough to say okay, now its going to be ten units without showing us what the difference in construction is going to be. Mr. Hacker: I would prefer to have it continued • and have them come back. Mr. Charnas: I would also, but I want to address a second point. Would like to ask Mr. Serafini about the hardship, it is my understanding that eight units could be built without any action by this Board, is that true? No. Mr. Charnas: on this first petition they requested 18 units and we were told at that time that it needed 18 units to make it economically viable. Next time we were told 14 units to make it viable, then we are told 12, MINUTES - JULY 17, 1985 page five 256-258 Lafayette St. - Continued • now, in the middle of this meeting we are told '10 units. Mr. Serafini: I don' t know as I would equate economic viability, at least in this presentation, with the \ number of units. I think the hardship is the size of this lot and the configuration. Mr. Hacker: I think it would be prudent for us to know exactly what is going to be built. Should continue this till the August meeting and have a plan presented. There would be not testimony, the hearing is closed. What we have right now is a pig in a poke, I really don' t know what we' re voting on, I would like to continue this if the petitioner would waive his time rights. Mr. Gauthier: I think we can vote on this tonight, there are four Boards that look at this, we could set conditions. Mr. Hacker: these Boards look on this favorably, here we are changing everything, I would like to see plans. Right now we have one set of plans, two petitions, they are intermingled. In order for me to vote favorably on this I have to see what we are voting on. Mr. Strout: how are we going to work the parking for parcel A. Mr. Jacquith: you are right, when this is done it will be looked at as one project, that's the only way it will work. If it's looked at separately there will be an easement to the parking. The building would become less, the parking would stay the same. More landscaping. Mr. Charnas: I am in favor of the ten units but I feel uncomfortable with voting without plans. Mr. Kavanaugh: I have spent a lot of time on this, I will again put forth the same amount of time on this to make sure is in the best interest of the City and the area. Mr. Hacker: it is true we have at times approved lesser units, but they were in the confined of the plans presented, this is not the case here. Mr. Gauthier: the developers have bent and done everything they could to please the people. They's done everything we've asked them, I really feel we can vote on this tonight, all we are voting on is density, and use. Thats what we should act on. Mr. Charnas: • the only suggestion I could make to try to resolve this, if we could articulate what it is we would be concerned with in terms of what changes would be on that plan if the units were reduced and made it a condition of the variance that those concerns not be violated, then I would be willing to vote for a plan that in a sense I haven' t seen, if I knew those conditions were incorporated and I knew the City Planner was going to review the plan after. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Serafini, when does your option on the land run out? Mr. Serafini: on the 17th of August. If you put us in that kind of a bind and for some reason the approval is not obtained at that time, to get an extension, in my view, would mean a change in price. That . would be unfair. Itis unfair to developers and the city has lost a chance for a good project. Mr. Hacker: what if we set up a meeting for just you, how long would it take to draw new plans? Mr. Kavanaugh: I would just like to suggest that if the Board can' t reach a consensus of the density of this project, I would be willing to make sure my office would work -quickly with the developer to come up with a new plan based on that density and present it to the neighbors. Mr. Hacker: according to the application it lists the owner as George Belisle, is he in fact the owner. Mr. Serafini: he is the owner under agreement. Mr. Charnas: why can' t this be continued until the 24th of July meeting, the next meeting. All they would have to do is come back with plans showing the changes. Mr. Bencal: what about building A? Mr. Charnas: building A is the next petition, we should hear that as an independent petition, that is the way it was advertised. Mr. Serafini: the 24th is fine. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this until July 24, 1985 on condition the petition waive time rights. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 24, 1985 MINUTES - JULY 17, 1985 page six 260 Lafayette St. - Lafayette Real Estate Trust • Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert single family dwelling to a four unit condominium and variances from all applicable density requirements in the R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Serafini, Esq. , represented the petitioner. This is part B of the petitioners plan which will eventually be all one. I involves the corner lot and the house which has significant historical value. The lot is on about 7900 sq. ft. of land, fronts on Lafayette St. We propose to put four units in that dwelling. It will result in the preservation of the victorian architecture. There is adequate parking, they will share a common driveway with the adjoining lot, both parcels will become one. The people who were interested in the other petition are familiar with this. The Historical Commission is very pleased with the fact the outside will be preserved. There will be a lot of work done to the interior, but there is a lot of the interior that is very valuable and irreplaceable that will be replaced and maintained. Both these petitions do go in tandem with each other. Speaking in favor: Charles McManus, 253 Lafayette ST. , I am in favor if the other petition is granted for the ten units. David Guy, 7 Linden St. , as long as it goes with the other parcel. Mr. Hacker: we cannot consider the other parcel, just this one. Mr. Guy, I'm still in favor. Mr. Kavanaugh, City Planner, in favor for the same reasons given in the previous petition. Speaking in opposition: Henry LeTourneau, 13 Linden St. if the other petition is not approved I don' t see how you can vote for this. There are only three parking spaces. Robert Hussey, 3 Laurel St. , opposed. In Rebuttal: I think the concern about considering these as one, even though technically they are separate, is germaine. We certainly do not expect, if the first one is not • approved that the second one would be approved. The whole concept is one devel- opment. Mr. Charnas: why did you present it as two petitions. Mr. Serafini: because the property was in two separate ownerships. Mr. Hacker: would you feel more comfortable continuing this one also? Mr. Serafini, yes this should be continued. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to continue this petition until the July 24, 1985 hearing. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 24, 1985• Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that this case has been continued until next week, no notices will be sent out. There will be no testimony taken. 17 Broadway - Dean T. Boucher Petitioner is requesting a variance from front yard setbacks in order to construct a porch on an existing foundation in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , objection because the dwelling is not in compliance with laws relative to installation of smoke detectors. Attorney Kevin Daley represented the petitioner, He displayed renderings of the proposed porch and what the property would then look like. He explained: Mr. Boucher owned this vacant lot, he had a chance to buy a house at a good price, he bought the house with the intention of moving it to this lot, prior to moving it, he built a foundation, he made a mistake and foundation was built too close to the front. He corrected it and the house was moved, and placed correctly. He wants to build a porch on the front of the house, he would like to utilize the found- ation that is currently there. If he does, it will be a very attractive residence. This is the only residence on the street. When he first bought it, it was an eyesore, he has done a lot of work. It is looking better and better. I am sure • he is willing to comply with the fire laws. I don' t think the abutters will have a problem with this. Mr. Charnas: could you tell us what kind of establishments border this property. Mr. Daly: next door, Jeffrey Lumber, Lafayette Club next to that, across street is Macky Construction next to that is Salem Paper Co. No on appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. MINUTES - JULY 17, 1985 page seven 17 Broadway - Continued • Mr. Gauthier: I think this has enhanced the neighborhood, I am in favor. He made an honest mistake. Mr. Charnas: I am in favor, concerned with hardship. Mr. Gauthier: would be a financial hardship, he has an existing foundation that he is unable to utilize. If he can' use it, he will have to chop it off. He has already had added expense of moving the building. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition the property conform with applicable laws relative to smoke detectors, the porch come no closer than five feet to the property line. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 14 Kosciusko St. - James Casellini Petitioner is requesting a variance from side line setbacks and a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear setback in order to construct porches in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , objection to noncompliance relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Hacker: before we begin, I would like to appoint Mr. Bencal a voting member, Mr. Gauthier will not be sitting on this case. Mr. Charnas: I think this only needs a special permit, it is already nonconforming. Mr. Casellini represented himself. He displayed plans of the proposed porches. Mr. Hacker: is anyone here interested in seeing these plans? Mr. Jay Chapin, 16 Kosciusko St. , I would be interested. These will be second and third floor decks. He showed what exists there now, presently, with the existing porches located where they are, I only have one parking space.;, by moving them to the rear, it would enable me to have two spaces. • Will enhance the property. Decks will be about 18" to the property line on the side, will be about 3 feet from abutting structure. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Jay Chapin, 16 Kosciusko St. , I have one room in the back, my window would be blocked off. Mr. Chapin, Mr. Casellini and the Board Members went over the plans, trying to find a solution to the blocking of his window. Mr. Chapin said the only thing he could think of is to open another area of his dwelling to allow light and air. Mr. Casellini said he'd pay for it. Mr. Hacker: this is an agreement the two of you could make, we could not make it binding. If you two would like time to see if you can reach an agreement, we will hear the next petition and come back to this later. Mr. Casellini and Mr. Chapin agreed. 79 Beaver St. - Anh Thi N Nguyen Lam Petitioner is requesting a special permit to extend an already nonconforming rear setback in order to enlarge a porch in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Lam represented himself. He explained his plans, this room very small, no light, no window, would like to add two feet and put in sliding door. It is just six feet, would like to make it eight feet. It is like a store room now. Just want to add two feet on side and two feet in the rear. Would like to put window, sliding door so the sun can come in. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the special permit requested to extend the existing room as per plans submitted. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • 14 Kosciusko St. - James Casellini - Continued Mr. Casellini and Mr. Chapin said they had reached an agreement. Mr. Chapin is no longer opposed, stated he is now in favor. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the special permti to construct porches to within 18 inches of side line and a certificate of compliance be obtained. Mr. Charnas seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - JULY 17, 1985 page eight • 242 North St. - William Corbett Jr. Petitioner is requesting a variance to allow garage to used as a second hand bookstore and a variance from minimum parking requirements in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Fire dept. , opposed because of noncompliance with laws relative to installation of smoke detectors and a letter from Councillor McCabe, no objection. Mr. Corbett represented himself. He did not understand the letter from the Fire Dept. Mr. Charnas explained to him that the house on the property must have smoke detectors and must has a certificate of compliance from the Fire Marshal. He submitted letters from abutters and neighbors in favor. The house belongs to my parents and they have given their permission to run this business there. This is a residential area, there is a cemetery across the street. This is presently a one car garage, it is vacant. There is a long driveway, and could park about seven cars there, but they would have to back out on to North St. and this is dangerous. I would not have them park there. They would have to park on North St. Mr. Hacker: do you plan on having any sign? Mr. Corbett: will put sign on top of buildings about 6 ft by 2 ft. , also a small triangular sign out front. Mr. Hacker: I think that's called an A-sign and all though they are widely used I think they are illegal. You had better check with the Building Inspector. We can give you permit for the sign on the building but we can' t do anything regarding the A-sign. Speaking in favor: Mr. Corbett Sr. , 243 North St. , just want to say one thing about the sign out front, there is plenty of room for it. Mr. Hacker: we don' t have the authority to grant that. Mrs. Corbett, 243 North St. , also in favor. There was no opposition. Mr. Hacker: I have no problem with this as long as we make condition that if the business changes they have to come back to the Board. Mr. Charnas: what would the hardship be? • Mr. Hacker: I think the hardship if the fact the garage is so small it can' t be used for cars. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested to allow the garage to be used asa bookstore on condition at Certificate of Compliance and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. , next scheduled will be held July 24, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk • • ,.coeuik n : Ctu of "Salem, ttsstttljuse##s 00;;f . Poxra of c4peal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JULY 24, 1985 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, July 24, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on July 10, 17, 1985. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Bencal. Meeting was called to order by the Chairman, James Hacker at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Bencal .was appointed a voting member as Mr. Luzinski would be late. Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the two continued cases, 260 Lafayette St. and 256-258 Lafayette St. would be hearing last on the agenda. Szetela Lane - McNeil & Associates Petitioner is requesting variances to allow construction of 36 townhouse, multi- family condominium dwellings, garages and clubhouse in this R-1 district. Szetela Lane was formerly known as Memorial Drive/Essex St. Ext. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from City Solicitor Michael O'Brien, enclosing a copy of • the court documents remanding this petition' back to the Board of Appeal. Mr. Hacker: as this has been remanded back to us by the court, we do not have to vote to hear it. Mr. Charnas read letter from Thomas Southworth, McNeil & Assoc. , (on file) and letters from the Planning Board and the Fire Dept. , in favor. Mr. Charnas asked if there were any changes in the petition. Mr. Southworth, represent- ing McNeil and Associates: petition is the same. Mr. Southworth displayed plans to the Board and the assemblage. We are proposing 36 units in five different structures. This is low density development, will be compatible with the architecture in the City. There will be foot path for public access and public access to the pier. We will maximize open space. We have tried to fit the houses in with the topography, this will minimize the impact of condominiums in the neighborhood. There will be single entrance, cars will enter on Essex St. Ext. and exit there. There will be an emergency access which will be gated as per the Fire .Dept. There will be private driveway to pier and clubhouse. Will have some covered parking. Will be carriage house design. We will maintain as many of the trees as possible, will remove existing structures. The hospital is already gone, we will assume financial responsibility for that. The Crow club will be removed, new clubhouse built, they can rent some space. There will be substantial landscaping which will minimize impact on abutters, will be view of the water. On May 21 , 1985 we entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the City, was approved by City Council and Mayor. He submitted a copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement (on file) and made reference to the conditions placed on it. Due to the extensive cost it is not feasible to develope this lot for the allow use, which is single family dwellings. This will provide quality houses for the city, will provide increased tax revenue, will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, there is a mixed use in the area and this type of • housing is consistent with the neighborhood. It does not derogate from the intent of the district of the purpose of the ordinance. Submitted a petition signed by 45 neighbors and abutters in favor, a cost analysis and a fiscal impact analysis. (all on file) . It is clearly not economically feasible to develope the 15 single family dwellings that would be permitted. Mr. Bencal: what has been done to MINUTES - JULY 24, 1985 page two • Szetela Lane - Continued ascertain the burial site? Mr. Southworth: there is a graveyard on the site, we have agreed to fence this off; we will maintain, restore and retain it in per- petuity and public access will be allowed. There is some question as to the location of the site, we will physically fence it off, there will be no intrusion. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Southworth if he would mind finishing his presentation after the Board has heard the continued petitions on Lafayette St. Mr. Luzinski is now present. Mr. Southworth said he had no objection. Tabled 256-258 Lafayette St. - Lafayette Real Estate Trust Mr. Charnas read the application. This petition has been continued from the July 17, 1985 hearing. At that hearing this petition was continued to allow petitioner time to redo his plans showing the ten units agreed upon rather than the sixteen originally requested. Mr. Luzinski will be sitting on this petition. Attorney John Serafini Sr. , representing the petitioner presented the new plans. This is essentially the same, just reducing the number of units. David Jacquith, Architect explained the layout to the Board and the Assemblage. There will be six units constructed, we have modified the elevations. The carriage house will be four units, a total of ten. There will be a total of thirty three parking spaces, six will be for neighbors. Mr. Hacker: the City Council is in the process of making this an historic district. Mr. Gauthier: I think they already have. Mr. Charnas: we can make condition that they go to the Historic Commission. Mr. Hacker: I am on record that I don' t think this is best plan. Passing this in its • present form is not appropriate, I am still against it, I don' t think it is the best for the City. Mr. Charnas: the primary concern is the density and the neighbors most affected by this seem to be in favor. I think we should vote. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petitioners request for Special Permit and Variance on condition there be no more than ten (10) units total, as per plan submitted July 24, 1985, Carriage House to be moved to the front of the property, as per plans submitted July 24, 1985; drainage be tied to storm system and meet all specifications of the City Engineer; snow must be removed from premises after each snow storm; a minimum of thirty three parking spaces be maintained on site and six of these to be alloted to the neighbors, all building to be in strict accordance with plans submitted July 24, 1985; plans approved by City Planner, Planning Board and the Historical Commission, and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit. Mr. Charnas seconded. The Board voted 4-1 in favor of the motion, Mr. Hacker voted in opposition. GRANTED 260 Lafayette St. - Lafayette Real Estate Trust This petition was continued from the July 17 , 1985 meeting. The hearing is closed. Petition was continued at the request of Counsel for the applicant. This is a request to convert a single family dwelling into four unit condominium. Mr. Charnas read the application. He also read a letter from the Historic Commission expressing their concerns regarding this gothic cottage and expressing their hope that no more than two units be allowed. (on file) . Attorney Serafini, representing the petitioner. Gothic architecture will be preserved, the Planning • Board indicates it has no problem with four units. David Jacquith, the carport will be removed. He displayed the plans to the Board, same plans as previous petition. These two petitions are tied together. Mr. Hacker: should condition this upon there meeting with the Historic Commission. Perhaps we could make this a three family. Mr. Gauthier: they have adequate parking. Mr. Hacker: What if we grant this and the historic commission does not want four units. Can' t we MINUTES - JULY 24, 1985 page three • 260 Lafayette St. - Continued compromise. Mr. Charnas: originally they wanted five units. Mr. Hacker: I don' t like this kind of increase in density. Mr. Gauthier: they have met the Planning Dept. 's requirements and they have the parking. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petitioner the Special Permit and Variance requested on condition there be no exterior work done except with the approval of the Historic Commission and Planning Board and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit. Mr. Strout seconded. Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout voted in favor of the motion, Messrs. , Charnas and Hacker voted in opposition. By a vote of 3-2 the petition was denied. DENIED Szetela Lane - McNeil and Associates - reconvened Mr. Gauthier: I think they have answered all the questions, I feel the Board is in favor, I am in favor now. Mr. Hacker asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak in favor. John Zujewski, 45 Memorial Drive, this will beautify the place, it is a mess now. I am concerned about the road. Mr. Southworth: the City Council voted for permitted access, abutters are concerned the City will eventually come in and pave. We propose to give City an easement. Mateslaw Szpak, 44 Memorial Drive, in favor. Nellie Gartland, 42 Memorial Drive, how far from lot will access road from Zujewski' s land be? Mr. Southworth: about five feet. Ms. Gartland: I would like it further away. Robert Hayes, 40 Memorial Drive, Tom, you did not mention that you would be giving land to the City Mr. Southworth, the City is mostly interested in the tidal flats and we have • agreed the City shall have the right to purchase the flats, they also will have public access to the pier, which we will provide. James Korumpas, 38 Memorial Drive, in favor. Leo Richards, 16 Memorial Drive, John Sujewski, 45 Memorial Drive, Charles Frederickson, Chestnut St. On one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: there are several conditions on the Purchase and Sale Agreement, they should be made part of the conditions. Mr. Bencal: I was at the public meeting when Mr. Southworth brought this to the City. He has done an excellent job. I am in favor, Petitioner has done all he could to satisfy the neighbors. Mr. Gauthier: in section five of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, will access to the pier be just for Crow II members or also the public. Mr. Southworth: the public. Mr. Charnas: I agree, they have done good job and I would be in favor. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the Variances requested on condition all conditions on the Purchase and Sale Agreement be incorporated into the decision, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit, all work to be done in accordance with plans submitted. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage the petitioners for 52 Highland Ave. have withdrawn their request for a Variance to convert a three family to a four family. Petition was withdrawn prior to hearing being opened, no vote necessary to allow this withdrawal. 1 Broad St. - Charing Cross Corp. Mr. Gauthier will not be voting on this petition due to a conflict of interest. • Mr. Hacker explained to the petitioner that he would be heard by a four man Board and it would take a unanimous vote of the board for this petition to be granted. He gave them the option of withdrawing their petition. Attorney John Serafini Sr. representing the petitioner said they would like to be heard. Petitioner is requesting Variances to convert the building which is located in an R-2 district MINUTES - JULY 24, 1985 page four . 1 Broad - Continued to twelve ( 12) condominium units. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Strout: for the record, I was on of the developers to make a proposal for this project. This will not affect my vote. Attorney Serafini addressed the Board, I am sure Mr. Strout will be impartial. This originally started with the school buildings on Broad St. were declared surplus. At one point the Salem Housing Authority was interested in them for housing for the elderly. When this remained vacant there was a problem with vandalism. The City got proposals for this site and my client came up with the proposal the city thought best. The City Council voted to transfer title to Charing Cross corp. We would like to proceed with this, the City would like to proceed with this. The building continues to deteriorate as it sits there idle. We may have to change some of the parking for the Fire Dept. Mr. Saunders, Vice President, introduced Roger Lang, Architect representative: we specialize in these kinds of restoration, that is historic restoration, we will work closely with the Historic Commission. The site right now is almost entirely paved. We will try to soften this effect. There will be no changes to the building except perhaps a roof deck but this will .not be visible from the street. The parking requirement has been accomplished, it will be a tight fit. There will be 12 units. We have looked into having elevator, not made final determination yet. The parking will be a one way loop, in Broad St. , out Summer St. Speaking in favor: Charles Frederickson, Chestnut St. , Gerard Kavanaugh, Planning Director, my office and the administration have worked hard on this, there has been extensive deliberation over the disposition of this property. We are very comfortable with this developer. The City Council also supports this. This proposal will be • going to the Planning Board and the Historical Commission. I feel very strongly this is in the best interest of the City. Speaking in opposition: Doug Ryder, Vice President, Holyoke Mutual Ins. Co. , not really opposed, just concerned about the parking. Mr. Hacker: that is one thing we have control over, we can condition the decision upon there maintaining the parking. Attorney Serafini: this project speaks for itself. A vacant building will be turned back to the tax rolls. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: basically in favor, what is the hardship? Mr. Serafini: The hardship it the piece of land, the building is too big to use as a two family and to develop this under the guidelines of the Ordinance would be impossible, certainly not economically feasible, There will not be any more than twelve units, we have adequate parking, will be not exterior change, the historic features will be maintained. We still have to go to the Planning Board and have site plan review. Mr. Hacker: I am also basically in favor. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variance requested on condition: eighteen parking spaces be maintained on site, plans be approved by the Historic Commission and the Planning Board, A Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained; all work in accordance with plans on file. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 17 Barnes Circle - Mary & Donald Lord Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow an existing entry way which encroaches on the side property line in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Donald Lord addressed the Board. We had no idea there was any problem with this entryway, • it was done with a building permit years ago, about 22 years ago. Originally just stairs and sometime along the way it was closed in. We are in the process of selling in and the bank will not give mortgage because of this. Speaking in favor, Tobia Deiulis, 15 Barnes Circle. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant Special Permit as requested. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - JULY 24, 1985 page five • R51 Canal St. - Leonard J. Samia Petitioner is request Variances and/or Special Permit to allow B-4 uses at this site which is located in a B-4/R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney John Serafini Jr. , 63 Federal St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. My client has the building under agreement. He displayed pictures of the building. Got Special Permit sometime ago, it was a tannery, it is bordered on three sides by streets, there is no way to enlarge it. We will rent our to tenants for B-4 uses, part of the building sits in the B-4 zone, part sits in R-2 zone. We don' t know at this time who the tenants will be so we have requested B-4 uses, we have tried to find the ones that would be best suited for this building, such as the ones listed in our application. This will prevent this building from becoming an eye sore. Mr. Charnas: is it your position that you need a Special Permit? Mr. Serafini: yes, it is nonconforming, the lot size and use is nonconforming, the lot is pecular in shape. We have no problem with the granting of a Special Permit, we also have no problem with the condition that tannery use be discontinued. There is substantial business uses in the neighborhood. Speaking in favor: Nat Tanzer, Tr. , 51 Canal St. , I am very much in favor. Gerard Kavanaugh, Planning Directors, I urge your support of this petition, it will be beneficial to the public and to the neighborhood and will make the exterior more conforming. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Hacker: not a good idea to have a building like this sitting vacant, could become a fire hazard, I would be in favor. Mr. Charnas: how many parking spaces would you need under the Ordinance? Mr. Serafini: we would • need 23, we have asked for a variance from parking, we can provided 14. Mr. Charnas: I am generally in favor, only concern is we don' t know what uses and what we would be doing to the parking situation. Mr. Hacker: in this case I'm not concerned. This is not on a main street. Mr. Serafini: we would be looking more at a printing shop or a small machine shop, this is a small building. Mr. Charnas: suppose we had condition that if retail uses were made they would come back to the Board. Mr. Serafini: possible some people could park on side of building if it developed that parking was a problem. Mr. Hacker: that is basic- ally a non-issue. Retail is not going to go there. It is not a good spot for retail. I would condition is on 14 spaces being maintained and no storage on outside. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit for proposed uses, all uses that are allowed in B-4 district and a Variance from minimum parking requirements on condition: fourteen (14) parking spaces be maintained on site, no storage be allowed outside the existing buildings, plans be approved by the Fire Dept. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 73 Boston St. - Clifford & Ellen Clark 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 Dept. , no objection. Mr. Clark represented himself. We have addressed the parking, the driveway already exists. There are two lots, we own both lots. We live on the second floor. We have owned the property two years. He displayed the plot plan showing the parking. Speaking in favor: • Councillor O' Leary: I am in favor. He has kept up and has done a lot of work. I have received no calls from neighbors saying they were opposed. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: would you have any problem with this being owner occupied? Mr. Clark: no problem at all. Mr. MINUTES - JULY 24, 1986 page six • 73 Boston St. - Continued Hacker: where they are two lots, we may be putting a hardship on him should he want to sell, he would have a three family with no access. Mr. Gauthier; I am familiar with this lot and I don' t think it is buildable. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition: a minimum of seven (7) parking spaces be maintained, along with access thereto, either on the premise or on the adjacent lot; premises must be owner occupied and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4 Looney Ave. - Robert & F. Kay Fouhey Petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear & side setbacks to allow construction of a shed in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letter from Fire .Dept. Mr. Charnas: the application is for an 8 x 12 shed, the advertisement is for an 8 x 10 shed. I don' t think we can hear this because of the discrepancy. This was a typographical error and was the fault of the Board not the petitioner. Mr. Charnas made a motion to allow the petitioner to with- draw and the Board would waive the filing fee and would pay to readvertise. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW 15 Northey St. - Mill Brook Realty Trust Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow a total of six (6) dwelling units, • tow (2) each in the existing dwelling, carriage house and the garage, and to allow a two story addition to the garage, also a variance from all dimensional requirements. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from Councillor Usovich, in favor and a letter from the Fire Dept. , stating the property is not in compliance with laws relative to smoke detectors. Attorney Richard Stafford represented the petitioners. My clients are presently under a Purchase and Sale Agreement conditional on this being granted. There presently exists a single family house, a carriage house which is presently being used as ceramics studio and a single story garage presently used for storage of ceramic products. We would like to have two family in the single family, two units in the carriage house and two units in the garage, for a total of six units. We would add a second story to the garage. Four units could be done by special permit. Could actually have five under the new carriage house ordinance by special permit, the single family could become four and the carriage house one, all by special permit. We are asking for six. The studio is very active and creates a lot of traffic, more than residential would create. Residential use is better suited for this area. The carriage house and the single family are visible from the street, the garage is not. We need variance to add to the garage. james Miller, Tr. displayed renderings to the Board and the assemblage. If the Board allows this the house in front will be two family, the carriage house, which is a substantial size, 2400 sq. ft. , will be two family unit, this is a three story building, it is long and steep, the garage in back is just a flat cinder block building and we would like to make it look as shown on renderings. We will landscape. The lot is about 13,100 sq. ft. I have done work in the City before. Speaking in favor: Mr. Shaw, present owner. Speaking • in opposition: Pauline Dionne, 19 Northey St. , parking is a problem now, getting in and out of Northey St. is dangerous. Gertrude Dionne, 19 Northey. St. , we had a fire last year, the fire trucks had to back up to get out of the street, this is a serious matter, it's very congested area. Tom Morgan, 14 Northey St. , I have lived there 14 years, it is a lovely street, it has a history of different types of homes, would like to keep this a friendly neighborhood. I don' t think MINUTES - JULY 24, 1985 page seven • 15 Northey St. - Contined the Historic Commission would agree with this. Public safety is also a concern. The fire department should study the effects of this. Right now it is a pleasant atmosphere. I don' t think this should be granted. I think the neighbors should have been notified and allowed to see the plans. Edward Purtz, 11 Northey St. , I am concerned with the access route, he showed the Board members, on the plans, the location of his house. There is a tree growing on the drawing and my house is right behind it. This is a very kid oriented neighborhood. I am concerned about the parking, I really objection to having all this traffic coming right by my land. Joan Rosin, 10 Northey St. , parking, traffic is horrendous, lot of small children and they do play on the street, there is no place else for them to play. Jim Adams, 9 Northey St. , I can appreciate their trying to improve the house and the carriage house, it is my understanding they can change the carriage house. Mr. Stafford explained they could have four units by special permit. Mr. Adams: I have no objections to them improving the house and the carriage house but I am opposed to the garage and especially to adding two stories to it. I have no objection to the four units but not six. Mr. Palardy, 27 Northey St. , they should have 12 parking spaces. Mr. Hacker, they show 12 on the plans. Would you be in favor if they have the twelve spaces? Mr. Palardy: yes, if they have 12 spaces. Jeffrey Pope, 12 Northey St. , traffic, parking. Scott Thibideau, R15 Bridge St. , I am a licensed builder in Salem and the State, Mill Brook Associates should have gone to the neighbors first. I am here tonight and I came totally uninformed. I am concerned with traffic, fire, if they build two stories on the garage I don' t think they could • get fire trucks down there. I am pro development. Will the garage support that many stories? Mr. Hacker: if we grant this it would subjection to many things, even if we grant, they will still have to conform to the building code, fire codes, etc. Mr. Thibideau, how will traffic be directed? Mr. Hacker invited him to look at the plans. Fire Inspector LaPointe: the driveway would have to be widened. Mr. Thibideau: I am not it total opposition but six units will really increase the density too much. Margaret Flaherty, 27 Northey St. we had fire in our house, the fire dept. got to us but they couldn' t get out, I think one of the trucks had to go down Lemon st. Mr. Hacker: they will have to conform with the Fire Codes. Julie Purtz, 11 Northey St. , our property literally sits on their property. There is a tremendous amount of traffic. Mr. Hacker: if this is granted, there wouldn' t be any classes. We could make a condition there be a fence maintained or an evergreen barrier, some kind of barrier. Mrs. Purtz: I would agree with some kind of barrier, still concerned with traffic, parking, noise, Am more in favor of condos rather than rentals. Carmen Pope, 12 Northey St. , congestion. In rebuttal: Richard Stafford, regard- ing the traffic, would have five two bedroom units and one, one bedroom unit, would be less traffic than what exists now. We would do everything to make it a safe project. The problem is a presently existing problem. We don' t need a variance from parking, we would be agreeable to providing some additional spaces, we just didn' t want to hottop the entire area. We are concerned with sewer problems, present owner says it is a problem, no city department says there is a problem, we can' t find any documentation to that effect. As far as adding the two stories, the structure is already there. As far as the historic aspect, my clients are committed to make this look as beautiful as possible and would have no objection to working with the historic commission. • This property is not in their jurisdiction however. There ceramic shop has been there 17 years. We will have to comply with all the regulations as far as building and fire codes. Regarding screening, they want to landscape so they have no problem with that. Mr. Hacker: in lieu of the opposition do you think it may be wise to try to work out something with the neighbors. Mr. Charnas: would like to state that I would be opposed if I voted right now. MINUTES - JULY 24, 1985 page eight • 15 North St. - Continued Mr. Gauthier: I would be also. Mr. Charnas: if you went for the four units and worked something out with the neighbors I might feel different, right now I am not in favor. Mr. Stafford conferred with his clients and requested the board continue this to give them time to work with the neighbors. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to continue this until the September 11 , 1985 hearing on condition Mr. Stafford waive all rights regarding time. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 11 , 1985 Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that this was continued and it would not be advertised and they would not be notified. Hearing adjourned at 11 :00 p.m:, next scheduled hearing to be held August 14, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk • • . N 01i#u of '�$ttlem, f ttssachuset s til /, 1 F Poarb of '4pzal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - AUGUST 14, 1985 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, August 14, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly published in the Salem Evening News on July 31 , August 7, 1985• Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Bencal. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. , by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the petition of Sally Ann Sullivan for a Special Permit and Variance for 343 Essex St. had been withdrawn. He also told them that the petition of the Salem Housing Authority, originally sceduled last would be heard first. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes from the April 24, & April 29, 1985 meeting. Mr. Gauthier seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 27 Charter St. - Salem Housing Authority Petitioners are requesting a Comprehensive Permit under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B Section 21 to construct an addition for office space to low and elderly income housing. Mr. Charnas read the application. Attorney William Lundregan represented the petitioners. This will be a small addition to the office, he displayed plans and renderings of the proposed addition. The addition would be about 40 feet, would not extend beyond the existing building line. , Would fill in corner. The additional office space is needed. It will be a one story addition, approximately 600 sq. ft. total. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: I have looked at the problem and they do need the room. This will not detract from the building and I would be in favor. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the petition for a Comprehensive , _ Permit as requested, in accordance with plans. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4 Looney Ave. - Robert and F. Kay Fouhey Petitioners are requesting a Variance from rear and side setback requirements in order to construct a shed in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating the property is not in compliance with MGL Chapter 148, Section 26E, relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Bill Burke, 3 South St. , cousin of the petitioners, represented the petitioners. He submitted a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Fouhey stating the reasons they needed the shed and explaining that the shed must be located in the area requested because of a large maple tree in the yard. (on file) Mr. Burke then question the letter from the Fire Inspector, he said the petitioners did have smoke detectors. Mr. Hacker explained that perhaps they did, but the Fire Dept. was not aware of them. They should contact the Fire Inspector and get a Certificate of Compliance. MINUTES - AUGUST 14, 1985 page two 4 Looney Ave. - Continued No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Sue Demasio, New Hampshire, representing her mother, Josephine Maurais, 4 Hillside Ave. This shed is very close to my mothers property and it is very displeasing to her. They began construction without a permit, my mother called the Building Inspector. Since the last hearing they have gone ahead and put a roof on it. How could he begin building and then continue building without any permits. It really bothers my mother. Mr. Hacker: If this was granted, we could put as a condition they have high shrubbery which would block the shed from view. Ms. Demasio: Don' t think that would do any good, they would have to be very high shrubs. Mr. Hacker: If we made this a condition and it could not be met they could not have shed. It could be close to fence with high trees, if we allowed something something like this with screening, would that be alright with you. Ms. Demasio: I don' t know how my mother would feel about it. Mr. Hacker: you are here representing her, would it be acceptable. Ms. Demasio: No, the shrubs would have to be at least ten feet high. Mr. Hacker: If we did make it a condition that they have ten feet high shrubs, would it be acceptable. Ms. Demasio: I suppose so. Mr. Strout asked Mr. Burke is the shed is on a foundation. Mr. Burke: cement blocks. Mr. Charnas asked where the Maple tree was located on the property. Mr. Burke showed the Board Members on the map. Mr. Hacker: could this be moved to different location? Mr. Gauthier: asked Mr. Burke if moving this ten feet from the side would be a problem. Mr. Burke: no. He then submitted a petition in favor signed by six neighbors. Mr. Charnas: if we granted this for ten feet from the side and ten feet from the rear, could you do that without hurting the • tree. Mr. Burke: I suppose so. Mr. Gauthier: if we put condition to move the shed, I don' t think they need the shrubs, if we put shrubs, we should leave it where it is. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for variance to allow construction of an 8' x 12' shed on condition the shed be no closer than 4 feet from the side line, shrubbery at least ten feet tall be planted. by the shed and the side line of property listed as Hillside Ave. , a Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Dept. be obtained. Mr. Luzinski requested the motion be amended to state the shed be no closer than ten feet to rear and 10 feet to. the side. Mr. Strout seconded the motion as amended. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 63 Proctor St. - Robert Maguire Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance to construct six (6) townhouse units in this R-2 district. Premises presently contains a leather factory. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Inspector, no objection. Attorney George Vallis, Church St. , represented Mr. Maguire. I am familiar with Mr. Maguire's. work,he restored the building our offices on Church St. are located. He does excellent work. The property contains about 14,500 sq. ft. of land. The factory has been there, probably since the turn of the century, it is a fire trap, it has certainly seen better days, it is an old building and the best thing to do it tear it down. This would enhance the surrounding area. Would like six units. It is an R-2 and four units are allowed by Special Permit. The factory is nonconforming and we are seeking to change the nonconforming use, asking for a variance as well. The change of use can be a Special Permit as long as it is not more detrimental. The structure is also nonconforming as far as setbacks. Mr. Gauthier: You are going to tear the • building down so legally I think it is a variance that is needed. Mr. Vallis: that's fine, we will go along with that. The hardship is financial, the cost of the land, about 42,000 dollars, about 25 thousand to demolish the factory plus MINUTES - AUGUST 14 , 1985 page three • 63 Proctor St. - Continued the cost to prepare the land. Two family would not be economically feasible, even a four family would not be feasible. To develop this property, I am sure there is some hazardous waste, would probably be quite costly. He displayed plans to the Board. There is adequate parking, at least two per unit. Each unit will have two bedrooms, relatively small units, they will be very attractive. Mr Maguire should have no trouble selling them. Would improve the area. The hardship exists because of the type of land. A lot has to be done to bring the property up to standard. Mr. Hacker: what will the price of the units be? Mr. Maguire: about 100 to 125 thousand dollars. No on appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Maynard Allen, 15 Pope St. , we are concerned about traffic and the water problem. We were here in June to oppose a project at 13 Pope St. and we are still waiting for a report from the City Engineer regarding the water problem. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner , unclear what Mr. Maguire is seeking a variance from. Mr. Charnas: Use and density. Attorney Vallis: after this, we will have to go to the Planning Board. Mr. Hacker: I feel uncomfortable voting on this when we just have half of what will be needed, plan doesn' t show setbacks or dimensions. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem voting on what has been asked fora .Mr. Gauthier: with the water problem, I would like to see full set of plans. I don' t think' I could vote on this petition at this time. Attorney Vallis: planning a project like this is expensive, plans, etc. , we will need a report from the City Engineer regarding waste water, could spend money on these plans and have the Planning Board change them, we could spend all this time and money and then come to the Board of Appeal and be denied and have wasted all that time and money, this is a catch 22 situation, where do we go first. Mr. Kavanaugh, • Planning Director, thinks a full set of plans should be submitted to both boards. Mr. Strout: there is no question the change will be better for the neighborhood but would like better plans. Mr. Hacker: it is about time the Board of Appeal put developers on notice that we want full set of plans, not having the plans required and continual continuances is causing a backlog. Mr. Maguire: I would like the Board to vote on this as presented. Attorney Vallis asked Mr. Maguire if he would like to withdraw. Mr. Maguire: I do not want to withdraw. Mr. Hacker: we will vote on this, but if it is denied you will have to wait two years before you can come back to the Board with the same proposal. Mr. Vallis: could we continue this and come back with the setbacks. Mr. Maguire: no continuance, go on with it as is. Mr. Vallis requested a moment to confer with his client, Mr. Maguire. The Board granted him five minutes. Mr. Vallis: my client wishes the Board to vote on this petition as presented. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the special permit and/or variance as requested. Mr. Strout seconded. The voted voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 62 Butler St. - Jose Pereira Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming front setback in order to construct a second means of egress in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. Pereira represented himself. He explained why he needed the stairs in the front, if they were put in the rear, the stairs would be in the same area as the existing stairs. He submitted a petition from twelve abutters in favor of his petition. • Mr. Hacker: I have talked with the City Planner, and this is part of the home improvement project. Speaking in favor: Jonathan Moore: I am representing Mr. Pereira in the home improvement project. I is not feasible to put the stairs in the rear of the building, this is the only feasible location. No one MINUTES - AUGUST 14, 1985 page four 62 Butler St. .- Continued • appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: I am in favor, it is good to keep the egresses as far as possible from each other and that is what he is doing. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant the special permit as requested. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 19 Osgood St. - Paul Emelian, Tr. , PSJ Realty Trust Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. Emelian represented himself. Displayed plot plans and proposed floor plan. He explained this would be a third floor apartment, all construction will be interior, room for six cars. Will not be going up any higher, will put in new stairs and it will be owner occupied. The parking will be piggyback. Mr. Charnas: can you put five non-piggyback spaces. Mr. Gauthier: I think he can. No appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: John McCarthy 9} Osgood St. , submitted petition in opposition signed by six abutters. Concerned about parking, don' t think they could get more than two cars, it is hazardous, there are small children in the area and it is already a dense neighborhood. Councillor Usovich: concerned about the piggyback parking. Mrs. Ayers, 33 Osgood St. , concerned about parking. In rebuttal: Mr. Emelian: this street is one way, there is street parking. The houses are close and driveways are small, I feel I have sufficient parking, my entire driveway is paved. I think it should be granted. Hearing closed: Mr. Gauthier: there is room for five cars. Mr. McCarthy: at one time this • was one lot, could not fit that many cars then. Mr. Hacker: I have seen the land and the parking will be tight but I think it is possible. He informed Mr. Emelian that according to the code he could .not pave closer than five feet to the house. Mr. Charnas: I don' t think one additional unit is going to make any difference. Mr. Hacker: would like to see designated parking spaces. Mr. Charnas made the motion to grant the petition the Special Permit requested on condition, at all times no less than nor greater than five non-piggyback parking spaces be maintained on site and each space be designated by marking; premises be owner occupied, and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 13 Pearl St. - Janet Doucette Petitioner is requesting a Special PErmit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the premises is not in compliance with MGL 148 Section 26E relative to smoke detectors. Ms. Doucette represented herself. She displayed plot plans and floor plans. Would like to have third apartment. It is owner occupied, that is it is my family that lives there and the third Apartment would be family. I have owned this for six years, my sister lives on the first floor and my sister in law on the second. My brother will live on the third. We would construct a second egress. I am not sure if it will be inside or outside. There will be a dormer. Mr. Charnas: is anyone uncomfortable no knowing if the construction will be nn the (. inside or not. Mr. Gauthier: there would be a problem putting if its outside. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I am not comfortable with not know where the construction will be. Mr. Hacker: we could make it a condition that it not be outside. I have problem with owner MINUTES - AUGUST 14, 1985 page five 13 Pearl St. - Continued J occupied. Mr. Charnas asked them if any of the family living there had any equity in the property. Ms. Doucette said they did not. Mr. Gauthier: what if they withdrew this petition and sold a member of the family a share. Mr. Hacker: I could vote for this if it were owner occupied, if we make it a condition that it be owner occupied they would .have a year to decide if they wanted to sell a share to the family, if not, they would not be able to do it. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit to convert to a three family dwelling on condition the premises be owner occupied, five non-piggyback parking spaces be maintained on site, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 20 Walter St. - Cynthia Rowe & Michael Angerame Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming rear set- back in order to construct second story catwalk and a spiral staircase in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department, no objection. Michael Angerame represented himself and Ms. Rowe. He displayed plans of the property and of the proposed stairway. Speaking in favor: Jim Picone, 6 Southwick St. , I am in favor, they have improved the property. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Gauthier: this is simple request, no problem. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit as requested, in accordance with plans on file. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • 26-28 Crowdis St. - Gerald & Elaine Verrette Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow constuction of a garage which would encroach on side and rear setbacks in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department, no objection. Mr. Verrette represented himself, displayed plans of the property and the proposed garage. Would like this garage for the purpose of storage of vehicles, have had problem with vandalism in this area. Mr. Charnas: would you have any problem attaching the garage to the house, if it is not attached you would need a variance. Mr. Verrette, that would be a problem, all the bedrooms are on this side. Mr. Gauthier suggested an archway. Mr. Verrette, sure, that would not be a problem. Speaking in favor: Councillor O' Leary, this would upgrade the lot and help the neighborhood, I have had no calls opposing this. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I have no problem with this, not any different that others we have granted in the past. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow the construction of a garage on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained and the garage be attached to the house in some manner. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held September 11 , 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, ee_� Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk Qlitg of 'Stt1em, fflttssuchusetts n� MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 11 , 1985 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday September 11 , 1985 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail on August 28 and September 4, 1985• Members present: Messrs., Hacker, Charnas, Strout 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. Hacker explained to the assemblage that there were only four members of the Board present and for any petition to be granted it would take a unanimous vote. Anyone wishing to withdraw at this time could do so without prejudice. Ocean Ave. Ext. a/k/a R198 Jefferson Ave. - Salvatore Bonaiuto Petitioner is requesting an extension of a Variance which was granted in 1979 allowing the garage on the premises to be used for minor automotive repairs. Property is located in an R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. He also read letter from Mr. Robert Talbot, 5 Laurent Rd. , in favor, and a letter from Mr. Bonaiuto requesting this • extension. Mr. Bonaiuto represented himself, he explained his operation. There will be no changes from the last variance, I will doing the same work, minor repairs, tune-ups, brakes, mufflers, no engines. Speaking in favor: Councillor Lovely, he has been a help to the entire neighborhood, the neighbors asked me to come and speak for them. About twenty neighbors came to the hearing the last time. There have been no problems with this operation and I hope the Board will grant this. Richard Dennis, no address given, I live in the neighborhood and I am in favor. Mrs. Rogers, 202 Jefferson Ave. , I am definitely in favor, he is very helpful. Marc Thibodeau, 200 Jefferson Ave. , he is very quiet, I am in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr.Hacker: this is the first time I can remember neighbors coming and speaking in favor of this type operation, I have no problem with granting this with the same conditions and I would add the conditions set forth in the letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition variance be for the use of the garage for minor automotive repairs by the petitioner only, variance be for a period of five years and can be renewed by the petitioner only, there be no signs or advertising on the property, petition must keep holding tanks on the premises for all oil and grease and shall formulate a proper method for their disposal as per the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the petition of Arthur Freedman for a Variance for 57 LORING AVE. had been withdrawn. As it was withdrawn prior to the hearing, no vote was needed. 36 Dearborn St. - Richard & Rita Savickey Petitioner is requesting a Variance from side yard setbacks in order to construct a garage in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the building is not in compliance with MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11 , 1985 page two • 36 Dearborn St. - Continued MGL 148 relative to installation of smoke detectors. He also referred to a copies of two previous decisions dated September 1 , 1982 and March 20, 1985; both decisions were denials of petitioners request. Mr. Charnas: I believe we have to vote on whether we can hear this petition. Mr. Hacker: explained to Mr. Savickey that in order for the Board to be able to hear this request and to vote on it, he must show a substantial difference between this application and the application which was denied March 20, 1985• According to law, the Board cannot hear a case which has been denied, for at least two years, unless there is a substantial difference. Mr. Savickey: I was denied a variance for a two car garage, I did get a building permit for a one car garage, however, to construct this one car garage does not blend with the architecture of the house. I am not really asking for a two car garage, I am asking for an extension of the one car garage that I have a permit for. Mr. Hacker: is the garage already built? Mr. Savickey: no, this is not the best place for a garage, it would be better closer to the side. What I am asking for is to extend this permit. I was on a Board myself, the Historical Commission, I donated my time and I have never asked the City of anything. Mr. Charnas: I am not clear on this, what is the difference between this request and the petition that was denied March 20th of this year? Mr. Savickey: I am asking to extend the one car garage that I have a permit for. It will be one foot further from the side. Mr. Hacker: the difference is only one foot, is that a substantial difference? Mr. Savickey: the one car garage just doesn' t blend in with the house. I want to do this right. It won' t balance, a one car garage on a two car driveway. I need the area for storage. Mr. Hacker: I understand what you are saying but I am not sure we • can grant this. Mr. Charnas: if we consider that last time he came for a two car garage and this time he is not asking for that. I could vote for that. Mr. Hacker: there seems to be some question as to whether we should re-hear this petition, would you consider withdrawing your petition and coming back when there is a five man Board. If we voted on this tonight you would have to have a unanimous vote. Mr. Savickey: yes, I would like to withdraw. Mr. Charnas made a motion to allow petition Leave to Withdraw. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 24 Grove St. - Raymond & Barbara Haight Petition is requesting a Variance from side setbacks to allow a pool and a variance from rear setbacks to allow storage shed in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mrs. Haight represented herself. She explained the pool was almost complete, the job was stopped by the Building Inspector. Mr. Munroe, Building Inspector: they applied for a permit and an error was found, they were about five inches too close to the side yard. Mr. Bencal: who installed the pool? Mrs. Haight: MacDuff. Mr. Charnas: how was the error made? Mrs. Haight: Mr. MacDuff thought it was measured by the water line. Speaking in favor: Raymond McDuff, Revere, we have built many pools in the City of Salem and we are six feet from the water line. I submitted a plot plan and it was accepted. I.t was an honest mistake. I am in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I have no problem with this. Mr. Bencal: how high is the storage shed? Mrs. Haight: about seven feet. Mr. Hacker: what are the dimensions? . Mrs. Haight: 6' x 81 . Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition a Certificate of Compliance be obtained, the shed be no larger than 61x8' and 7' in height, shed be no closer than 3' from the rear yard line and 6' from the side yard line, the side of the swimming pool may be allowed to stay and be used in the present state. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11 , 1985 page three • 15 Northey St. - Mill Brook Realty Trust Continued from the July 24, 1985 hearing. Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow a total of six dwelling units, two each in the existing dwelling, garage, and carriage house and to allow a two story addition to the garage in this R-2 district. A variance from all dimensional requirements also requested. Attorney Richard Stafford, representing the petitioners, addressed the Board. We have met with the neighbors and agreed to four units instead of six, this will now be a Special Permit that is needed. He submitted plans showing the changes. The garage will remain one story. There will be parking for twelve cars. There will be two units in the existing single family house and two in the carrage house. The plans previously submitted will remain the same except the garage will stay one story. Mr. Hacker: how wide is the driveway? Mr. Stafford: at least twelve feet. Mr. Purtz, 11 Northey st. , part of the agreement was that there be a fence from back of the house to the carriage house. Mr. Hacker made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to allow a total of four units, two units in the carriage house, two units in the main building, the garage must remain one story; twelve parking spaces be maintained on site, six foot stockade fence be erected and maintained on the south side of the property extending fifty (50) feet from the carriage house towards the north; roadway must be a minimum of twelve (12) feed inwidth and must meet all specifications of the Salem Fire Department, parking will be allowed only on the approved maintained parking spaces and not in the driveway, and a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • 19 Bridge St. - Paul S. Frazer Petitioner is requesting Variances from all applicable density and setback requirements and use regulations in order to construct a single family dwelling in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, letters from the Inspector of Buildings advising Mr. Frazer that he could not be issued a building permit, the Planning Board, in favor, and the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. Frazer represented himself, he displayed plot plans and building plans to the Board. He showed the Board of a copy of a building permit he received to do renovations. The building was fire damaged, it was torn down by the city when I was away in Florida. He showed the Board a copy of the state law which allows cities to tear down buildings. I bought it when it was already burned, have owned it about a year, paid 15,000 dollars for it. ' Mr. Charnas: what kind of structures abut the property? Mr. Frazer: residential. A building permit was issued in 1984 to renovate it, I gutted it oust. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Mrs. Parent, 21 Bridge St. , Mr. Frazer did not own .the house at the time of the fire, it stood there for about two years in that very hazardous condition. That house was a detriment to the area. Our house has marks on it from work done on that house. What work was done was slipshop. We had to call many times to shore this up. I want any new construction done according to law, we have lived in fear of that house. Mr. Hacker: this will be a new house.and will be built according to law. Mrs. Dorothy Landano, Bridge St. , if he is going to build the way he did work on the old house I think it should stay the way it is. Mr. Hacker: if a new house is built, I can guarantee it will be built according to all codes. Mrs. Landano: I am still • opposed, it is too close to my house. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: What condition was the house in when you bought it? Mr. Frazer: It was gutted out, it could have been repaired, it was my intention to repair it. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11 , 1985 page four 19 Bridge St. - Continued • William Munroe, Inspector of Buildings, repeated attempts to have the building either demolished or repaired have failed. A-building permit was issued in 1984 for renovations to this property but no work was done. The building presented a safety hazard to the public and it was demolished per Council Order, there is presently a lien on the property to pay for the demolition. As far as building on the site, it required every variance there is. . I feel ample time was given to rehabilitate the building. Mr. Hacker: you bought the building with the intent to rehabilitate, why were you so uncooperative with the city? Mr. Frazer: I wasn' t uncooperative, I went to Florida and got sick. The Council voted while I was gone to demolish. Mr. Charnas: I think any hardship has been created by the petitioner himself. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variances as requested. Mr. Strout seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 174 Marlborough Rd. - Joyce Buttner Mallard Petitioner is requesting Variances from all applicable density and setback requirements in order to construct a single family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Mallard represented himself, he displayed plans to the Board. This is my father in laws land, it is two lots. Speaking in favor: William Buttner, 174 Marlborough Rd. , I have lived there since 1960 and will continue to live there. My daughter would like opportunity to build there, it will be given to my daughter. Steven Sandoni, Marlborough Rd. , I have no objections because it • does meet the side setback, I am concerned about my bedrooms being right there, but we can work it out. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Hacker: I have a problem granting a variance for a lot that is under 5,000 square feet and under 50 feet of frontage. I can' t see a legitimate hardship. I have a problem with cars parking on the front street. Mr. Bencal: what if they put in circular driveway? Mr. Hacker: they only have 38 feet in front. Mr. Bencal: it is a borderline lot. I would like to grant this if we had a hardship. Mr. Charnas: asked Mr. Buttner and Mr. Sandino what there frontage is. Mr. Buttner: 50 feet. Mr. Sandino: 60 feet. Mr. Charnas: according to the Assessors Map there is 40 feet. Mr. Hacker: I don' t think there is room for circular drive. Mr. Charnas: I don' t see any lots in the area with less than 50 feet of frontage. I can' t see any hardship. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Bencal seconded. The Board voted three to one. against the motion, Mr. Strout voted in favor. DENIED 2 Lawrence St. a/k/a 165 Ocean Ave. - Robert Maguire Petitioner is requesting an administrative ruling regarding the denial of a building permit for a duplex in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and the following letters: letter from Peter N. Caron, Assessor, to Mr. Hacker, dated August 13, 1985 advising the Board that the official address of this parcel is 2 Lawrence St. , it was changed from 165 Ocean Ave. , at the request of Mr. Maguire, on 11 /15/84; a letter from William Munroe, Inspector of Buildings/Zoning Enforcement Officer, dated 7/12/85 denying a • building permit and advising Mr. Maguire to apply to the Board of Appeal, and, a letter from Richard McIntosh, dated Feb. 28, 1984 (Mr. McIntosh was Building Inspector at that time) , addressed To Whom It May Concern, stating the lot in question is a buildable lot, last, a letter from Peter Caron to the City Clerk advising her of the correct address of the property. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11 , 1985 page five 2 Lawrence St. - Continued • Attorney Chris Drucas, Church St. , represented the petitioner. We are appealing the decision of the Building Inspector. He displayed plans, pictures of the neighborhood and map of the locus. This parcel is lot number 139 and was created in 1878. There is 45.3 feet on Lawrence St. and 130 feet on Ocean Ave. To give a brief history, prior to my client buying this property he requested a ruling from the Building Inspector,who at that time was Richard McIntosh, as to whether this is a buildable lot. Mr. McIntosh said it was a buildable lot and wrote a letter to that effect. My client then went & purchased the land with the intention of building a duplex. The lot at 4 Lawrence St. (#138) has less than 50 feet. In regards to the letter from the Assessor, the primary entrance for one unit will be Lawrence St. Mr. Hacker: the plans look to me as though the entrances are on Ocean Ave. Why do you disagree with the Building Inspector. Attorney Drucas: we meet the specifications for grand- fathering. This lot has been owned singly since before 1965, we can prove we have over 5,000 sq. ft. of area, 50 feet of frontage, we contend we have a buildable lot. Mr. Charnas: am I correct in assuming that if it is called Ocean Ave. you would have the necessary frontage? Mr. Munroe: we have discussed this and there is no question he has a buildable lot, it is the proximatey of the building on the lot. He needs variances, he needs variance from setbacks, it is a unique lot and I feel strongly they need variances. Attorney Drucas: the Building Inspectors statement is inconsistent, if this fronts on Ocean Ave. then we would have a lot that is not buildable, we could not build becasue we would not have rear yard. We did not choose the address. We did not choose any address. We have the frontage, I don' t see anywhere in • the ordinance that says frontage has to be on one street. In the definition section of the ordinance where corner lot is defined, it says when you have a corner lot you disregard side setbacks and must meet frontage. It is my position that the ordinance is not specific, there is ambiguity there. If we put one unit on top of the other we could not have any problem, that is not what we want however. Referring to the map, he pointed out that with this corner lot, what they in fact have is two fronts and two sides, the connecting point would actually be the rear. Using this as a basis, I believe we have a buildable lot, front, front, side, side, and rear, which is the connecting point. Mr. Hacker: If something has a front, it has a rear, I don' t think a point can be a rear. Mr. Munroe could you tell us again why this was denied a building permit. Mr. Munroe: it is a buildable lot, it fits the grandfather. I have a problem with the building and I have a problem with the address. Lawrence Street does not have the required 50 feet of frontage that is required under the grandfather clause and according to the Assessor the address of the property is 2 Lawrence St. Also, it would not meet the rear setback requirement. I would support a variance, but again, I strongly feel a variance is needed. Mr. Bencal: has your client owned the house long? Attorney Drucas: since June of 1984, prior to that it was an estate. Mr. Charnas: I agree with you that there is ambiguity in the ordinance, however, if this is a Lawrence St. address it does not meet the required frontage and a variance is needed. I think the Building Inspector is correct and I would vote to uphold the Building Inspectors decision. Mr. Hacker: at this point I agree with Mr. Charnas and I agree with the Building Inspectors decision. Mr. Bencal: if something has a front, it must have a back, I agree with the Building Inspector. Mr. Charnas • made a motion to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector to deny a Building Permit to the petitioner. Mr. Strout seconded. DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNANIMOUSLY UPHELD MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11 , 1985 page six • 450 Highland Ave. - Jerrys Dept. Stores, Inc. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconformity by demolishing fabric store & Mr. Grocer and constructing an addition in this BPD district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. David Glassman, Architect, represented the petitioner, Rich' s Dept. Store, he displayed plans to the Board. We propose to remove the fabric shop and the Mr. Grocer shop, the bank will stay. The new area will be for sale area for Rich's, loading, storage and utility areas and we will have some new rental space. We will have 604 parking spaces, 12 will be handicapped parking. There will be a new facade of the entire length of the building. We will not be encroaching any on the front, side or rear. . We are squaring off the building. Speaking in favor: Councillor O'Leary, this is a good plan, will be good for Salem. Paul Sudenfield, Highland Ave. , very much in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: it is good to see business staying in Salem and expanding. Mr. Hacker: Rich's has always been a good neighbor, I have no problem with this. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested in strict accordance with plans submitted on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained and plans for the proposed construction be presented to and approved- by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED The Board of Appeal voted unanimously to appropriate the necessary funds to have new Zoning Ordinances printed. Said Ordinances will sell for fifteen dollars each ($15.00) . • - The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held October . 9, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk `r Ctv of "Salem, �Kttsgachuseffs A. Potts of �kppeal C R"'coms d' MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - OCTOBER 9, 1985 A public hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, October 9, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on September 25, and October 2, 1985. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Charnas, Gauthier,Strout and Associate Member Bencal The hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member: . 102 Bayview Ave. - Anna Monica, H & S Group, Vaughn Hennan Petitioners are requesting a variance to allow parking on the landscaped area in front of the premises. Property is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department. Mr. Hennan represented himself and the other owners of the condominiums. On July 29, 1981 , the Board of Appeal granted a Special Permit to convert this three family dwelling into three unit condominium, one of the conditions of this Special Permit was that no parking be allowed in the area in front of this building. We would like a variance from that condition. The front is presently gravel and stone. Parking is a problem for residents of the building. Speaking in favor: Pat O'Connor., 100 Bayview Ave. , I realize the problem with parking, I have no problem with this but would like a condition that the gravel area be hottopped and the retaining wall be reinforced. People park on the gravel now and when cars pull out, the tires spin and the gravel flies all over. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I sat on the Board when this was granted and it was one of the worse decisions ever made. I drive by this building all the time and the front has never been maintained the way it was supposed to be. Mr. Gauthier: I live in the area and I think if they were allowed to park it would certainly help the problem. I don' t see any problem with granting this. Mr. Charnas, asked Mr. Hacker to clarify his objection. It seems that if parking was an issue that if we grant this 'that problem would be alleviated. Mr. Hacker: the front area was supposed to be landscaped and it was never done and for this reason I could not vote favorably. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variance requested on condition the area designated for parking be hottopped, the retaining wall adjacent to parking lot be reinforced, removal of snow shall not be placed as to narrow the fire lane in front of the building, parking not impede access and egress to this building for fire fighting and other emergencies. Mr. Gauthier seconded. Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Strout and Bencal voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Hacker voted present. GRANTED 19 Dearborn St. - Thomas Mazzarini Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a three family dwelling • into a four family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the appli= cation and a letter from the Fire Department, no objection. Mr. Mazzarini represented himself. He explained he wanted the additional unit for his MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1985 page two IS 19 Dearborn St. - Continued mother and father. They plan on selling there home and he would like to convert the garage and deck into a three room apartment for them. On June 20, 1984 the Board granted a Special Permit to convert to a three family dwelling, this apartment was for my in-laws. I went to the neighbors and they had no problem with this. Mr. Charnas: would you have a problem with this if it reverted back to a three family if your mother and father no longer lived there? Mr. Mazzarini: I do have daughters and they may want to live there at some time. The Special Permit I have now is conditioned on it being owner occupied. Speaking in favor: Marie Lessor, 15 Rear Dearborn St. , submitted letter from her friend and landlord, Mary Horton, 15 Dearborn St. , in favor. Mr. Mazzarini, petitioners father, explained he had problem with stairs and this would be ideal solution. Mark Sutherland, 17 Dearborn St. , there is ample parking there, see no problem. Speaking in opposition: Francis Burnham, 26 Dearborn St. , problem is, variances are forever, if it was conditioned that it would expire when vacated I would have no problem. He submitted a letter from himself and Phoebe Burnham, stating their opposition. Phoebe Burnham also spoke in opposition. In Rebuttal: Mr. Mazzarini: I could have my long time tenant move, she is 80 years old and has been a good tenant, I would hate to do that. This is not a rental unit, I plan on living there for a good long time. I would not be selling my house as a four unit building. Mr. Charnas, it is laudable that petitioner wants to car for his family, I think it should be conditioned upon only blood relatives living there, perhaps we could limit it to five years. Mr. Hacker: he would be making a rather substantial investment in this, rather that limit the time, I would like to limit it to direct relatives. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Burnham if there had been any problems there. Mr. Burnham: not at all. Mr. Charnas: I am concerned about it remaining a four family. Mr. Hacker: if he should sell it, or not rent to family members, I am sure we would hear about it. Mr. Gauthier: I have no problem if we keep within family members. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant special permit requested on condition the fourth unit only be occupied by blood relatives, work be according to plans on file, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, be in compliance with MGL relative to smoke detectors. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 21 Fairmount St. - John & Sarah Hayes Petitioners are requesting Variances from all applicable density and setback requirements to allow construction of a carriage house on an existing foundation and a variance from lot size in order to convert a single family home to a two family home in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating the dwelling was not in compliance with regulations pertaining to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Hayes represent himself. He explained in 1984 he was granted variances to combine lots 1 & 2, but this was never done. We own the property at 16 Nursery St. which abuts this property. We purchased the property from the Estate of R. Perley and have substantially rehab- ilitated it. Were thinking of converting to a two family but will not, will be a single family and we shall live there. We do not intend to convert to a two family and the carriage house will not be a dwelling unit. There will be under- ground electrical. The carriage house will be a garage with a loft. I have been to the fire department and got one permit, did not realize we needed another permit. We will certainly comply with the 'Fire Dept. and all other departments. Mr. Charnas: you are requesting a variance, what is your hardship? Mr. Hayes: the foundation is existing and I need a garage, would like to store boat, cars, etc. Would like to clean up my yard, it is a full foundation. There was another MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1985 page three 21 Fairmount St. - Continued • foundation on the property but we filled that one in. There was tunnel from house to foundation, we blocked that off. There is still a bomb shelter there. Speaking in favor: Mr. Maloney, 14 Nursery St. , they have improved the property and I hope they get the variance. Robert Quadros, 32 Fairmount St. , they have done a good job. Leon Masse, 15 Fairmount St. , certainly improved property, in favor. Speaking in opposition: Ruth Quinn, 18 Fairmount St. , I am not opposed, I am confused and concerned about the two family , will there be a two family, will they convert the carriage house to a dwelling? Would not be opposed to just carriage house if it is not used for dwelling. Mr. Hacker: I have a problem with just granting the carriage house, it was advertised as constructing the carriage house and converting to a two family. Mr. Charnas: he can withdraw that part of the petition, there is no problem with the way it was advertised. Mr. Gauthier: Would like condition that it be used for storage only, not residential. Mr. Charnas: not concerned with this falling under the new carriage house ordinance, that specifically states that in order to convert to dwelling it must be an historical carriage house, I think at least one hundred years old, this certainly would not qualify, it is not a pre- existing carriage house. I question whether it is a Special Permit or a Variance which is required. Mr. Gauthier: if the tunnel is still attached to the foundation, we can grant a Special Permit. Mr. Hayes: I blocked some of the tunnel off, but it is still attached. Mr. Charnas: I think it is a Special Permit because of the tunnel, I could vote for the carriage house, but not for the two family. I think we should take a separate vote for each item. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for Variance from lot size in order to convert single family dwelling into a two family dwelling. Mr. Bencal seconded. The Board of Appeal voted • unanimously in opposition of the motion. VARIANCE FOR TWO FAMILY DENIED Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a'Special Permit to allow construction of a carriage house on condition the carriage house be used solely for purposes that a garage would be used for, such as autos, boats, etc. , all necessary permits be obtained from the Fire Department, A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; construction be on existing foundation as per plans of file; not to be used for human habitation. Mr. Gauthier seconded. CARRIAGE HOUSE UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 281 Derby St. - Donald Clarke Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to construct an addition in this B-4 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department. Mr. Clarke represented himself. Need the addition because we need more space to expand. This is a B-4 district and the only place we need is frontage, which is nonconforming, it meets all other requirements, will not be taking any parking, will be used for sales space. I own abutting property except for the South Rive which abuts in rear and the station on side. Will tear down the temporary building that is presently there. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem with this. Mr. Gauthier: he is removing something unsightly and replacing with something better. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1985 page four 24 Chase 8t. - Joseph Grant • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert and existing two'family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Department, premises not in compliance with laws relative to smoke detectors, and the Planning Board, opposed because of con- gestion and parking. Mr. Grant represented himself. He displayed plot plans to the Board. He explained his kids were all grown; it is large house and would like to add an apartment. Parking is not a problem, I could fit five cars in the garage, cannot understand the Planning Board opposing this because of the parking. Speaking in favor: Rita Darisse, 18 Chase St. , Mary Grant, 24 Chase St. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier, I don't see any parking problems there, he has plenty of parking. Mr. Bencal: no problem as long as it is owner occupied. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petitioners request for a Special Permit on condition it remain owner occupied; plans be approved by the Fire Department; a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained and five (5) on site parking spaces be maintained. ' Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED . 11 Becket St. - Chester Chalupowski, Jr. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , premises not in compliance with laws relative to smoke detectors, a letter from the Planning Board, opposed because of the density. Mr. Bencal explained that a relative of his lives in the area and was • approached by Mr. Chalupowski to sign a petition, did not sign because of his position on the Board of Appeal. I have no problem with this, my decision will not be influenced in any way. Mr. Chalupowski represented himself, he displayed plans to the Board. He also displayed a color coded Assessors Map showing the multi- family homes in the area. He submitted a petition signed by 28 neighbors in favor. This would enhance the neighborhood, there is adequate parking. Mr. Charnas: are you going to live there? Mr. Chalupowski: I have not decided yet. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: he is very well prepared this time, has done what we asked him to, I have no problem. Mr. Hacker: the only problem I have is its not owner occupied. Mr. Bencal: I agree, I would vote for this if it was owner occupied. Mr. Hacker: I think we should vote and make it a condition that it be owner occupied. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition five on site parking spaces be maintained, premises must be owner occupied, Certificate of Occupancy obtained, plans be submitted for Fire Department approval regarding installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board voted four to one, Mr. Bencal voted in opposition, to grant the petition. GRANTED 26 Cabot St. - Maurice & Tina Bouchard Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a two family in this R-2 district. Use is an allowed use, property does not meet density requirements. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating the property was not in compliance with law relative to installation of smoke detectors. Attorney Robert LeDoux represented the petitioners. • Property was acquired in 1975, it was a two family, had been two family since 1880 approximately. This is an R-2 zone, there are many undersized lots in this area, this building has existed in present condition since the Salem Fire. What we are here for is to confirm the fact. that this is a two family. When property MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1985 page five 26 Cabot St. - Continued was listed for sale we discovered it was considered a one family. He submitted a petition signed by seven abutters in favor. Mr. Gauthier: the Building Inspector could look at this and make the decision. Mr. LeDoux: unfortunately, we went to the Assessors and found out it has never been assessed as a two family. Mr. Bencal: when they purchased the property was it understood it was a two family. Mr. LeDoux: yes. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. None of the Board members had a problem with this petition. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested to allow premises to be used as a two family, on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be held Wednesday, November 6, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk Ctv of alem, 'Mttssuchuse##s C poxra of �kppral MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, November 6, 1985 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on October 23, 30, 1985. Abutters and other interested persons wer.e .notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Bencal Meeting was called to order at 7:00 by the Chairman, James Hacker. The Board 'congratulated Mr. Gauthier on his election to the City Council. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes from May 15, August 14, and October 9, 1985. Mr. Gauthier seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 57 Highland Ave. - North Shore Childrens Hospital Mr. Gauthier will not be voting on this petition, Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to construct an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no • objection. Mr. Dennis Ingram, Architect, represented North Shore Childrens Hospital. On April 24, 1985 we were granted permit for an addition, since then we have looked closely at the site and the previous location of the addition proved to be too costly. This addition would be the same as the previous addition as far as use. The clinics will be in the renovated section of the hospital. Will be a two story addition, brick and will be in compliance with all codes. This highest part will be about 22 feet. Mr. Luzinski: the only difference is the location? Mr. Ingrams, yes. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I can' t see any difference. Mr. Luzinski: except for the location and doesn' t make much difference. Mr. Hacker: if we vote for this, can we void the other decision so they will not be able to make two additions? Mr. Charnas: we can' t do that, but we can make a condition that no other construction be done other that this addition. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, no construction other that the construction referred to or described in the plans submitted to the Board with this petition be done without prior approval of this Board, all applicable City and State codes and requirements regarding fire protection and safety are adhered to and plans submitted to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to issuance of building permit. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 2 Hartford St. - Daniel & Linda Richmond Petitioners are requesting a Variance from side yard setbacks in order to construct /• `, a carport in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from 1 the Fire Marshal stating the dwelling is not in compliance with laws relative to the' installation of smoke detectors. Daniel & Linda .Richmond represented themselves. Mrs. Richmond said she did not understand the letter from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Hacker explained that they would have to go to the Fire Prevention and get a Certificate of Compliance, which will show they have the required smoke detectors. They agreed they would take care of it. Mr. Richmond explained they don' t have MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page two 2 Hartford St. - Continued a garage and would like a carport. This is the only feasible location for it, the area is hottopped already, that's where the driveway is. It will not be closed in. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: has there been a problem with vandalism in this area. Mr. Richmond: no. Mr. Hacker: you have a large backyard, is there any ledge there? Mr. Richmond: yes, it is all rocky. Mr. Charnas: With a variance it is necessary to show a hardship, I think the ledge in the back yard is a hardship, makes it unfeasible to put the carport there. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a Variance from side yard setbacks in order to construct an open carport on condition a Certificate of Compliance relative to the installation of smoke detectors be obtained from the Fire Department. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 2 Orleans Ave. - Robert,& Carol Muise Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow an existing shed in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection, also, a letter from George Amenta, 11 Marlborough Rd. , opposed. Mr. Hacker: at this point, Mr. Gauthier will be voting, Mr. Bencal no longer a voting member. Robert & Carol Muise represented themselves. They submitted a petition in favor signed by all the abutters (on file) . Mr. Muise explained they bought the house in good faith and did not know the shed was there illegally. We have a water problem in the basement so this shed provides dry storage. The • neighbor who is complaining spends six months of the year in Florida, he only has to look at it for six months. The shed was there when we bought the property and as far as we know Mr. Amenta was there when the shed was erected. There is a six foot stockade fence all around. Mr. Hacker: I looked at the property and it is a very small yard, anywhere he put the shed it would be a violation. Speaking in favor: Mike Dennedy, 4 Orleans Ave. , the shed was put up in September of 84, Mr. Amenta was there when the shed was built, he did not go to Florida until Nov- ember, did not complain at that time. I have no objection to it remaining. Charles Baletsa, 10 Orleans Ave. , I certainly have no objection to the shed remaining, No one spoke in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I sympathize with the petitioner and would like to vote in favor, the only problem I have is hardship. I could vote for this if it were a Special Permit. The house is nonconforming, if they attached the shed to the house it would then only need a Special Permit as it would be extending a nonconformity and I could vote for that. Also, would like to see shrubs put there. Mr. Hacker: I would like to see the shed shingled. Mr. Muise: don' t mind putting in shrubs and will shingle. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT to allow shed to remain at its present location provided that it be attached in some manner to the house, it be shingled and painted to match the house and shrubs at least high enough to hide top of the shed. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 104 Proctor St. - Dr. Michael Kantorosinski Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a doctors office in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no • objection. Dr. Kantorosinski represented himself. He explained he had recently moved to Salem to help care for his ailing father. He showed pictures and of the property, there is plenty of parking, we have just hired a landscaper and I will live there. We have worked with all the City departments regarding codes. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page three • 104 Proctor St. - Continued The entrance will be from Proctor St. , could fit 15 to 20 spaces. Mr. Gauthier asked him to show, on the plans, where he could fit 15 to 20 parking spaces. He. indicated the area to the right of the building as you are facing it. Mr. Gauthier said there was no way that many spaces would fit there without being piggyback. Dr. Kantorosinski said there was some land towards the rear that could be cleared for additional parking, it is just sitting there vacant. Mr. Gauthier: you don' t own that land, the owners may not allow you to use it. Dr. Kantorosinski: we have hired landscaper, we could put parking on the other side of the house, which would be on the corner of Proctor and Highland Ave. Mr. Luzinski: how many doctors will be working there? Dr. Kantorosinski: I will be the only doctor. Right now there are three families living there, one of them is moving at the end of the week, another tenant is looking to buy their own place and will be leaving. The first floor will be my office, second floor, my parents will live on and I will .live on the third floor. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Councillor O'Leary, he submitted a petition signed by 38 neighbors in opposition to this application. He also showed the Board copies of notices to vacate that had been sent to the tenants of the building. This shows no compassion at all for people. Also, there is a traffic problem, this is a congested area. Don' t see how he will park all the cars he says he can. I am adamantly opposed. Should preserve the neighborhood: Councillor Frances Grace: I have worked with Councillor O' Leary on this. I am very bothered with these notices to the tenants being evicted. I was responsible for one of them being there, • I assisted her in locating. This is wrong. Also, Proctor St. is a residential neighborhood , that intersection is one of the most dangerous in the City. I have family members who have expressed a desire to open businesses in that area and I told them, no way. Lets keep the neighborhood residential. For them to come in and evict three families shows a total lack of concern for people. Very very much opposed. Joanne Cunningham , 60 Highland Ave. , Don Famico, 74 Proctor St. , Jean and Joseph Donoghue, 831 Proctor St. , Robert Cunningham, 60 Highland Ave. , all spoke adamantly opposed to this petition. In Rebuttal: Dr. Kantorosinski: as far as the eviction notices are concerned, the reason we bought this house was for us to live there, not just for the office, the important thing is, I would live there. The parking is ample. Yes, it is a highly congested area but this won' t make any difference. I will have office of first floor, this will not create a hazard to anyone. The property was bought to have an office and to live in, it would fit in with the neighborhood. I am a Chiropractor, no hospital affiliation. We bought the house in June. Mr. Gauthier: shouldn' you have bought-the. property on',condition that this was-granted and waited to send eviction notices. Dr.- Kanoroskinski: did not buy this just for office, bought .it to live there also. Mr. Hacker: I don' t think we can be concerned about the evictions. Mr. Gauthier: I he is throwing people out with malice, I want to know, it would certainly influence my decision. Dr. Kantorosinski: we have offered them help moving, no just throwing them out, if they don' t want help we can' t do anything about that. Hearing closed. I do have a problem with the eviction notices, I would not do it, but he did and its certainly his right, the decision we must make is do we want a doctors office there. It is a bad intersection as it is. I am • concerned we might set a precedent. Doctors coming in and setting up offices and changing the character of the neighborhood. I think there are plenty of places in Salem for this type use, he could set up his practice elsewhere and make a good MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page four • 104 Proctor St. - Continued living. There is plenty of office space available in Salem. Also, he does not have a good parking plan. Mr. Strout: I feel the same, we could be setting a precedent. Mr. Charnas: I agree as well and I agree as far as the evictions but that is personal and should not enter into the decision, it does not effect my decision. Mr. Gauthier: this is badly congested area and this would make it worse. Mr. Luzinski: people are buying property and thinking they can do anything they want to do, I am against encroachment of business in the area. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition they be in compliance with all applicable fire codes. Mr. Gauthier seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 25 Wisteria St. - W. Burdett Godfrey Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert existing three family into a four family dwelling by adding a basement apartment inthis R-2 district. Mr. Hacker appointed Mr. Bencal a voting member. Mr. Charnas read .the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Mr. Godfrey represented himself. He displayed plans of the proposed basement apartment. Mr. Bencal asked him how long he has owned this property. He said since August. He showed on the plot plan where the parking would be for the needed six cars. Mr. Hacker asked him if there was anyway he could change the parking, the Board, as a rule, does not grant petition where you would have to back out on to a street. Mr. Godfrey: No, I • can' t change it, it is already existing and this is not a main street anyway. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Dawn Moynihan, 18 Wisteria St. , there is a problem with parking in the neighborhood. I don' t know how many people are living there now, but there are an awful lot of cars there. Mr. Hacker invited her to look over the plans that were submitted regarding the parking. Tom Moynihan, 18 Wisteria St. , I am also concerned about the parking. There are no other four family homes in this area, most of the houses are two family. Councillor Nutting: I am not here because I was called, I saw this on the agenda. This will certainly not help the area. It is close to the college and this will add to problems they already have. This is a well kept street, but very narrow with parking on one side only. I just don' t think we should increase the density in that area. In rebuttal: Mr. Godfrey: all the parking would be in the yard, would not park on the street. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I think this would be another case of opening Pandora's Box, I am familiar with the area and I think this would be derogating from the intent of the neighborhood. I would be inclined to vote no. Mr. Luzinski: I agree, if I did vote on this I would want to see parking change. I can' t see increasing the density. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 58 Proctor St. - Robert A. Cohn • Mr. Gauthier will be voting on this petition. Petition requests a Variance from density, lot size and frontage in order to construct a two car garage with an apartment above in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, dwelling not in compliance with smoke detector law. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page six 394 Highland Ave. - Continued • be a little under 400 cars. Mr. McCrae: You people come in and build, but after you leave, who controls the security. What about traffic on Ravenna Ave. Mr. Keilty: the security would be the responsibility of the Condominium Association. There will be no cars on Ravenna Ave. Mr. Hacker: we could make a condition that the only entrance and exit be on Highland Ave. Barbara Noble, 1 Savonna St. Why are you giving the soccer fields to the city? Mr. Keilty: at the neighborhood meetings one of the concerns of the neighbors was the lack of recreational facili- ties. We had this land so why not give it to the City for these fields. It would also take care of any concerns about our coming back later and expanding. Ms. Noble: I am concerned about water, we have no pressure as it is, also traffic, security and snow removal. Mr. Keilty: as we said, the Condominium Association would be responsible for security, also snow removal. The traffic-would be from Highland Ave. , the pumping station would have to be retooled in conjunction with the City Engineer. Mike Francullo, 19 Barcelonal Ave. , I think you are throwing a bone to the City, that land is probably not buildable. Where is the surface water going? Mr. Keilty: it is allowed to flow its natural route, some will flow forward. Mr. Hacker: this is a decision the developer will not make, the City Planners will make it, they have still got to file with many other City Departments and Boards, also will have to file with the Peabody Conservation Commission. June Veroit, Sophia Rd. , whatabout the water pressure? It is very bad now and this is going to take away from us. Mr. Keilty: we will retool where needed, some of the systems are deadenders. If the city gives permission we are more than willing to loop it, will be a better system. Ms. Veroit: what will be the access to the fields? Mr. Keilty: Highland Ave. Bill Antoniades, Barcelona Ave. , I just don' t get this, why can' t they build single families. Mr. Keilty: • not economically feasible. Mr. Antoniades: Will there be blasting? Mr. Keilty: yes, this is controlled through the Fire Dept. Mr. Hacker: we can require a pre-blast survey be done. Councillor Nutting: How close are the homes to the development? Mr. Keilty: about 180 to 190 feet. Mr. Nutting: I would like to see them limited to five days instead of the usual six days for blasting. Also, have them utilize water saving devices. Councillor O' Leary: I received seven calls on this project and they had a lot of unanswered questions. Concerned about City services, they do prefer the fields over businesses in that area. They say they get different answers each time they ask about different things like lights on Ravenna Ave. Mr. Keilty: I don' t think I. ever said thee would be lights on Ravenna Ave. , the traffic on Highland may warrant a light, possibility of a trip light, up to the state. 'I don' t think the traffic count at Ravenna would warrant one. Councillor O'Leary: the 180 feet buffer sounds good, is this from the wetlands or what? Mr. Keilty: will be at least 180 feet from any homes. Councillor O'Leary: has the Board of Appeal ever handled a project of this size? Mr. Hacker: I don't think .so, not in my time. Councillor O'Leary: I would like to see them withdraw this and come back at a later date when the questions have all been answered. Mr. Andoniades: gentlemen, at one point you said the lights had been approved, now you say no, I was there, it was stated we have approval for lights. Mr. Hacker: Councillor O'Leary, would a trip light be acceptable? Councillor O'Leary: I don' t know. Mr. Hacker: seems to me it would be a better situation if there was a trip light. Rich Crisco, 8 Ravenna Ave. , we all saw in the papter there would be a light on Ravenna, I am not in favor of the fields, when they are deeded to the City, the City will have the full responsibility for maintaining them, will there be a fence? Mr. Hacker: we could make a condition • that there is a fence. Mr. Gauthier: asked Mr. Kavanaugh the City Planner if there had been a study done regarding lights. Mr. Kavanaugh: not right now, it is up to the State and the City to sit down and plan for Highland Ave. to improve MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 page five 58 Proctor St. - Continued Mr. Cohn represented himself. I live at number 58 Proctor St. , it is a 7 room house, I lost my wife awhile ago and the house is too big, I would like to put up a garage and live upstairs with my son. My daughter is interested in living in the house. Mr. Hacker: do you realize you probably do not have two lots now, after so long a time, the lot line disappears and it becomes one lot. We may have to grant variance on the house too. Mr. Luzinski: are you planning on selling the house to your daughter? Mr. Cohn: no, I will continue to own it. Speaking in favor: Councillor O' Leary: Mr. Cohn has done a good job with this house, I have talked to the neighbors on either side and they have no opposition. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Hacker: I don' t have any problem with granting this, but he would have an undersized lot where the house is. Asked Mr. Cohn how long he has owned property. Mr. Cohn: about thirty years. Mr. Hacker: Don' t think we can vote on this, we should allow him to withdraw and reapply so we can advertise properly. Mr. Charnas explained to Mr. Cohn that as the petition stands now, the Board cannot grant it, he suggested that perhaps he could deed the property to his daughter and she could apply. Mr. Luzinski: couldn' t we vote for two structures on one lot? Mr. Charnas: was not advertised that way, don' t think we could. Mr. Hacker told Mr. Cohn he would be better off withdrawing, if the Board voted on this as it is we would problably vote against it. Mr. Cohn requested leave to withdraw. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant petitioner . leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW • 394 Highland Ave. - Michael Stasinos Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow construction of residential units in this R-1 /R-C/BPD district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal, no objection. Attorney John Keilty, 10 Chestnut St. , Peabody, represented the petitioner. He displayed plans to the Board and to the assemblage. Submitted copies to the Board and displayed renderings of the proposed project. He explained, this is not a request for condominiums or cluster, it is a use variance. We will be putting in 184 units. He submitted plan reflecting the current zoning. Mr. Stasinos purchased the property from Mr. Fiore this summer, there are twenty plus acres, actually 25 acres. The density, going by the 20+ would be about 9 units per acre, 7 using the 25. Also, two soccer fields. We have met with the neighbors who are concerned about the utilities, density and a buffer zone. The soccer fields arise from the concerns for a recreation area, the utilities will be done in accordance with the City Engineer. The soccer fields will be deeded to the City. The water pumping will have to be retooled and that will be up to the City Engineer and Planning Departments. Each building will be minimum of 100 feet from property line and well over 200 feet from any dwellings, the only encroachment on the R-C area will be the tennis courts, etc. We will have to file with the Conservation Commission. The hardship is the zoning pattern, the intense traffice, not economically feasible for single family. We will provide a recreational facility for the City. The plan makes sense, is compatible with area. The project would attract about 110 to 150 thousand dollars per unit, depending on the unit. Mr. Gauthier: will the surface water runoff drain back to Highland Ave. Mr. Keilty: yes it will. We thought about retail for this area but feel retail were be detrimental to the downtown area. There • will not be any lights on the soccer fields. Mr. Hacker: there are a lot of neighbors here tonight, they probably have some questions they would like to ask. Bruce McCrae, you are talking 184 units, how many cars? Mr. Keilty: probably MINUTES - NOVEMBER 6, 1985 e" page seven 394 Highland Ave. - Continued • the light situation. Bruce McCrae, 4 Sophia Rd. , as it is now, we have to use Rich's to make a U-turn and there is the possibility that Rich's could stop us from doing that. Mr. Hacker: yes, that could happen. Mr. Antoniades: I am also concerned about the sewerage. Mr. Hacker: let's see if anyone here would like to be recorded in favor. No one spoke. Mr. Hacker: anyone wishing to go on record as opposed, give your name and address for the record. In opposition: Barbara Noble, 1 Savona St. , Mike Francullo, 19 Barcelona. Ave. , Bill Antoniades, Barcelona Ave. , Councillor O'Leary, Bruce McCrae, 4 Sophia Rd. , Vince Amanti, I am representing my father who lives as 392 Highland Ave. , right next. to the project. Likes the idea of donating the land to the City but is opposed to this, this is a bad highway now and with the added houses it will be worse. I would like to see this project go, something is going to be built there someday and it could be something worse, we just think there are too many units, I understand he wants to get the most for his money but this is just too much. There are still too many unanswered questions. They still have a long way to go. Marjorie Holland, 22 Barcelona Ave. , yes they have a long way to go, when they go to all these other departments will we be given a chance to speak. Mr. Hacker: yes, at the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, I don' t know, but it is advertised. I would like to suggest to the Board that we continue this if the petitioner is willing to sign a statement waiving rights with regard to time, would like it continued for thirty days so the city planner can scrutinize it. Mr. Charnas: I would be in favor of that. Mr. Gauthier: if I voted tonight, I would have to vote against it. Mr. Hacker: the hearing is closed. The Board discussed the date of the December meeting and it was decided they would meet December 4th. Mr. Gauthier made a motion to continue this petition until December 4, 1985. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL DECEMBER 4, 1985 Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that the Board has continued this petition until the meeting of-December 4th„i.. _ It will be closed, which means no testimony will be taken. It will not be advertised. Hearing adjourned at 10:00 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held November 13, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk a.coav,q.b '` Ctu of ttlem, 4nttssar4use##s "-3_r oura of vd MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - NOVEMBER 13, 1985 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, November 13, 1985 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on October 30, November 6, 1985. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Gauthier, Luzinski, Strout 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. and Acting Secretary. 36 March St. - Ronald & Pamela Jalbert Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to construct a stairway which will encroach on minimum side yard setbacks in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, letter from the Fire Department, no objection. Pamela Jalbert, represented herself. Basically we would like to build exit for the second floor tenant on the left side of the house because, in the rear I have a septic system. Would not want to build there in case the system ever had to be cleaned out. On the right side is the driveway and wouldn' t want to block that. There is 12' • feet on that side now, the stairway would come to within 8' feet, its a matter of two feet encroachment. The stairs the tenants are presently using to move furniture is up the rear center of the house and its very narrow, very steep and they had to take the legs of living room furniture and saw their box spring in half, fold it up to bring up the stairs. I don' t think I'm going to be able to get tenants that will be willing to do that too often. We have put a lot of money into the second floor apartment and we are currently putting addition on back. We are planning to stay there indefinitely, I think the stairway would be an asset to my property. Submitted statement from tenants regarding the existing narrow stairway, also submitted a petition in favor signed by nine abutters. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I think this is an opportunity to help someone, doesn' t appear the stairway can go anywhere else and be less detrimental. Since the neighbors are in favor, I don' t have any problem with voting for this. Mr. Luzinski: will we be voting for a Variance or Special Permit. Mr. Gauthier: Special Permit, the house is nonconforming. Mr. Bencal: even if it were a Variance, the hardship would be the fact that this is the only place that the stairway could go. I commend them for upgrading their property. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition a Special Permit to allow stairway as per plans submitted. Mr. Gauthier seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 9 Pearl St. - Zenobie Davis Petitioner is 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 Department, opposed because the property is not in compliance •, relative to installation of smoke detectors. Zenobie Davis represented herself. I have a small apartment on the third floor and I would like to continue using it. My children have used it for many years. We understand that parking in the neighborhood is a problem and we would like to put in the proposed off street parking. We plenty of room for it. Displayed plans of the property, showing the MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1985 page two 9 Pearl St. - Continued • proposed parking. Mr. Hacker: you've used this as an apartment before, are there separate kitchen facilities? Ms. Davis: small kitchen and bath, yes. Mr. Gauthier: how long has it been there? Ms. Davis: been using is for 12 - 15 years for bedrooms for the family, have been renting it for the past two years. Mr. Bencal: do you have pavement going all the way to the property line on the side? Mr. Davis: showed on the plans where the pavement was, there is an open carport and adequate room to drive through and park in rear. Mrs. Davis: it's all paved to the back yard. Mr. Gauthier suggested changing the parking plan, as proposed there would be difficulty in turning around. Mr. Davis agreed to the changes. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Dianne Kulak, 8 Pearl St. , there is not enough parking, it is very congested. Mr. Hacker invited here come up and look at the plans for parking. He explained the plans to her. Ms. Kulak: just recently she had three girls living on the third floor, there was nine cars there and she had no parking there. Mr. Hacker: the law requires one and one half parking spaces per dwelling unit. Ms. Kulak: she doesn' t have that. They park on the driveway and that's it. Mr. Hacker: If we grant this and condition it on having the five spaces, they will have to have them or they cannot use the third apartment. Mr. Gauthier explained the changes they have made in the parking plan so that they will have room to turn and will not have to back out or back into another car. Mr. Hacker: if they have the proper parking do you still have an objection. Ms. Kulak: yes I do. Mary C. Bane, 7 Pearl St. , its a very short street, traffic is fantastic, every car that goes down the street has to turn around and come back again, there is a gas station and the junk yard at one end, a donut shop on the other side, there is no parking. Very very congested area. With or without off street parking it is congested, traffic • is heavy. This apartment has existed for several years and has been rented for several years, no permits for it. They have a carport on the house for which there is no permit. Since this apartment has been empty and since 6 Pearl St. is vacant there has been some relief in the parking situation. If you grant variance for this house there will immediately be three more people in this same area asking. Mr. Hacker: where they are provided off street parking for the new apartment and for the two that are already there would you still object. Ms. Bane: I do, my bedroom is right there, cars would be driving 37 inches from my bedroom window. I am handicapped and have to rest two or three times a day. I don' t think theres room. Mr. Hacker: your house is nonconforming to the zoning, we cannot not grant them something because your house is nonconforming. Ms. Bane: my house was built in 1850, complied with laws then. I don' t think you should reward people for first having the apartment and then coming for the permit. Rebuttal: - Mrs. Davis: we feel there is plenty of parking, if any- thing this will relieve the parking on the street, we don' t feel we will be adding to the situation. It is an existing apartment, we are willing to abide by the Fire Code and the building codes, anything they see wrong we will fix. We don' t think this is an unreasonable request. Mr. Gauthier: how long have you lived there? Mrs. Davis: since 1946. Mr. Bencal: will you continue to live there? Mr-. Davis: I will not, I am her son, she will continue to live on the first floor and rent the second and third. Mr. Hacker: did you ever rent the third floor? Mrs. Davis: yes, my daughter and her girlfriends, when she left for Arizona, her friends stayed on. Hearing is closed. Mr. Gauthier: I don't have any questions, she's a woman alone, probably needs the rent. I would put some restrictions, such as, if anything ever happened to Mrs. Davis it would return to • a two family. Mr. Hacker: I don't thing we could put a condition like that on, we could condition it remain owner occupied. Mr. Bencal: I'm torn between the the fact that it was used in noncompliance, as a three family and wanting to help. Mr. Gauthier: is there a kitchen up there? Mrs. Davis: yes. Mr. Hacker: I'm MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1985 page three 9 Pearl St. - Continued confused. You said you used the third floor for bedrooms when your family was growing up then about 12 years ago you turned it into an apartment? Mrs. Davis: yes, for the family. Mr. Hacker: at that time did it have cooking facilities? Mr. Davis: yes, my sister lived up there for awhile, only the past couple years other people have been living there, one with my sister paying rent. My sister left and a friend moved in paying rent. The second floor has separate facilities. Mr. Hacker: it appears its been used as a three family illegally for approximately 12 years, only the past two years for non_family member which doesn' t make any difference. Mr. Gauthier: why did they come before the Board at this point. Mr. Davis: there was a complaint. We decided at that point to try and make it legal. No one living there now. Mr. Bencal: at the present time how many people park on the property? Mr: Davis: one. Mr. Gauthier: how many cars are owned by the property owners? Mrs. Davis: one, there are two cars, one in driveway, one on site. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit on the condition the property remain owner occupied!; that five parking spaces be maintained on the property, facing west, that a fence or planting of adequate height be placed so as to shield headlights, smoke detectors be installed in accordance with Salem Fire Prevention, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. The Board of Appeal voted four against, Mr. Gauthier voted in favor, the motion, Motion denied 4-1 . DENIED Mr. Hacker explained the appeal procedure to the petitioner. 164 North St. - Lawrence Russo Jr. • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling and a Variance from minimum parking requirements in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Depart- ment, no objection. Mr. Russo represented himself. I would like to add an additional unit to 164 North St. which is currently a business on the first floor and a residence on the second floor, it has an attic with four rooms including a bathroom. The first floor is presently being used for educational purposes. My partner and myself would rent out the second floor and my partner would live in the attic, I would live there only one night a week. I realize we would need a second means of egress which I think is possible at the rear of the house either by installing a circular staircase or by installing a wooden staircase off the rear of the addition. The addition only goes as high as the 2nd .floor. Displayed plans to the Board. The staircase could easily be put from the third to the addition. That would be the first and preferable option, the second option would be a circular stairway. Presently the owners are living on the second floor and use the first floor for their school. They do tutoring. Mr. Bencal: you don' t actually own the property now? Mr. Russo: no, will be buying it with another fellow, Paul Kapnis. Mr. Kapnis: I would be living there full time on the third floor. Mr. Luzinski: you would be renting the first floor to a family? Mr. Kapnis: yes. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Anthony Cervoni, 13 Appleton St. , no enough parking, very congested. John Smedile, Director of Civil Defense for the City of Salem, member of the Traffic Commission, we have been studying North St. as far as traffic conditions, this house is located in a heavily congested area, Moody Square, where several streets intersect, also State • Route 107, also an emergency snow lane, the amount of parking in that area is very minimal. I went up there this weekend and checked the parking conditions and it is very tight, we are trying to facilitate the flow of traffic in and out of Salem on North St. , I would be opposed to any further multi-family dwellings. Sally Wilson, 37 Dearborn St. , I also live near that neighborhood, this is basic- ally an R-2, it is very congested there, to add to the parking problem already MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1985 page four • 164 North St. - Continued there would be dangerous. Shirley Cervoni, 13 Appleton St. , opposed for all the reasons given. Joe Quinn, 18 Fairmount St. I am also opposed, traffic and congestion. Ruth Quinn, 18 fairmount St. , we should try to keep it R-2, before we know it it will be all multi-family. Richard Savickey, 36 Dearborn St. Rebuttal: I have an opportunity to rent a parking space. I have no desire to convert to condominiums. Hearing closed Mr. Gauthier: I own 162-1622' North St. , I am moving my office out and going to Boston St. , I have fifteen parking spaces, could make it twenty. I had planned, if this goes through, and I promised Father Russo that I would deed him two parking spaces for as long as I owned the property. I don' t intend to convert to condos, I am going to rent it. Will leave it to my children and grandchildren and I just want to tell the neighbors that I feel we need apartments. There is ample parking there as long as I am alive. I have heard rumors that because Father Russo is on the shelter committee this is the reason he wants the property. I don' t think the Father would lie to me. I don't think adding one unit is going to hurt. I'm willing to help the neighborhood by deeding him two parking spaces. Mr. Luzinski: do the cars come out onto North St.? Mr. Gauthier: he has three spaces that back onto North St. , they have to right now, I have a fence there, I would allow him to drive through. Mr. Bencal: I would not be comfortable voting on this without seeing something in writing to the effect that Mr. Gauthier is deeding the parking spaces. North Street is a main thoroughfare into the City and it is also an emergency snow route which means that when we have a snow storm there is no parking on the street, I don' t think I could be in favor of this. Mr. Hacker: I would like to continue this till next meeting, if the petition will waive his time rights, in writing, so we can get some kind of drawing and some kind of agreement to satisfy me, number one the parking and number two a plan showing how you would drive through. Mr. Gauthier: I would like to have Father Russo meet with the neighbors and see it this satisfies them or not. Mr. Hacker: would like to continue this till December 4th. If I had to vote on this now, I would vote against it. Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that they have continued this until December 4, 1985• He explained it would not be a public hearing, no testimony would be taken, the Board would vote on it at that time. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this petition until the December 4th meeting. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL DECEMBER 4, 1985 3 White St. - Robert Ouellette Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to reconstruct two story building and to add a third story within the same footprint in the B-1 district. Mr. Hacker: before you read the application, is the petitioner here? Mr. Vallis, Attorney for Mr. Ouellette, yes, we are here. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Luzinski has withdrawn from this hearing and there will only be four voting members, as you know it takes a unanimous vote of the Board when there are only four members sitting. We would like to give you the opportunity to withdraw at this time and come back at a later date or to continue and hope for the unanimous vote. They were allowed to withdraw, no vote was needed as no hearing has been held. WITHDRAWN. • MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1985 page five 9 Warren Street Court - Thomas L. Brezina • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a Podiatry Office plus two dwelling units in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Thomas Brezina represented himself. I live in Boston now, I am hear requesting a Special Permit. My office is currently a 1 Colonial Rd. , about three blocks from here. The Special Permit would allow the first floor as an office, the second floor would be maintained as a rental unit and the owner occupied on the third floor. It is presently an attic. I have talked with the neighbors, showed them plans. Sub- mitted a petition signed by eight abutters in favor. Speaking in favor: Catherine Green, 13 Jackson St. , I am the retired Director of the Salem Welfare Office and fully aware of the problems and needs of the elderly. I am submitting a list of abutters and neighbors supporting this petition. The need of a podiatry office in this area is acute. The other offices, podiatry, are located on Essex St. and this is very inconvenient for the elderly. It is costly as most have to depend on taxis, most of the elderly at Fairweather and Heritage Drive would be within walking distance. People living further up on Highland Ave. are on a bus line. 75 - 80 percent of Dr. Brezina's patients are elderly. There is no evidence that there would be a parking or traffic problem. I respectfully request you approve this podiatry office. Mr. Hacker: I have two petitions in front of me, one was submitted by the doctor and is signed by abutters, the other is a typewritten statement in favor but the names are typed in, not signed. We will not accept this petition. Eleanor McGelworth, 1 Greenway Road, in favor for the same reasons as Mrs. Green. Ellen Allen, 11 Jackson st. , Mary Cervoni, no address, Mary Morris, no address, Leo Perrone, 6 Barnes Ave. No one appeared in • opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: considering the petition we had last week to put a doctors office in a residential area, I'm surprised there is a lack of opposition for this petition. Most of 'the people who spoke do not live in the area. Mr. Hacker: I disagree, most of them live within a few blocks. Mr. Bencal: they are not abutters. Mr. Gauthier: the abutters signed the paper. Mr. Hacker: the important thing this evening, if the neighbors were opposed we would hear from them. The neighbors signed in favor of this as opposed to the strong opposition to the petition last week. Mr. Gauthier: no one is being put out either. Mr. Strout: the third floor is an attic right now, you' ll be turning it into an apartment? Mr. Brezina: that correct, I will be living there. Mr. Hacker: I would have no problem voting in favor of this if it were to remain owner occupied. Mr. Bencal: • what would it revert back to if it were not owner occupied? Mr. Hacker: two family. Mr. Luzinski: is there any on site parking. No, there is on street parking. Mr. Gauthier: is there room for parking on the property? Mr. Brezina: there is room for three, perhaps four cars on the side. Mr. Luzinski: how many employees? Mr. Brezina: myself, one full time girl and one part time girl. Mr. Hacker: what would your normal hours of business be? Mr. Brezina: 7:30/8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. No night hours. Mr. Hacker: I would be in favor of this if we had him maintain three parking spaces on site. Mr. Luzinski: I agree. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition on condition the property remain owner occupied, the smoke and fire detectors be approved by the Fire Dept. , the hours of operation be from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. , Monday through Friday only, three parking spaces be maintained on the premises for use by the professional employees, only the first floor be used as a professional office and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1985 page six 120 Canal St. - Arthur B. Freedman • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a Veterinary Clinic/Hospital in this Industrial District. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Salem Fire Department, objecting because of the deplorable condition of the building. Attorney John Serafini represented the petitioner. He stated he just became aware of the letter from the Fire Dept. this afternoon, certainly the conditions he talks about have to be corrected. Dr. Freedman would be interested in having all that work done. This has been used for various purposes over the years. Dr. Freedman feels this would be ideal location for his clinic. Would like to ask the Board if we could continue this until the December 4th hearing. I have spoken with the landowner and have suggested to him that these conditions must be cleared up by the fourth to the satisfaction of the Fire Dept. Mr. Hacker: I don' t think we could possibly hear this on the fourth. Mr. Bencal: we already have two continuances for that night. Mr. Serafini: unless there are people here opposed, the hearing on the fourth should not take long. Mr. Gauthier: if we allowed this we would condition it upon approval of the Fire Dept. Mr. Serafini: that would be acceptable to us. Dr. Freedman is a licensed Veterinarian has been in practise a number years, first class operator, he will keep within all state requirements, we think the location is ideal. There is adequate parking. The use would be compatible. Across the street is a B-4 zone, this is industrial. Would be less intensive to some uses that would be allowed in an Industrial zone. We certainly would accept a condition that prior to this permit being affective that we comply with the requirements of the Fire Dept. Those are legitimate requests. Speaking in favor: Dr. Freedman. Speaking in opposition: Jack Adams, I own property at 103 Canal St. , will there be pets left overnight. Concerned • about noise. What is the parking going to be. Mr. Gauthier: are you opposed or do you just have questions. Mr. Adams: I am opposed until I get the answers. Mr. Serafini: parking for the premises is adequate as far as zoning, more than adequate. The practise is such that not that many vehicles are left there at one time. As far as pets are concerned, if he operates or has a procedure done on the pet,naturally that pet would have to be boarded. Would not be intensive, it is a one man operation. Mr. Adams: these pets that are left overnight, will they be outside? Dr. Freedman: there will be no pets at all outside. All inside. Mr. Bencal: will you be taking any measures to sound deaden the areas where the pets will be stored overnight? Dr. Freedman: yes I will, there will be sound insulation on the outside walls, where the pets will be kept. We are doing special procedures to make sure the sound level is minimal. Will be no sound from the outside. I'm not going to doing boarding as a business. Mr. Bencal: how many animals will you be able to board overnight? Dr. Freedman: twelve to fourteen. I will have about twenty pets in the clinic. Will not make any difference as far as noise. Mr. Adams: I am opposed because of the noise and I don' t see how they can do it without noise. Mr. Hacker: we had these concerns a couple of years ago when we were petitioned for a pet store and they sound proofed the area and we have had no complaints. Mr. Serafini: would have no objection to soundproofing being a condition. Mr. Adams: Also concerned with parking. Mr. Hacker: they have the parking. Mr. Serafini: this is an indust- rial zone, next to it is B-4, this is the most intensive zoning there is. A lot of worse things could be done here. Unidentified abutter, concerned with the disposal of dead animals. Dr. Freedman: we don' t do that, that is taken care of by other agencies. Norman LaPointe, 5 St. Paul St. , I came here in opposition, we are sick and tired of noise and smell. If you can stipulate no run outside. • Dr. Freedman: will be no pets outside at all. Mr. LaPointe: like I said, I came in opposition but he has enlightened me, I think the Board will take care of our concerns. Hearing closed. Mr. Gauthier: providing its built properly, I feel MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1985 page seven 120 Canal St. - Contined • as long as they comply and have STC rating there is no problem. Mr. Hacker: I would want condition that no animals be allowed outside. No incineration at all. Mr. Benal made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition that prior to a building permit being issued, the property must meet the requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. as to cleanliness, trash, etc. , as well as smoke and fire detectors, no pets shall be exercised outside, nor shall they be sheltered out- side of the building, the kennel area must be sound isolated from the outside with the appropriate STC rating, no incineration of trash or carcasses is to be allowed on the premises and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 2 Lawrence St. a/k/a 165 Ocean Ave. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from all applicable density and setback requirements in a duplex in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Salem Fire Department, objecting. Mr. Hacker: before we start, T believe this concerns a piece of property that we have heard about two months ago. Asked the petitioner what the difference is. Attorney Drucas representing Mr. Maguire: Last time we came on a direct appeal from a finding, At that time . we_- were not filing for a Variance or Special Permit. Mr. Hacker: okay, it would be my opinion that it would be alright to hear this petition and we should vote on it. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to hear this petition. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUS VOTE TO HEAR. • Attorney Drucas: what we have in reference to application, though not quite a perfect rectangle, the depth of the lot is 45 feet, this leaves us with a lot that is a buildable lot according to state statute but requires variance in order to build anything on it because under MGL 40A. Section 6, if you have over 5,000 sq. ft. of land,and we have 5,700 sq.ft. , and over 50feet of frontage you qualify for relief from any increases in area, depth, frontage requirements of a zoning ordinance provided that the lot was not held in common ownership with an adjoining lots. We meet all that criteria. It is in an R-2 zone. We are proposing to build a two family duplex. Under the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section 8 B, we meet the standards of that as well. This deals with nonconforming lots. If you look at the plan, where we have over 50 feet of frontage on Ocean Ave. we only have 45 feet, our front yard setback requirements are 15 feet and our rear yard requirements is 30 feet, I believe that this creates a legal hardship in that we have a lot that meets all the requirements except that the natural configuration doesn' t allow it. The existing use is three three stall garages which is nonconforming use, those would be removed. Thereby going from nonconforming use to conforming use. It is residential neighborhood. As far as letter from Fire dept. , we don' t have any problem changing the address to any address they want. Building would meet the height restrictions for R-2, it is two and a half story building. Displayed plans to the Board. No direct access to the rear of the building. We have spoken with neighbors although we haven' t reached an agreement with them, it is our position is to plant around the border of the property to provide buffer. If we are not granted relief, there is no structure that can be built on this property, under the ordinance. Mr. Gauthier: looks like most of the lots are the same but mostly single family. Attorney • Drucas, both single and two family. He showed on the Assessors Map where the one and two families were located. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1985 page eight 2 Lawrence St. - Continued • No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Councillor Stephen Lovely, representing the neighbors who could not be here this evening and my parents who directly abut this and are directly affected by this. I am not opposed to any building taking place, certainly the petitioner has right to do some developing. They strongly feel some other measures could be taken that may not maximize the property from the developers point of view but for the neighborhood would be much more in keeping with what is currently in the neighborhood. If you look at the three lots that are already built on and parallel to this one, all the front doors are on Lawrence St. , the hardship is not on the developer in this case because he could go to the same configuration, there are no duplexes in the neighborhood. This building is almost 70 feet long and almost forty feet high which is a pretty large structure, will take up about 28% of the lot itself. The average coverage in the area is 16%, a 70 foot building is really going to be a wall. I just don't think a building 'this size is really fair to the neigh- borhood, the hardship being quoted here is not on the developer. As far as the petitioner meeting with the neighbors, thats not true, I spent my own time meeting with the petitioner, tried to explain the position of the neighbors and told him I would be glad to set up a meeting with the neighbors. He did not meet with neighbors and did not attempt to meet with neighbors. Warren Lovely, 4 Lawrence St. , I have been there thirty years, it is a neighborhood that stays pretty constant, would like to see something there that would be better than the jungle that is there now. There has been no cooperation from the owners of this property to clean it up. In rebuttal:. Attorney Drucas, we purchased the property about a year ago, cannot be held responsible for what went on before that. We received a letter at that time from the then Building Inspector, on file, that this was • a buildable lot, that is why my client purchased the lot. Regarding the allegation: of Mr. Lovely a meeting was held, there was a concensus from that meeting as to what we could do, basically to provide barrier and we are prepared to do that. Along two borders. As far as lot coverage, the ordinance allows 35%, we have structured this building to allow the maximum amount of barrier that we can. The width of this building is only 20 feet, if we built a two family, one on top of the other we would have to make it at least 24 feet wide. We have made the building long instead of high, it is only 25 feet high, we have the right to go to 35 feet. Hearing closed. The Board discussed the dimensions of the building and adjoining buildings, went over the plans. Mr. Bencal: the address you are using now is 165 Ocean AVe. Mr. Drucas: thats correct. Councillor Lovely: would like to see building designed so there would be more room in rear and less on side. More towards Lawrence. Warren Lovely: think it should be single family. Mr. Hacker; he does have a right to have two family. Attorney Drucas: I don' t have a problem with that with moving the building. So you would be giving us relief from the front as well as the rear. Mr. Hacker: I don' t think we have determined the front as yet. We are not sure if the front is Lawrence or Ocean Ave. This seems to be a point of contention. Councillor Lovely: what we had in mind was the side yard, rather than the ten feet requirement, they could come to within eight feet and this would give them more in the rear. Mr. Hacker: looking at the houses, it was obviously the intent to have a back yard, the size of the house would almost double the coverage, if the house was put closer to the front that might satify neighbors. Mr. Strout: the plans are deceiving, its not picking up decks. Mr. Hacker: it is a buildable lot, but if we' re going to do something to help the developer, who is going to be gone in • six months, we ought to do something for the neighborhood. Mr. Gauthier: I think we should satisfy the neighbors. Mr. Hacker: our immediate concern is the neighborhood, or at least it should be. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1985 page nine • 2 Lawrence St. - Continued Mr. Strout: so what we're saying is push the house closer to' Lawrence St. Mr. Hacker: the address they've given is 2 Lawrence St. Mr. Bencal: they have said they prefer the Ocean Ave. address. Mr. Hacker: they may prefer it, but we don' t have that option. Mr. Luzinski: what about the parking? Mr. Gauthier: they'll have to park in the back yard. They will have to stay 25 feet from intersection because of the visibility. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Lovely, would you still want plantings if the building was relocated? Mr. Lovely: it depends on where house is located. Mr. Hacker: if house was closer to Lawrence St. and front door on Lawrence, where would parking be. Mr. Lovely: all the houses there have driveways on side. Mr. Hacker: they have to have three spaces, we would be having them back out. Mr. Drucas: no matter what you do, you will have people backing out. Mr. Hacker: we could just condition it that there be three spaces and let the builder decide where. Mr. Bencal: he has indicated four on the plans, we should hold him to the four. Mr. Strout: I don' t like the idea of people backing out into the street, I think it could be resolved. Mr. Hacker: would anyone have a problem with Mr. Lovely's suggestion about moving the building forward. Mr. Luzinski: I think it's a good idea. Mr. Gauthier: I think it should be done, in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Hacker: we are all hesitant, I don' t think this plan fits. Toaddressthe needs of the neighborhood this plan just doesn' t fit in. Mr. Bencal: I agree. Mr. Hacker: would you like to confer with your client and see if another plan could be made? Mr. Drucas: no matter what we do.we' have-a problem. Mr. Hacker: perhaps you should talk with the neighbors and come up with plans. Mr. Drucas: we would no problem • with continuing this. Mr. Hacker: we will not continue this, we will give you the opportunity to withdraw. We have too many continuances and this would be until January at least. Maybe the Councillor can arrange a neighborhood meeting and you could try to work something out with them. Mr. Drucas asked for leave to withdraw. Mr. Bencal made a motion to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Hearing adjourned at 10:00 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday, December 4, 1985, second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk • .. Olifv of "Salem, 'Massar4use##s h ,, •. `s Paura of �kypeal �'"cvmry dT" MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - DECEMBER 4, 1985 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, December 4, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening" ews 'on! 'November 20, 27, 1985. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Charnas, Luzinski, .Strout and Associate Member Bencal The meeting was called to order at 7:OOp.m. by the Chairman James Hacker. Mr. Bencal was appointed a voting member.' " Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 26 & November 6, 1985 meetings. Mr. Bencal seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 394 Highland Ave. - Nicholas Stasinos This petition is continued from the November 6, 1985 hearing. Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow construction of residential units in this R-1 /R-C/ BPD. Mr. Bencal is not voting on this petition as he did not sit at the November 6th hearing. Mr. Hacker addressed the assemblage. There seems to be some con- fusion regarding this hearing tonight. The public hearing is closed, there will not be any testimony taken. Mr. Charnas read a letter from Gerard Kavanaugh, the Planning Director (on file) . Mr. Hacker, addressing Attorney Kielty who is representing Mr. Stasinos, I understand you are aware of the letter from the Planning Director, are you willing to have this continued to give Mr. Kavanaugh the 60 days he requested in order to do an Environmental Impact Report and Will you i . give us, in writing, a waiver of youP.time rights? Mr. Kielty: yes we will do that. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to continue this petition until the meeting of February 19, 1985• Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL FEBRUARY 19, 1985 164 North St. - Lawrence Russo Jr. This petition is continued from the November 13, 1985 hearing. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas will not be voting on this petition as he did not sit at the November 13th hearing. Mr. Bencal was appointed Acting Secretary. Mr. Hacker asked the petitioner is they had a parking plan. Mr. Luzinski: the parking was going to be made available to you, is that right? Mr. Russo: Mr. Gauthier was going to give us a letter stating he would allow us the use of one parking space on his property. Mr. Hacker: do you have the letter now? Mr. Russo: no, but I trust his word. Mr. Bencal: that's not the problem, we have to have something in writing. Mr. Hacker: it seems we are no further along than we were last month. Mr. Luzinski: perhaps we could give them another �• continuance. Mr. Hacker: they have had a month to get something for us, we should not keep continuing, it causes a backlog. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the property be owner occupied, be in compliance with laws relative to smoke detectors, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained and on site parking for five cars be maintained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED MINUTES - DECEMBER 4, 1985 page two 5-7 Ocean Terr.- Robert & Ronald Marsilia • Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department which states the property is not currently in compliance with MGL relative to installation of smoke detectors. Attorney Gary Sackrider represented the petitioners. As the application indicates, when the property was purchased it was already laid out as a three family. Each floor is independent of the others. On the third floor there was a common meter, when we went to change the meter we found out it was not a legal three family. We will put in smoke detectors as per the letter from Fire Dept. He displayed copies of the Assessors Map, this is basically a multi-family area, on Ocean Ter. there are six buildings and only one is a single family, in the general area there is a large number of multi-family dwellings, three family or more. This Board has granted, in the past, the buildings on each side a special permit to use as three family on either side of this building, these buildings are the same as this one. Certainly what applies to one should apply to the other. Mr. Charnas asked how many of the dwellings on the map are owner occupied. Mr. Marsilia showed him on the map. Attorney Sackrider: there is room for five cars, we would have to take some of the shrubs out. The entire front is asphalt, the ordinance requires 42' spaces, we can do five. Mr. Bencal: you did not ask for a variance from parking so if we grant this you will have to have five spaces. Mr. Sackrider: the construction is for a three family, would need no changes. The fact you have granted previous for buildings on each side of this should have bearing on this. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr.Bencal: -how long have you owned the property? Mr. Marsilia: about six. years, it was not owner occupied at the time we bought it. We bought it as a three family, we lived there • and never had any problem. We do not live there now but we keep up the property. It has been a three family for at least 25 years. Mr. Hacker: I have no problem with granting this but we should keep with the policy of owner occupied. Mr. Charnas: I agree, it is important to have owner occupied. According to the petitioner there are not many owner occupied buildings in the area. Mr. Luzinski: I think it should be owner occupied. Mr. Strout: no problem as long as they have the five spaces. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to convert to a three family on condition they maintain five parking spaces on the premises, premises be owner occupied, they comply with regulations regarding installation of smoked detectors and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 47 Ravenna Ave. - Benjamin Hernando Petitioner is requesting a Variance from any and all density and setbacks in order to allow a single family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney Larry O'Keefe represented the petitioner. My client received a building permit about a year ago and started construction. It was about three quarters complete when it was discovered that variances were needed. This lot is a grandfathered lot, the big question is the frontage, where the front is. We applied for variance per request of the Building Inspector for rear yard setback, we disagree with this, there is a question between myself and the Building Inspector. My client is facing a financial difficulty if he cannot continue with this. There is some • question about moving the foundation, because of the slope of land it was impossible to construct as originally planned. The Building Inspector claims the rear set- back has been moved and does not have the 30 feet. There is a difference of opinion between the prior Building Inspector and the present Building Inspector. MINUTES - DECEMBER 4, 1985 page three • 47 Ravenna Ave. - Continued What we need to do is reduce the rear setback to 13 feet, including the deck. We would like to complete construction as soon as possible. There is 22 feet in the rear except where the deck is, that is only 13 feet. It will only be a one family home. His in-laws will be staying there for awhile. Mr. Bencal: is there ledge from the deck to what the Building Inspector says is the rear? Mr. O'Keefe: no. Speaking in favor: Councillor O'Leary, I can speak for most residents in the area, no objection but would like some questions answered. I am concerned with the size of the house, it is very large, 14 rooms, heard there was three kitchens but the Building Inspector said there are only two and one is to be used for ceramics, just want to be sure it is only a one family and that there will be no business there. Mr. Hacker: if we grant anything it would be for a single family only. Mr. Antoniades, 20 Barcelona Ave. , in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. The Board Members went over the plans. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the Variance from density and rear setback of 22 feet except for at the point of the deck which will be 13 feet on condition all requirements of the Salem Fire Department are met, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, it be a single family only, no business use. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 36 Dearborn St. - Richard & Rita Savickey Petitioners are requesting a variance from side yard 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 the building is not in compliance with • regulations relative to installation of smoke detectors. Referred to a decision of the Board denying a garage to the petitioner on March 20, 1985• Mr. Charnas: we should determine first if there is a substantial difference from this application and the application that was denied in March. * Mr. Savickey, I have a building permit #182 for a one car garage, I was going to start building it but it is just not right for the building. There is a two foot difference. The difference is, I asked for a two car garage and now I am asking for a one car garage that is four feet from the property line. Mr. Bencal: I don' t think one foot is a substantial difference. Mr. Charnas: what he is asking for is to build a one car garage, that is different, I think its substantially different, we should hear it. Mr. Bencal: I disagree. He has not built anything, if the garage he has a permit to build was built, that would be one thing. Mr. Charnas: all we can do is decide if the petition is different, I think it is. Mr. Charnas made a motion to hear the petition submitted. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted four to one (Mr. Bencal opposed) to hear the petition. Mr. Savickey: representing himself, I have done a lot of work to the building since i have owned it. He displayed pictures of the property. There are a lot of garages in the neighborhood and most go to within two to three feet of the property line. I do not want to go onto Moulton St. , would like the entrance to be from Dearborn St. As far as putting the entrance someplace else, there are trees and telephone poles. This area is used for parking now. This is the best design to fit in with the building. We do want the garage for a profit or any- thing, just my own private use. Mr. Charnas: what would be the hardship? Mr. Savickey: there is a lot of traffic on Moulton St. , my kids are young and I cannot • see them from the house if the garage is placed in another location, it is dangerous. I would like to keep my back yard. The design would fit in with the • MINUTES = DECEMBER 4, 1985 page four 36 Dearborn St. - Continued • house. I have spent a lot of money on the house and I do not want to build a garage that does not go with the house. I plan to live there a long time. Speaking in favor: Dennis Coleman, 6 Moulton St. since he has moved in he has improved the area, he has done good work, the kids in the neighborhood play in their yard as it is the biggest in the area. John Kelsey, 37 Dearborn St. , I think this is the best use. He submitted a petition in favor signed by eight neighbors. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: could we grant a Special Permit, the lot is nonconforming. Mr. Hacker: I think he needs a variance. The problem is the hardship, I agree this is the best use but I do have a problem with the hardship. Mr. Hacker asked Attorney Donaldson, who had represented Mr. Savickey in the past, what he thought the hardship was. Mr. Donaldson: the dangerous condition on Moulton St. makes this the best location. The four feet would make a difference in the line of vision as far as backing out. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the Variance from side yard setbacks to allow construction of garage to within four feet of property line on condition the property conform with all laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors, the garage conform with the existing exterior of existing house and elevation as submitted, and a certificate of occupancy be obtained. Mr. Charnas seconded. The Board of Appeal voted four to one, Mr. Bencal voted presented, to grant the Variance. GRANTED 6 Upham St. - Gwethalyn Jones • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear setback by constructing stairway in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection, and a letter from Edgar Paquin, Asst Building Inspector, regarding the construction of the stairs without permits. (on file) Ms. Jones represented herself. I bought the house in July, it needs a lot of work. The present egress goes through the house and is not satisfactory. The stairs as proposed will be tucked up against the house. There is an internal staircase and the second floor tenants have to go through the first floor apart- ment. Mr. Charnas asked Capt. Turner, Fire Marshal, if they had to be separate means of egress. Capt. Turner: yes, they should not share. Ms. Jones: this is a two family dwelling. Mr. Bencal: can the people use the internal stairway? Ms. Jones: yes. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Gloria Pierce, 1 Upham St. , it appears from the construction going on that this is going to be a three family. There is no parking there. She submitted a letter from Michael Penta, 23 Osborne St. , in opposition. William Anketell, 10 Upham St. , concerned with parking. Mr. Hacker asked Ms. Jones how many apartments were there. Ms. Jones: there are two apartments, the room I use on the third floor is a bedroom. Mr. Hacker: how many floors with the stairway involve? Ms. Jones: two. Wilfred Sampson, 5 Harris St. , I am concerned with how close she is coming to my property, he asked to see the plans. Allen King, 4 Upham St. , if it is a two family, why do they need another stairway? Mr. Halcro, 9 Upham St. , will the stairs be to the third floor or the second. Ms. Jones: will be to the second. Ruth Halcro, 9 Upham St. , it looks like she wants a three family. Mr. Hacker: we can' t act on something we think is going to happen. Right now it is a two family. If we grant this it doesn' t mean she can have a three family, we cannot deny this based on maybe it will be a three family. If you think there is a • violation notify the Zoning Enforcement Officer, he will investigate. Tonight all we can act on is the stairway. In rebuttal: Ms. Jones: it is a two family, the neighbors would never allow a three family. Mr. Hacker: we don' t want to hear about a three family, just tell us about the stairway. Ms:.Jones: this MINUTES - DECEMBER 4, 1985 page five ` 6 Upham St. - Continued would be a safety factor. The stairs now are much too narrow, can' t even get furniture up without taking is all apart. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Paquin, Assistant Building Inspector if he had inspected the building. Mr. Pagquin: yes, currently it is a two family. Mr. Charnas: would you approve of these plans. Mr. Paquin: if she gets the variance, yes. Mr. Hacker; I would like to see them constructed so there would be a turn in the stairway, have them come to a platform and then turn. Mr. Bencal: this is better than the inside stairway. Mr. Hacker: would like to make condition it remain owner occupied and two family. Mr.Charnas: not necessary, it is in an R-2 district, she would have to come to, the Board to increase the units. I would have a problem putting that condition on when the request is for a stairway. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow stairway on condition the stairs will be no closer than six feet to the rear property line and to come down to a point of landing and turn 90 degrees into the yard, that the building comply will all laws relative to installation of smoke detectors and a building permit be obtained. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 199 Jefferson Ave. - Michael & Benja Curran Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a barber shop in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Benja Curran, represented herself. I would like to open a barber shop. We bought this land for that reason, did not know we needed a Special Permit. It will be a two chair shop. Mr. Charnas: a two chair shop is allowed by Special Permit. Speaking in favor: Mr. Doucette, 55 Canal St. , Martin Fair, 31 Pleasant St. , with the shop there will be less traffic flow, they have done work on the building and it is much better. Richard Marchand, 159 Lafayette St. , I was a former tenant, this will greatly improve the asthetics. No one appeared in opposition. Benja Curran submitted a petition signed by 12 abutters in favor. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit as requested on condition the building comply with all applicable laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors, there be no more than two barber chairs and a certificate of occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED The Board congratulated Mr. Charnas on the birth of his son. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. , next scheduled hearting to be held January 15, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Principal Clerk