Loading...
1986-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS � , / i . �Y� � �iYJi � � �,v �1 (gitu of Salem, Massachusetts Poxrb of Appeal Kp MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - JANUARY 15, 1986 A Meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, January 15, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on January 2, 8, 1986. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski and Associate Members Bencal and LaBrecque The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal and Mr. LaBrecque were appointed voting members. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 13, and December 3, 1985 meetings, as submitted. Mr. Charnas seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 217-219 & 221 Loring Ave. - Kenneth Provencher Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit and Variance to divide property in this R-1 district into two lots. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney John Tierney represented the r petitioner. This Board acted on this petition in 1983, they granted a Special Permit to alter the nonconforming lot and a Variance to allow a single family ._ ' on one lot, leaving the three family on the other lot. This was granted, the Counsel for the petitioner thought there was a discrepancy in the wording of the decision and the Board in their kindness corrected it and wrote an amended decision. The problem is, both decisions were recorded at the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Provencher lived in the single family, he decided to sell it, when the -title search was done the problem was discovered. All we are asking for tonight is to have the amended decision ratified. Speaking in favor: Attorney Robert LeDoux, I am representing the prospective purchasers and the lending institution. There is a tital problem as a result of these two decisions being recorded at the Registry of Deeds. As you know, most banks don' t hold on to mortgages, they sell them. We did some research and the title is no good, is not marketable. It is necessary to come to the Board to reaffirm the amended decision, once that is done we will be satisfied. Speaking in opposition: Arthur Birmingham, 215 Loring Ave. , he has not complied with any of the conditions of the previous decision, he is supposed to live there and he doesn' t. Since he built the single family house I have had problem with water. I am concerned about the strip of land that runs between my house and the three family. I am sure he is going to sell the three family and whoever buys it might put in a driveway. There is not enough parking. Mr. Hacker: we cannot deal with something that might happen. Mr. Birmingham: where is my insurance that they will not build a driveway to get into the yard. Mr. Hacker: there is a condition on the decision that a driveway cannot be put in, if he sells it, that condition still remains. In rebuttal: Mr. Tierney: all work has been done in accordance with the decision and with the approval of the City Engineer. They have acted in good faith. All we are asking for is ratification of something that has already been done. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: on condition number 6 of the previous decision, it states that it must be occupied by the owner or a member of his family. Is this presently the case. Mr. Tierney: Mr. Provencher lives there. The way I read the decision, he has to live there or the new owner will have to live there. Attorney LeDoux: that is MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 1986 page two 217-219 & 221 Loring Ave. - Continued the problem, the first decision said both must be owned by the same person, the amended copy says the three family must be occupied by owner, or the petitioner must own or reside in the single family. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Birmingham, is there a driveway there now? Mr. Birmingham: no but if he sells it they may put one in. Mr. Hacker: once again, we cannot be concerned about what might happen, there is a condition that there be no driveway, no matter who owns the property, they cannot put in a driveway. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit and Variance requested, incorporating all conditions on the amended decision filed with the City Clerk May 11 , 1983. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 7 Winter St. - Sally Flint Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow premises to be used as a lodging house in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter in opposition from Mr. & Mrs. Charnigo, 18 Winter St. and a letter from the Fire Dept. , objection due the property not being in compliance with laws relative to installation of smoke detectors. Darcy Dale, represented her mother Sally Flint. We are seeking a variance to allow 7 'Winter St. to be used as an owner occupied lodging house or lodging house/inn. She submitted a petition signed by neighbors in favor of the lodging house/inn. There will be off street parking on the premises, displayed a plot plan showing 15 on site parking spaces. There is room for even more if needed. Would like to address the concerns regarding preservation of architecture and improvement of the neighborhood. We feel our \ commitment to make our home as close to a museum restoration as possible would be a definite improvement. We are planning to restore the rest of the exterior, landscape extensively, including the parking area, and the interior, which is 80% restored, will be furnished with period pieces, documented wall coverings, etc. The house is of the second french empire, centered wing subtype. Only 20% of all second empire buildings in America arc of this type. A 16 room single family house in 1986 is a burden financially. We feel the best way of keeping it in our family and still maintain architectural integrity, would be to open it to the public as a lodging house or inn. This is my mothers eighteenth year in this house, she will be retiring in a couple of years and will not be able to keep the house unless we are granted a variance that would allow extra income: The whole family is committed to this venture. Please don' t force us to sell our home. We don' t want to lock ourselves into being unable to feed our guests at some point in the future, we would like to offer our guests some amenities such as an inn would, but not right away. If the Board would rather we withdraw our petition and reapply using the word Inn or Lodging House/Inn, we are agreeable to that. We intend to fully comply with any and all conditions set forth by the Licensing Board and the Fire Dept. Speaking in favor: James Flint, 7 Winter St. As my sister said, we are committed as a family to this venture. Judy Valley, 8 Winter St. , it is presently a rooming house and I understand the same number of units will be used, There is parking, this would be good for neighborhood. Jonathan Huntington, 11 Winter St. , it is extremely appropriate for a lodging house, I have no problem at all living right next to this house. Mary Manning, 14 Winter St. , I was concerned about parking, but they have parking. I was also concerned when I read the ad, but after seeing the large area they have for parking, I have no problem with this. Pat Huntington, 11 Winter St. , I have no opposition. John Wright, 5 Winter St. , I am only concerned about signs. We have talked about it and I don' t think we' ll have a problem. Speaking in opposition: Ellen Barnes, Pickman St. , parking is a problem, there is no parking in that area. Mr. Hacker: we need a hardship to grant a Variance. MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 1986 page three Darcy Dale, it would be a hardship to use as a single family or a two family, it • is so large. Mr. Bencal: petitioner stated that because of the size of the rooms it is not feasible to use as a two family. Mr. Hacker: I have a problem with the fact that it is currently being used as a rooming house illegally. Would like to continue this and go have a look at the property. Mr. Charnas: I agree, we should have an on site look. Mr. Hacker: explained to the assemblage that if they continued this until the February 26th hearing, it would not be readvertised Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this petition until the hearing on February 26, 1986 on condition the petitioner waive rights relative to time requirements. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, 1986 18 Barcelona Ave. - Robert Pitreau Petitioner is requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to allow an existing dwelling and decks in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney Berkal represented the petitioner. This is a problem that is going to be coming to the Board more and more. The builder apparently, when he started building hit ledge and none of the houses were built according to the plans. My client got a variance in 1984 for an apartment for his mother, did not know at that time there was a problem. Speaking in favor: Councillor O' Leary, I am speaking as a councillor and a resident, Mr. Pitreau wants to purchase the house from his mother, he is a good neighbor and I am in favor. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: isn' t there an easier way than coming to the Board. Mr. Berkal: no, this should have been done when house was built, when the decks were put on we did not know a variance would be needed. Not aware of the problem until we did . % a title search. Mr. Hacker: I have no problem, mother is no longer living there, it reverts back to a single family. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested on condition it be used soley as a single family house. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 10 Foster St. - Amy Chevoor Petitioner is requesting variances to allow parcel of land to be divided into two lots in this B-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , opposed because of unregistered vehicles on the street in front of the property. Amy Chevoor represented herself, Mr. Lutts, 90 Orne St. is actually the owner of the property. What he needs is more land for the two family house. Lot B is vacant lot. It looks pretty bad. Dividing this the way we propose will provide three parking spaces for the two family and he would like to sell lot B. Lot A, the lot with the two family needs more land so there will be parking. Speaking in favor: Arthur Chalifour, 7 Walter St. : not in favor or in opposition, just concerned about parking. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. The Board discussed the lot size, the parcel in question is located in a B-1 district and only needs 6,000 sq. ft. of lot area, they questioned the need of coming to the Board. Ms. Chevoor requested leave to with draw her petition. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant petitioners request for leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 1986 page four 2 Lawrence St. a/k/a 165 Ocean Ave. - Robert Maguire Petitioner is requesting Variances from any and all applicable density and setback requirements in order to construct a duplex in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , still opposed until the issued of correct address has been resolved. Attorney Drucas represented the petitioner. My client has no objection to the use of the Ocean Ave. address. We have a unique situation here regarding the shape of the lot. The lot conforms in that it has 5,000 sq. ft. and at least 50 feet of frontage. As far as density, can only meet if it fronts on Ocean Ave. Cannot build anything on this land without variance. The hardship is the configuration of the land. The lot also was not held in common owner ship. We have side and front and height, need density and rear setback variance. he displayed pictures of the neighborhood. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Stephen Lovely, representing his father Warren Lovely, 4 Lawrence St. , at the last meeting, I told the Counsellor I would be away and while I was away they set up meetings with my father. My father will be the one most affected by this project. We are willing to go along with this if the conditions are right. They should be concerned with the other buildings in the area, all the lots are perpendicular. The reason they are submitting it this way is because they two family in. It is obnoxious, there is another way to build on this property, the only reason the entrances are on Ocean Ave. is to provide larger profit to the developer without thought to the neighborhood. Some consideration should be given two the direct abutter. This doesn' t fit in with the neighborhood at all. In Rebuttal: Attorney Drucas, Mr. Lovely talks about consistency in the neighborhood, the pictures I brought clearly show there is no consistency in the neighborhood. If we do as Mr. • Lovely suggests, we would be building a wider building. Efforts were made to meet with Warren Lovely, three letters were sent, he did not respond except once in December when he said his son was not in the area, he said he did not want to meet until his son was back. When we found out his son was back we sent another letter and was contacted by his sister. We tried to meet with her and could not reach her. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: did you try to contact any of the other neighbors. Mr. Drucas: no. Mr. Luzinski: I am not sure I under- stand Mr. Lovely's position. Mr. Lovely: There are no other houses like this in the area, there is no back yard, all the others have a back yard, I would like to see the building built so that it conforms with the rest of the neighborhood. Put the house towards the front and have a back yard. Mr. Hacker: I think what Mr. Lovely says has merit. I think at this point, where it does have a Lawrence St. address, I would concur with Mr. Lovely. It is my feeling they could change design, I am also concerned that the petitioner is trying to appease one neighbor. Most of the neighborhood is 17' stories. Mr. Bencal: I think if any of the other neighbors were opposed they would be here this evening. The question of neighborhood meetings is moot. Mr. Hacker: that is not the point, we are going to have a lot of things come to us regarding corner lots, the developers should stay in the confines of the neighborhood. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested. Mr. Bencal seconded. The Board voted 4-1 against the motion, Mr. Bencal voted in favor. PETITION DENIED 2 White St. - Robert Ouellette Mr. Luzinski will not be sitting on this petition. Mr. Charnas read the • application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , in opposition. Attorney Vallis, representing the petitioner requested a continuance because of the four man Board. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue until February 19th, Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED. Mr. Hacker explained to assemblage that this was continued, will be an open meeting, will not be advertised. MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 1986 page five • 291 Jefferson Ave. & 99 Lawrence St. - Raymond Pinault Petitioner is requesting variances to allow premises to be divided, 291 Jefferson Ave. to be used as professional offices and 99 Lawrence St. to continue being used as two family dwelling in this B-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney John Serafini Sr. represented the petitioner. He displayed plans of the property. This is located right across from St. Anne's Church. There is no objection from abutters. If this is approved, we have agreed to give an easement to the Pelletiers at 293 Jefferson Ave. We have the needed parking for professional offices, we will give Mr. Pelletier parking for his house and this will allow the Pinaults to have parking for the two family house. Most of the houses on Lawrence Street are close to the street. This will replace old structure that is presently there. This is basically a day time use and we think it will be an improvement. Mr. Bencal: how many offices? Mr. Serafini: one office, there will be five employees, it is a survey company. Not the type of business that will have a lot of cars coming and going. Building will conform with zoning. Speaking in favor: Raymond Pinault. No spoke in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: it is good to see business moving to Salem. This is a nice quiet business. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition petitioner make all necessary permit applications relative to the installation of automatic smoke detectors, on site parking be provided as per plans submitted and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • Adams & Canal St. - Esther Realty Inc. Attorney Serafini submitted a letter requesting an extension of a Variance granted January 23, 1985, said extension for a period of six months. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant this extension. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY EXTENDED FOR PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS 24 Ward St. - Salem Harbor Community Development Corp. Petitioners are requesting Variance from density and parking to allow a two family dwelling in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , opposed. Michael Barber, Housing Coordinator for the petitioners made the presentation. He submitted packets to the Board members. Our target area used to be the point neighborhood, we have now expanded. We are non-profit. We try to improve life of the people who live in our target areas. We work with the City and State to help get loans. We also try to find affordable houses. To do that, we purchase and renovate houses in the area. We are here tonight to create two new units on Ward St. We were thinking of make this a three unit but after talking to the neighbors who said they felt because of the density and parking they did not want three, we decided on two. This is an R-3 district, the use is an allowed use, we need variance from parking, there is no off street parking on the street except for a vacant lot. In 1978 there was a fire there, it has not been occupied as a two family since then. We would like to make it a two family. We have a Purchase and Sale Agreement. Actually, we would like to have two condominium units for low income, give them an opportunity to own. It would only add one car to the street but I think it conforms with the neighborhood. • We have talked with the neighbors and many of the abutters. We have worked closely with the Planning Dept. We feel this will be good for the area because it will give a low income family an opportunity to own property. Speaking in favor: Councillor Martineau: I have no objections. Councillor Nowak: no objections. Mr. Charnas: I don' t think this needs a Variance, I believe a Special Permit is MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 1986 page six 24 Ward St. - Continued • l whats needed. Also speaking in favor, Mr. Robert Healey, 4 Federal St. Court, this was a two family for forty years, it has only been single family for the past few years. I am a new member of the Harbor Community Development Board, this Board has done some good work. The reason for condominiums rather that rental is pride of ownership. Pat Carney, 14-16 Ward St. , this is a problem street, we want to see that turned around, we have no problem with condominiums. Ana Valente, 18 Ward St. , it would improve area. Cynthia Carr, 9 Turner St. , asa resident .of Salem I feel this would be a good use of the property, especially for low and moderate income people, we should keep affordable housing in Salem and encourage ownership. Lydia Priest, 30 Union St. , I am also a Board member, I am in favor of anything that creates affordable housing and stabilizes the neighborhood. Reubin Sullivan, 3 Ropes St. , I feel the same. Alan Alcantara, 108 Linden St. , also very much in favor. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: would you object to the units being owner occupied? Mr. Barber: we have no problem with that. Mr. Luzinski: whats your criteria? Mr. Barber: income, living in the area. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem, even if we vote on it as a Variance, there is a hardship. The neighborhood has a parking problem and one additional unit would not exacerbate, I would be in favor if it is owner occupied. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition each of the two units be owner occupied and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED The Board adjourned the public hearing and went into executive session. • The hearing adjourned at 10:00 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held February 19, 1986 at 7:00 p,m. , One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk fdi#u of 'Sttlem, 'fflttssuchusef#s l• /'sem Pourb of '�kppzal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - FEBRUARY 19, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, February 19, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on February 5, 12, 1986. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and other interested persons. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Members Dore and LaBrecque Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Acting Chairman, Edward Luzinski. Mr. Dore and Mr. LaBrecque were appointed voting members. 394 Highland Ave. - Michael Stasinos This petition has been continued from the December 4th meeting. Due to a death in the family Mr. Hacker was unable to attend this meeting and as the previous meeting was heard and closed it is necessary for Mr. Hacker to be present to vote. Mr. Charnas read a letter from Attorney John Keilty waiving his rights with regard to time. He then made a motion to continue this petition until the meeting of February 26, 1986. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. 11 UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED TILL FEBRUARY 26, 1986 •. l 3 White St. - Robert Ouellette This request for a Special Permit to reconstruct a two story building and to add a third story was continued from the January 15, 1986 hearing. Mr. Luzinski stated he would not be able to sit on this petition due to a conflict of interest. Attorney George Vallis, representing the petitioner, requested a continuance until the next meeting as they did not want to be heard by a four man board. Mr. Charnas made a motion .to continue this petition until February 26, 1986. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, 1986 11-13 Bryant St. - Richard Varney 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 Dept, no objection and a letter from Richard Varney. explaining the situation (on file) . It was noted by the Clerk of the Board that she had received a phone call from an Attorney Coleman requesting this petition be heard later on the agenda , the Clerk was under the impression that the attorney was representing the petitioner, this was not the case and the petitioner informed the Board they did not want their case put on later, they wanted it heard now. The Board ruled the petitioner had the right to be heard in the order they were placed on the agenda. Mrs. Varney represented herself. We bought this house for my daughter, when we bought it we were told the owner •� did not make it a three family because it needed additional parking. We put in the needed parking. I believe it was a three family at one time, it is a full apartment on the third floor. We have parking for eight cars, there is a four car garage and room for four more, the parking area will be hottopped. MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1986 page two 11-13 Bryant St. - Continued • Speaking in favor: Richard Varney. Speaking in opposition: Peter Copelas, representing his father who lives on Buffum St. , we were here a couple of years ago when the then owner petitioned for a three family, he withdrew his petition. He put the three family in anyway, it was never a three family. Even though they show parking for eight cars it would be very difficult to drive cars there. I think this is something that does not belong there. This is the third time we have been in less than five years, this should not be allowed. I am very much opposed. Mr. J. McDonald, 61 Buffum St. , this has never been a three family. There is very little parking, the garage is used for storage. I find parking a problem. Councillor Gauthier: I just want to remind the Board that this has been before them previously and the then owner withdrew. In rebuttal: Mrs. Varney: there is a problem with parking in the area, there is a three family and a six family next to us, they have a problem with parking. The problem is not from our house. I can' t help it if the neighbors are parking on the street. It is not us parking on Buffum St. Our garage is used for cars, the previous owner may have used it for storage but we use it for the cars. Mr. Strout: how many meters are there. Mrs. Varney: there are two, but there is a space for another one. I don' t think we should take the blame for what someone else has done or is doing. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: the main opposition is parking, they are only required to have five spaces and they have more. There is no proof that these people had anything to do with any illegal use of the property. I would be in favor if they maintain the parking. Also that it be owner occupied. Mr. Strout: is the work already done? Mrs. Varney: yes. Mr. Dore: where is the service for the third unit? Mrs Varney: on the first floor, we would like to have it separated. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant • the petition for a Special Permit to convert from a two family to a three family on condition there are at least seven on-site, non-piggy back, parking spaces maintained, access to parking area be hottopped, the premises must be owner occupied and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 15 Carlton St. - John E. Booth Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit from density and and parking requirements to allow a two family dwelling int his R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Booth represented himself. I bought this house with the understanding it at one time a two family house. There are eleven rooms. There is no parking now but I could turn the entire yard into parking area if necessary. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: he only needs a Special Permit, he has room for the three necessary parking spaces. I am in favor. Mr. Strout: I have no problem with this. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petitioner a Special Permit from density requirements to allow a two family dwelling on condition three on site, non-piggyback parking spaces be maintained towards the rear of the property and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 23 Charles St. - Adelbert St. Pierre Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit from any and all • density and setback requirements in order to construct an apartment above an existing garage in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , opposed. Mr. St. Pierre represented himself. I would like this apartment for a relative and maybe someday I would live there MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1986 page three 23 Charles St. - Continued • myself. There will be no college rentals. Only one bedroom, the apartment would be over the garage. He displayed plans of the proposed apartment. The house is a single family dwelling, a garrison. Speaking in favor: Adolph Avin, no address, in favor. Mr. St. Pierre, father of the petitioner, in favor. Speaking in opposition: Elaine Uram, 25 Charles St. , I am a phobic person, I need my privacy, it is very important to me. If this became a dwelling I could not handle it. She submitted a letter from Doris & Gordan Ryan,26 Charles St. , in opposition. Mr. Charnas read the letter (on file) . Mr. Charnas: is there any shrubbery between the garage and your house? Mrs. Uram: no. We looked for the right house for a long time and we finally found this place. I don' t' want a dwelling this close to my house. Dennis Uram, 25 Charles St. , I am also opposed because of the proximatey of the garage to my house. Mose of the homes in the area are single family. In rebuttal: Mr. St. Pierre, as far as parking, I ahave room in the front. The garage is right on the property, it was built in 1901 . Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I believe we will be voting for a Special Permit as the garage has been there since before 1965• The garage is nonconforming. I can appreciate the fact that the neighbor has a problem, this would be very close to their home, she does have a phobia so I would be opposed to granting this. Mr. Strout: I agree, it is too close to their house. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow construction of an apartment above an existing garage on condition three parking spaces be maintained, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. The unanimously voted against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED. • 18 Ocean Ave. - Edward Gilmartin Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , opposed because property is not in compliance with laws relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Gilmartin represented himself. He submitted a petition in favor and a letter from the Assessors stating the property is currently being assessed as a three family. Mr. Charnas read the petition and noted it was signed by twenty (20) neighbors and abutters. This has been used as three family singe 1974. Mr. Charnas: is there any evidence it was used as three family prior to 1965? No. Speaking in favor: Jay Burnham, 22 Summit St. , Mr. Gilmartin has fixed the house up, has increased the value of the property. Councillor Nutting: He has the necessary parking, he has added a dormer, I am concerned about about two families being converted to condominiums, I have no objection to this being granted. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: will you live there? Mr. Gilmartin: yes. Mr. Charnas: how many parking spaces do you have? Mr. Gilmartin: six. Mr. Charnas: did you buy this as a three family? Mr. Gilmartin: yes. Mr. Charnas: it was a two family prior to 1965, this makes it nonconforming. No problem with Special Permit. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition the premises remain owner occupied, six on site parking spaces be maintained and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1986 page four 7 Pickman Rd. - Ralph Lipsett • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit from any and all density and setbacks \ / to redivide properties at 5 & 7 Pickman Rd. which' is locatedin an R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , opposed because property is not in compliance with laws relative to installation of smoke detectors. Attorney Ellen Flately represented the petitioner. All we want to do is move a lot line so the garage will go with the house at number 5 Pickman, they are the ones who use it. This will make one lot larger, one lot smaller. Number 5 uses the garage and it should be on the same lot. There will be no construction. Speaking in favor: Mr. Lipsett, father of the petitioner. Carol Corbett, 9 Pickman Rd. , Robert Turner, 202 Loring Ave. , Councillor Nutting. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: would, like to see shrubs. Mr. Lipsett: there are shrubs there already. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition a Certificate of Compliance be obtained and lots be redivided is strict accordance with plans submitted. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 410, 412 Loring Ave./3 Riverview St. - Michael & Josephine Fusco Mr. Serafini, Attorney for the petitioners addressed the Board, he requested a continuance of this petition to give them time to speak with some of the neighbors. Mr. Charnas made a• motion to continue this petition until the February 26, 1986 hearing, Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, .1986 • The discussed the purchase of two typewriters; one for the Clerk of the Board and one to be used in the Building Dept. Mr. Charnas made a motion to appropriate One Thousand Thirty-Six dollars to purchase two typewriters. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUS Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday, February 26, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, o Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk Ctu of "Salem, cettssuchusetts r ' Puxra of �1p}ienl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - FEBRUARY 26, 1986 A public hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, February 26, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Notices of the hearing were duly published in the Salem Evening News on February 12, i9, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Bencal, Charnas, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Members bore and LaBrecque Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman,James Hacker. Mr. Luzinski would not be voting on the first petition. Mr. LaBrecque was appointed a voting Member. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes of the July 17, 1985 and the January 15, 1986 meeting. Mr. Strout seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 3 White St. - Robert Ouellette Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to reconstruct a two story building and to add a third story within the same footprint in this B-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department, no objection. Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , represented the petitioner. This story reminds me of a fairy tale that winds up a nightmare. Mr. Ouellette bought this house the the understanding he could get a building permit, which he did, he obtained a permit for renovations to a two family building. He began construction and found that most of the building was in serious disrepair. Not being very sophisticated he was not aware of a clause in the Zoning Ordinance which states that should a structure be destoyed by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent of its replacement cost, or more than fifty percent of floor area, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with this Ordinance. I question the interpretation regarding the way the building was destroyed. In Swampscott, I know that this only applies if something was damaged or destroyed by catastrophy. This was not destroyed by catastrophy. He started to renovate and found he had to demolish, this was not destroyed by accident. The Building Inspector put a cease and desist order on the property. He displayed renderings of the proposed building. Mr. Ouellette would like to add to the building and put up a deck, the deck would connect with second story. The building will be a three story duplex. He displayed pictures of the property and of the area, he pointed out the three story buildings in the area. This will be in harmony with the area. He then displayed pictures of the building before construction began. He read, then submitted a letter from Margaret Harrington, 4 Blaney St. , in favor and submitted a petition signed by eight neighbors and abutters in favor. This is our third time here, we did have a number of people to speak in favor of this, but I don' t know if they are here —� tonight. Speaking in favor: Robert Rumps'. 1 Derby St. , this was a slum, as a construction engineer I can say the building was structurally unsound, as a resident there, the place was just a dump, discusting. Then someone comes along and cleans it up and something like this happens, it makes me angry, a three story can' t bother anyone. One gentleman from Derby St. whose name was not recorded spoke in favor, saying that Derby Street was becoming a slum and now it is slowly coming back, Mr. Ouellette should be able to do what he has asked MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 1986 page two 3 White St. - Continued • to do. This would fit with the neighborhood, there are three story buildings everywhere. George Sherman, 4 Prince Street Place, I have known Mr. Ouellette a long time, any work he does will be quality work and will add to the neighbor- hood and the City of Salem. I would be very disappointed if this Board did not see the larger view point of this. Speaking in opposition: Councillor Martineau: Councillor Nowak is also opposed and was supposed to be here. Mr. Hacker: we cannot consider his opposition unless he is here of unless we have a letter. Mr. Martineau: I understand. I am here representing the VFW, 95 Derby St. , the Board of Directors. We are not against him fixing up the building, we are against the way this building was renovated and we are against the increase in height. He did not contact us until he was stopped by the Building Inspector. We do not see any hardship. He does not plan to live in this building. We are concerned with the future of our own building, this would decrease the value of our building. We have a responsibility to maintain good property values. We are sorry he found out he had to demolish but he should have known when he bought the property. We are not against renovations, just against increasing the height. Dolores Jordan, 97 Derby St. , I am opposed to the plans. It was through my petition to the City Council to have this building renovated. He did not have a permit to demolish. He says is was a two family, it was all family that lived there, basically it was never a two family. Buildings on this street should be maintained in there original style. He did not have permit he does not have hardship. This size lot cannot accomodate a house this size. Parking is proplem. Impact on our neighborhood has been severe, it is a densly populated area. We are in favor of renovating • the building as it existed, lets keep this building and maintain it as a cottage. Therese McGrail, 6 White St. , I agree with the Jordans, I am opposed to the construction of the three story. It was the not the footprint to be a three story. The parking situation is disastrous, very dangerous situation. We hope we will be heard on this. Ed Luzinski, VFW, we have been concerned with that building for many years. For many years it was just one family. We were happy to see someone buy this and renovate it. Wen we found out that it was going to be a three family we were concerned. The lot is very small. Parking is a serious problem. Alice Jordan, 6 White Street, concerned with parking, would like to keep it as a cottage. Phil Verrette, President VFW, Bob Terrio, VFW, opposed, concerned with parking, it is very crowded area, this was a single family in the seventys. In Rebuttal: Attorney Vallis, a lot has been said by the opposition, we met with the members of the VFW and they were very nice, I made my pitch and waited for their response, they did not discuss anything,, I felt like I was talking to a wall. I don' t understand their concern regarding the height. Seems to me they are saying, don' t let him build anything, make it the way it was. There was a building permit issued. We are allowed to build to a height of 35 feet and we are not going that high. I contend that the building was not destroyed by catastrophy, more that 50% was taken down. The footprint will not change. We are here because we are putting on the deck. We do not have two parking spaces but this will not exacerbate the parking situation. Mr. Munroe, Inspector of Buildings: I agree with Mr. Vallis, the Ordinance says that are permitted up to 35 feet in height, this is not an issue. This is an existing two family and to the best of my knowledge it is a permitted use in a B-1 district. I have a problem with the deck. As far as reconstruction, • there are plans on file, the plans were to remodel, not to rebuild. The Ordinance says that it the building is more than 50% destroyed for any reason it can only be rebuilt in accordance with the Ordinance. Mr. Ouellette MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 1986 page three 3 White St. - Continued ' purchased the property it did not seem as bad as it was, he started work and ran into problems. If it is, in fact, a two family, the parking is not an issue. My problem is, the Ordinance clearly states if the building is more than 50% destroyed it must be rebuilt according to todays regulations and this is beyond the 50%, I also have a problem with expanding the building. Mr. Hacker: the Ordinance says by any means. Mr. Charnas: I am confused about the parking. I am against this because it is such a small lot, it is a very densly populated area and there is no parking. Mr. Bencal: is Mr. Ouellette a builder? Mr. Vallis: he is a carpenter. Also, there is a letter on file from the City Solicitor that says he can go from a one family to a two family by Special Permit. Mr. Bencal: when he bought this building, couldn' t he see it needed all this work? Mr. Vallis: you can look at a house and know it needs some work, but you don' t know whats underneath until you get started tearing into the walls. Mr. Hacker: he has a right to build up to 35 feet, but where he is expanding and he has no parking, I have a problem with this. This is being expanded, doesn' t that call for a Variance. Mr. Vallis: no, it is already nonconforming so it is a Special Permit. Mr. Hacker: if we grant this we will be making this lot more congested. I also have a problem with the deck. Mr. Strout: I am against the deck. Mr. Vallis: we would be willing to leave out the deck. Parking is not an issue. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant this petition on condition no deck be built. Mr. Bencal seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. SPECIAL PERMIT UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 394 Highland Ave. - Michael Stasinos • This petition was continued from the November 11 , 1985 and December 4, 1985 hearing. The hearing is already closed. Mr. Hacker made note of correspondence that has been received but as the hearing is closed said correspondence is not admissable. This petition was continued to allow petitioner time to work with the Planning Board and to give the Planning Board time to make recommendations. Mr. Charnas read the report from Mr. Kavanaugh, the Planning Director, which covered the concerns with traffic,. zoning, land use, neighborhood concerns and the exact definition of the proposal. Mr. Kavanaugh concluded this report by stating he could not recommend the approval of the variances requested, and recommended petitioner be allowed to withdraw. ( report on file) Attorney Jack Keilty requested a continuance stating that several of Mr. Kavanaughs concerns could be addressed in a timely manner. We have withdrawn three times in the past. I would reiterate that we are properly before this Board and I know that Councillor O' Leary does not agree. I believe this Board can put conditions on. Mr. Hacker: how long would it take to address all these issues? Mr. Keilty: I think we can to di by March 19th. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Kavanaugh if he could do it by then. Mr. Kavanaugh: the pressure is on the applicant. I do have a problem with this being continued. Mr. Charnas: I would be opposed to continuing this, I think this work should have been done before coming before this Board. Mr. Strout: I would like to see them get together with the neighbors. Mr. Hacker: it would be to your advantage to withdraw, this is a four man Board, if one votes against continuing we would have to vote. Mr. Keilty requested leave to withdraw. Mr. Charnas made a motion to allow petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. • Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski and Strout voted in favor of withdrawal. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN MINUtES - FEBRUARY 26, 1986 page four • 7 Winter St. - Sally Flint This request for a Variance to allow premises to be used as a lodging house/inn has been continued from the January 15, 1986 hearing to allow the Board Members to view the property. The members sitting on this petition are Messrs. , Bencal, Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski and Associate Member LaBrecque. The hearing is closed, no additional testimony will be taken. Mr. Luzinski: this is a beautiful house, its like the houses on Chestnut Street. They are making the third floor available for lodgers. I think this is something that Salem needs, will give visitors a chance to go to a place and see some fine architecture, just a magnificant house. There is also plenty of parking and still room for a nice garden. Mr. Hacker: I agree, a lot of care has gone into this place. I think a bed and breakfast is a good idea. This would be a good opportunity to do a service for Salem. There is ample parking. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem with hardship, just the cost of heating makes it impractical as single family or two family. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition there by no letting of rooms until a Certificate of Occupancy has been obtained and they are licensed by the Licensing Board, a maximum of ten ( 10) rooms to be let, a minimum of fifteen (15) on site parking spaces be maintained, no meals other than continental breakfast be served and premises remain owner occupied. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 9-11 Ocean Terrace - Mark Liptak Petitioner is requesting modification of a Special Permit granted September 10, 1980 allowing premises to be used as a three family in this R-1 district. Mr. Hacker • appointed Associate Member Dore as a voting member. Mr. Charnas read the application. There was no letter from the Fire Dept. Due to a clerical error by the Clerk for the Board of Appeal, the notice to Fire Dept. gave the address as Ocean Ave. rather than Ocean Terrace and the Fire Dept. unknowingly went to the wrong address. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner. He explained that the original Special Permit was granted to Martha Sanders and it was conditioned upon her continued ownership of the property. The condition was specifically that it be her that owned the property, not just be owner occupied. Since that time she has married and she deeded the house to her husband, Mark Liptak. All we want changed is to have Special Permit say owner occupied, not specifically that it must be her that owns it. They ran into problem with they applied for mortgage. Tecnically she sold the house, even though it is to her husband. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition a Certificate of Compliance be obtained, premises remain owner occupied, at no time shall more than a total of seven (7) persons use this property as a residence or the property shall revert to its former status as a two family and at no time shall those persons occupying this propery own, lease, or have available to them for general use more than a combined total of four (4) vehicles or the property shall revert to its former status as a two family. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 103 Highland Ave. - William & Thomas Katsepetsas Attorney George Vallis addressed the Board and requested Leave to Withdraw. He was allowed to do so. Hearing had not commenced so no vote was necessary. WITHDRAWN MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 1986 page five • 15 Hancock St. —Mary Lou Sorgini Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow premises to be used as a three family in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , opposed because the occupancy is not in compliance will law relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Sorgini represented himself and Mrs. Sorgini. Confused about the letter from the Fire Dept. , we have smoke detectors. Mr. Hacker explained that they may have them, but the Fire Dept. doesn' t know they do, they should call Fire Prevention and arrange for a Certificate of Compliance. Mr. Sorgini: this is a three family, it was a three family when I bought it and before, it has always been a three family. We went to get a. third meter, the Electrical Dept. wouldn' t give us one because we couldn' t prove it was a three family. No one appeared in favor. Mr. Ben Brodeur, 14 Hancock St. , I just have a question, if this is an R-2 district, why are there three families in the area? Mr. Hacker explained there were a number of reasons, some may have been there prior to 1965, may have come to the Board of Appeal. Maureen Brodeur, 14 Hancock St. , if this is already .a three family, why are we here? Mr. Hacker: to allow it to remain a three family, it is presently an 'illegal three family. Mr. Brodeur, so if we opposed this we could stop them from having a three family and they would have to move a family out, I have no opposition. Mr. Charnas: how much parking do you have? Mr. Sorgini: I have room for six (6) cars. Mr. Bencal: that is plenty, you need five. Are there two means of egress? Mr. Sorgini: yes. Mr. Hacker: I have no problem with this, should maintain and define five (5) parking spaces and get a Certificate of'Occupancy for each apartment. Mr. 'Strout: how do you enter the garage? Mr. Sorgini: I have driveway. Mr. Charnas: I would be opposed if the petitioner had put in the third apartment, but as this is not the • case, I would be in favor. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition a Certificate of Compliance be obtained, a Certificate of Occupance for each apartment be obtained, five .(5) on site parking spaces be main- tained and defined, plan for parking be submitted to the Board, the premises be owner occupied. Mr. Strout seconded. The Board by a vote of four to one, Mr. Bencal voted against the motion, granted the Special Permit. GRANTED 459 Highland Ave. ' - Charles & Alexander Hincman Petitioners are requesting an extension of a Special Permit granted August 22, 1984 which allowed the premises to be used for the display, sale, installation & service of miscellaneous truck equipment and accessories and to conduct a welding and light to medium fabricating shop in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a letter from Councillor O' Leary, in favor and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney John Serafini Sr. , represented the petitioners. I am sure those of you that were on the Board at the time this was granted will remember this case. One of the conditions was a years trial to see if there were any problems. He submitted a copy of the site plan. Mr. Fiore owns the property, the Hincmans rent a portion of building from him. To my knowledge there have never been any complaints with the operation and the way it has been conducted. He has done everything in compliance with the Special Permit. We are here tonight to simply get an extension of this Special Permit which was good for only one year. Speaking in favor: Charles Hincman, hope the Board will let me continue using this for my business. He submitted a letter from Councillor Frances Grace in • favor. Debra Hincman, in favor; Tom Burke, 2 Berube Road, in favor. Speaking in opposition. Ted Wlodyka, 137 Derby St. , would like to ask question, I own land that abuts this land. Can someone who leases land petition the Board. Mr. Hacker: it is his business, he has the right to come to the Board. Mr. Wldoyka: I would MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 1986 page six • 459 Highland Ave. - Continued like to see the dimensions of the property. He then looked over the plans. I am not here to necessarily oppose the plan, I think Mr. Fiore is infringing on my land. Mr. Hacker: If Mr. Fiore is infringing on your land, that would be a legal problem, we are interested in any opposition you might have to Mr. Hincman's business being run there. Mr. Wlodyka: no opposition to Mr. Hincman but still think Mr. Fiore is infringing. Mr. Dore: are you doing any welding outdoors? Mr. Hincman: no, one of the conditions on the permit was no outside welding. Mr. Charnas: should we condition it upon only be operated by Mr. Hincman. Mr. Hacker: don' t think we can do that, we could limit the time again. Can put tight controls. Could you live with a five year time limit? Mr. Serafini: would prefer it be conditioned upon Mr. Hincman running the operation. Mr. Hincman: I am concerned about the display, I would like some outside display. Could take it in at night. Mr. Hacker: I would have no problem with releasing him from the condition that says no outside display, the man has shown good faith. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested on condition the petition is extended for a period of ten (10) years from the date the decision is filed and there be no welding, sandblasing or fabricating of any type done outside the building. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 342' Bridge St. - John Spinale Petitioner is requesting a Variance from density, height, lot size, lot coverage and any and all applicable setbacks in order to complete construction of building • in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. opposed. Mr. Hacker: there seems to be a question as to whether we can hear this petition, this property was before the Board in September 1984. It is my opinion that, we can as the last petition was for an administrative ruling. Mr. Charnas: I agree, this is completely different. Attorney Neil Tobin, 19 North St. , Salem, repesented the petitioner. We are attempting to resolve this problem. The primary objection to this building was that it was going to house a food business which would generate traffic. This is no longer the case. He displayed a lease for Kitchen Facelift. This business does not generate traffic. What we hope to do is get this building completed. We have half a building con- structed and it is no good to anybody. We have a potential lessee. As far as the letter from the Fire Department is concerned, Mr. Spinale does deal with junk dealers and he fixes junk cars. I would certainly encourage him to those autos. He told me that every car there is a customer car and he has made arrangement to have rubbish collected regularly. We respectfully ask this petition be granted so we can put this behind us. Norman LaPointe, Fire Inspector: how many cars are on the property right now. Mr. Spinale: about 25 to 30. Mr. LaPointe: this evening I counted forty two (42) . There were engined in full view, unregistered cars, as stated in my letter to the Board, we have sent notices to Mr. Spinale to remedy violations and he has been less than cooperative. He has a license to run a repair garage, he does not have a junk license. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Councillor John Nutting, this is a disgrace, Bridge St. is one of the main entrances into the City and this is a blight. It is a junk yard there. He should withdraw and come back when he cleans up his act. Mr. Tobin: I can' t rebut that, it is an eyesore, coming to the Board tonight is an attempt to clean • up his act. Mr. Bencal: I am amazed that a property owner would allow his property to get into this shape. It is a main entrance into the City and it is an eyesore, this problem has been going on for years now. Mr. Strout: what about the unregistered cars, are you dealing with junk yards? Mr. Spinale: no, used car MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 1986 page seven 342' Bridge St. - Continued • lots. Mr. Charnas: I think this should be continued for a period of time and see if petitioner cleans up his act, if he does, I would be more favorable inclined. Mr. Hacker: I am sure if we continued this for say ninety days, I am sure he would clean it up but I am concerned he would not keep it cleaned up. The Building Inspector, both the present and the former, have asked Mr. Spinale to secure the building. Is the building secured now? Mr. Spinale: we have problem with vandals. I have a problem with hardship, whatever hardship is there I think he made himself. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the request for Variances as requested. Mr. Dore seconded. The Board unanimously, 5-0, voted against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 60 Proctor St. - Robert Cohn Petitioner is requesting a Variance from any and all applicable density and setbacks in order to construct a two car garage with an apartment above in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and letters from the Fire Dept. , objection because property does not comply with smoke detector requirements, and from Councillor O' Leary, in favor. Attorney Neil Tobin, 19 North St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. My client came before the Board a short time ago and there was some question because he owned the abutting lot, he withdrew his petition and since then he has conveyed the lot to his children. He does not need a big house any more. His older daughter will live in the house on the adjoining lot and he will live in the apartment above the garage. He displayed plans to the Board. Mr. Charnas: what would the hardship be? Mr. Tobin: he owns this lot and there is nothing he • can do with it. Mr. Bencal: the lot has no value as it is. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem with this. I think there is a hardship and I would be in favor. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant Variances requested on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 410, 412 Loring Ave./3 Riverview St. - Michael & Josephine Fusco Petitioners are requesting Variances to allow division of property into three lots, Lot A B & C and to construct single family dwelling on Lot C in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. He also read letters from Gerard Kavanaugh, Planning Director and Councillor O'Leary, both in favor. Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , represented the petitioners. This petition, as you know, was continued from the February 19th meeting. The reason we asked for a continuance was because of the concerns expressed by two of the neighbors. Thought we could get together with them. We did meet with the Hurwitzes and he was satisfied that this would not be detrimental. We asked to get together with the Madores but they did not wish to meet with me. He displayed site plans to the Board and the assemblage. I have petition and letters in favor which I will submit at the conclusion of my presentation. The proposed single family house will conform to the neighborhood. The front yard depth will be 22' and almost 60 feet in the rear. Most of the lots in the area are undersized lots. At one time all three lots conformed. Mr. Charnas: what is on lots A & B now? Mr. Serafini: there are houses on these lots, Mr. & Mrs. Fusco live in on home, they plan to build a single family on lot C and live there themselves. If you are • familiar with Loring Ave. , you know that as you turn into Riverview St. there is a steep incline. He showed on the plans the location of the Madore's house. The Madore's house is quite a bit higher. This is a very singular lot. The issue is, what affect will it have as far as allowing a single family. There is a shortage of building lots in the City. If a lot can be built on without detracting from the surrounding lots, I don' t see whiy it should not be built: They will put ' MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 1986 page six 410, 412 Loring Ave. & 3 Riverview St. - Continued their garage underneath the house. There is no possible way the view from the house of the Madores could be affected. He submitted petitions signed in favor. Mr. Charnas read the petition signed by 12 neighbors and abutters, letter from Councillor Grace, in favor, letter from Everette & Noreen Buckley, 9 Ceder View St. , and a letter from Norman & Elizabeth Bishop, 2 Cedarview St. both in favor. The obtaining of signatures of neighbors has very little legal affect but from the stand point of getting the feel of the neighborhood the Board should take into account the feelings of people who live there. That is what this Board is interested in. I have an engineer who has surveyed the property and walked the property many times. Mr. Erle Townsend, T & M Engineering, he explained in detail the topography of this land. The Madore's house has an elevation of about 26 - 30 feet above this land. Their view from this house would not overlook this proposed dwelling, their house does not face this property. There is a sharp change in elevation. There are many lots in the area that are undersized. Mr. Serafini: to change the lots in this way would enable the petitioner to add over two thousand feet of land to lot C. Speaking in favor: Councillor John Nutting: this will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Across the street is conservation land and no houses will be there. We have a petitioner here who lives in Salem and the rest of here family lives in Salem. They have a chance to help their children by providing them with a place to live and I think it is good to be able to keep the young people in Salem. Mr. & Mrs. Fusco both spoke in favor. Mr. & Mrs. Giorski, 410 Loring Ave. spoke in favor. Speaking in opposition. Attorney Michael McCarron, Danvers, representing John & Mary Madore, 3 Cedarview St. , my clients feel they will be dramatically impacted by this, this would exacerbate a congested area, would add • to the traffic. I don' t think. the criteria for variance has been met, this would be detrimental, it is true their house is on a hill, but that has nothing to do with putting another house there. Riverview St. is a narrow road and it would be dangerous to put a driveway there. Mr. Charnas: are there any other undersized lots in the area? Mr. McCarron: I don' t think so. In Rebuttal: Attorney Serafini, there are three lots involved, one dwelling will not exacerbate anything. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: how old are these retaining walls? Mr. Townsend, on the lower side 30 to 40 years, they are still in good shape. Mr. Bencal: so they have not been constructed in the past few years. Mr. Townsend: no. Mr. Charnas: I don' t now what other use they could make of this property. As far as the distance from the house, it is far enough away, there is a lot of open space. I don' t think it is a congested area. I would be in favor. I might consider some shrubs. Mr. Strout: Shrubs are not necessary, the retaining walls are the lot lines. Mr. Charnas: I would be in favor. Mr. Hacker: this is a pleasant surprise, a petitioner coming for a single family home, no problem with parking. I think they have been considerate of the neighbors. There is nothing else to be done with the land, the house will be all on one floor. I would be in favor. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variance requested to construct a single family dwelling and divide lots as shown on plans on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. , next scheduled meeting to be held March.-19y,1956 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully Cssuuubb/m"iitt/e/dd Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk . 1 01T# J of Salem, 'Mttssur4usetts Poxra of 4vzal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - MARCH 19, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, March 19, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of the hearing were duly published in the Salem Evening News on March 5, 12, 1985 and notice of said hearing were sent to abutters and other interested persons. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski and Strout. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman James Hacker. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes of the February 19, 1986 hearing, Mr. Luzinski seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 13 Crescent Drive - Richard Watkins (petitioner) , Ugo DiBiase (Owner) Petitioner is requesting variances from dimensional requirements in order to divide lot into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on each lot in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney Richard Stafford, 222 Essex St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. The lots in question are located in the Witchcraft Heights area. The subdivision was approved and at that time the lot size require- ment was 7,000 square feet. These lots would have been buildable, then the zoning changed. They became nonconforming in 1981 . Most of the lots in the subdivision were developed for single family dwellings, these lots remained undeveloped because of the topography, there is a large outcropping of ledge. The area is becoming subjection to vandalism, there is much glass in the area and it has become a dumping ground. My client proposes to build two single family homes. There will be little or no blasting done. The land will be filled, the basement will be on a slab. Mr. Stafford introduced Mr. Watkins to the Board to have him explain what he was going to do. Mr. Watkins: basically we want to build and live there. Because of the size of the lots we have to come to the Board. He displayed pictures of the lot. There is a rock in the center, we will do nothing with the rock, just try to dress it up, maybe make it garden area. He submitted a petition signed by nineteen ( 19) abutters and neighbors in favor. Mr. Stafford showed on the Assessors map, the neighbors that signed the petition. Mr. Stafford: we need a variance from lot size, lot frontage on lot 513 and variance from rear setbacks on both lots. To grant this the Board must be shown hardship and I believe the pictures substantiate this fact. There is an extreme topograpy problem, the ledge and the rock. There is nothing under the permitted uses or Special Permit uses that these lots could be used for. Due to the topography the land is virtually useless and will continue continue to be a blight on the neighborhood unless building is allowed there. This is a very beneficial use for the property. He submitted a packet to the Board containing copy of the Assessors map, copies of other similar decisions in other cities and towns (on file) . Speaking in favor: Councillor O' Leary, since I took office, I have received a lot of calls regarding the debris on that lot, the glass, the dumping etc. , I •, have called the owner to try to get him to clean this up. This proposal will solve a big problem in the neighborhood. I understand there is an easement there. Mr. Stafford: yes there is a drain easement. Speaking in opposition: Attorney DeCoulas, 248 Andover St. , Peabody, I am representing the Madsons who live at 6 South Street, the property directly abutting in the rear. This lot as it is C� MINUTES - MARCH 16, 1986 page two • 13 Crescent Drive - Continued now conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. We now have a lot that we can build one house on, that would take care of all the problems with the blight to the neighbor- hood. My client is not interested in have two homes build there. The petitioner could get a building permit to put one house there. I have heard no hardship. There is room for one house and it would comply with the Ordinance. I would appreciate a copy of the decision when it is ready. In Rebuttal: Mr. Stafford: I disagree with Mr. DeCoulas, this lot would not meet todays zoning even for one house, and putting only one house there would not alleviate the problem of dumping, it would continue to exist. He showed on the plot plan that even one house would require a variance. He showed the Board, on the Assessors Map, where the Madsens house was located in proximatey to the proposed dwellings, it will be approximately 150 feet from the house on lot 514, which would be the closer house. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: looking at the configuration of the lot, I agree it would take a variance even with one house on the lot. I don' t see any hardship on any of the abutters if this were granted. We have the opportunity to do somethink positive for the City. I could vote in favor of this petition. Mr. Strout: Have you done any digging on the lot? Mr. Watkins: we are building up, the basement would be on top, we will not build into the hill and we will not dig into the ground. We will bring in fill if we have to. Mr. Charnas: would you clarify, is it one lot or is it two lots? Mr. Stafford: they were two lots at one time, but now, the lot line has disappeared and it is one lot. Mr. Charnas: I would be in favor of one single family home, there is definitely a hardship. I think giving a varaince for two will increase the profit but I don' t think it is justified. Mr. Bencal: I disagree, this is very pecularly shaped lot and I think two single family homes is the best utilization of this lot. I think requiring 15,000 sq. ft. is unreasonable for a city this size. They were two separate lots at one time. Mr. Strout: I agree with Mr. Bencal, with only one house on the lot it would be hard to maintain, it lends itself better to two lots, I have no problem with this petition. Mr. Hacker: ordinarily I would agree with Mr. Charnas, but I think putting one house on that lot would make it hard to keep up, I would be in favor. Mr. Luzinski: the other house lots in the area are about the same size. Mr. Charnas made a motiong to grant the variances requested on condition a Certificate of Occupancy for both dwellings be obtained, plans be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau showing smoke detectors, proper numbering from the Assessors be obtained, all laws, ordinances, and regulations of both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Salem, pertaining to fire safety be adhered to. Mr. Strout seconded. The Board granted the variances by a vote of four to one, Mr. Charnas voted present. GRANTED 6 Oakview Ave. - Susan Gauthier Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a special permit to extend an already nonconforming side setback in order to construct an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, letters from five abutters, Dorothy Rioux, 8 Oakview Ave. ; Mr. & Mrs. Edward Urbanski, 8 Intervale Rd. , Mr. & Mrs. Paul Erwin, 6 Intervale Rd. , Mr. Louis Zanthaky, 484 Loring Ave. , Mr. & Mrs. Stamos, 466 Loring Ave. , all in favor. He read a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Ms. Gauthier represented herself, she displayed pictures of the house. We want to build an addition which will consist of a bedroom and kitchen. We are just extending the side line setback which is already too close, 7 ft. from property line. We have plenty of room in the rear. .,i MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1986 page three • 6 Oakview Ave. - Continued i Speaking in favor, Irene Broh, 3 Oakview Ave. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: this is relatively simple, we have an opportunity to help someone who lives in Salem to be able to stay in Salem by adding to their home. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the special permit requested on condition plans are provided for approval to the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to the issuance of a building permit, showing any changes and/or modifications to the smoke detector configuration which may be necessary, the property is in compliance with City Ordinance relative to the proper numbering of buildings and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 12 Willow Ave. - Raymond E. Emery Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family to a three family in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, letter from the Fire Dept. and a letter from the Zoning Enforcement Officer stating it is his opinion that to convert to a three family in an R-1 district requires a Variance not a Special Permit. Mr. Charnas: before we begin any discussion I think we should decide whether a Variance or a Special Permit is needed. It is my opinion that it does need a Variance. Mr. Vallis: this Board, in the past has granted Special Permits for this, it is extending nonconforming use. Mr. Hacker: If we did, unknowingly, grant these and we were in error and the prior Building Inspector agreed with our decisions does not mean we should keep doing it. The present . Building Inspector disagrees, I think we should get an opinion from the City Solicitor. Mr. Charnas: I agree and I make a motion to continue this petition until the April 16, 1986 hearing to allow the Board to get a legal opinion from our City Solicitor. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that the petition has been continued and would not be re-advertised and they would not be notified. This will be the first petition on the agenda. 5 Barnes Circle - Joseph D. Miraglia Petitioner is requesting variances to allow a parcel of land to be divided into three lots in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney Goodof, Beverly, represented the petitioner. This was originally four lots, it has now become one lot. What we want to do is make this three lots, lot A having 5700 square feet, Lot B 6800 sq.ft, and Lot C 7500 sq. ft. This Board has the authority to do this. He submitted a copy of the street showing the original four lots. We would still have to go to the Planning Board. My client bought these with the intention of building homes for his family. He could not, at that time, do it financially. What we have now is a lot created by law in an area that is exclusively 5,000 sq. ft. lots. The lot is being used as a ball park. My clients children are older and he would like to divide this into the lots he though he had and build on them. The only difference is instead of the original four lots, he would have three. He will put in modular homes. This lot is completely out of place in this . neighborhood. It is a financial drain. It will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the ordinance. Everything else up there is the same size. MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1986 page four • 5 Barnes Circle - Continued Speaking in favor, Leo Perrone, 6 Barnes Circle. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem with this. Mr. Bencal: most of the lots would be considerably smaller. This large a lot is out of place there. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variances requested on condition a Certificate of occupancy for each dwelling be obtained, all conditions mentioned in the correspondence from the Fire Dept. be adhered to and made part of the decision, Planning Board approval be obtained prior to building permit being issued. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 32 Forest Ave. - James McDonnell (Petitioner) , Diane Rhatigan (Owner) Petitioner is requesting a variance from any and all density and setback require- ments and a variance from minimum parking requirements to divide parcel of land to allow construction of a two family dwelling on one lot and to allow an existing two family on the second lot. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property was not in compliance with laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors. Attorney John Keilty, Peabody, represented the petitioner. My client is under a Purchase and Sale Agreement. He needs a variance from lot area and width on lot 194, and also width on lot 192. I would point out on the diagram of the area that this would be similar to the other lots in the area. It would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and it does not derogate from the intent of the ordinance. This additional two family makes good • sense. Apartments are important to any city. Mr. McDonnell is here, he has had success and has been a good landlord. Speaking in favor: Robert Auger, 17 Hersey St. , how far will he be from my property. He came and looked at the map. Forty feet is fine. Roland Dumais, 34 Forest Ave. , Diane Rhatigan, 32 Forest Ave. Councillor John Nutting, will there be a paved driveway. Yes. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: you asked for Variance from parking yet you have parking. Mr. Keilty: I think my client was just trying to cover all the bases. Mr. Charnas: what is the hardship? Mr. Keilty: this lot is twice the size of the other lots in the area and to divide this way would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Hacker: normally I would be in favor as long as they maintained the parking but I am concerned with this being so close to the college, also, in the past we have maintained the property should be owner occupied. Mr. Bencal: I agree, we have here a builder who has indicated he may only own the property for a few months. The proximatey to the college makes this a proplem area. I would be inclined to vote against it because it is not owner occupied. Mr. Charnas: I would be against it because, again, I see no hardship, it is just an attempt to make profit, there is a definite lack of hardship. I would be opposed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 46 Charles St. - William & Constance Willis Petitioners are requesting a Variance from any and all applicable density and •` setbacks in order to convert a three car garage into a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property was not in compliance relative to smoke detectors. MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1986 page five . 46 Charles St. - Continued Attorney John Crean, 30 Main St. Peabody, represented the petitioners. My clients are natives of Salem, they now live in Marblehead. They do not need this garage for storage. The Building Inspector said a Variance was needed although this is a nonconforming building. It has never been used as a dwelling. This will bring it into conformance with the Ordinance. They propose to convert this to a single family dwelling with two bedrooms for his son who will be getting married shortly. The roof line will remain the same, building will be clabboard. If will fit with the other buildings in the area. Need relief from lot area, width, setbacks and front yard. There is ample room for parking on the lot. They will construct a driveway so that two cars can be parked side by side. This would improve the appearance of this corner. This was built by the original owner for parking of his cars. It has been vandalized because it is not being utilized. My clients have talked with the abutters and they are very supportive. Would be an improvement to the present building. The lot size is not out of conformity with the other houses on Charles St. . He displayed a registry of deeds street maps showing the other lots in the area, they are all about the same size. Speaking in favor: Councillor John Nutting, I have not been asked to speak for this, I was informed by petitioners about this. This lot does back up into a parking lot and there is a lot of foot traffic. I have no objection to this, it is good to see young people coming to the City. No one appeared in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: who is parking there now? Mr. Crean: no one, it is used for storage and they no longer need it for that purpose. Mr. Strout: what did you say the exterior finish would be? Mr. Crean: wood clab- board, both houses next to it are wood clabboard so it will fit in, the present • structure will be the building. Mr. Hacker: this is something that can only be a plus for the neighborhood. I would want a condition that parking be maintained and it be owner occupied. Mr. Charnas: I would be in favor, I think there is a hardship because there is no viable use for this garage in this area, I think it is a Special Permit no a Variance, but as there is no problem with hardship and the building inspector is not here to ask why he thinks it is a Variance, I have no problem voting on it as a Variance. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variance requested on condition it be owner occupied, conform with the plans submitted to the Board, two on site parking spaces be maintained, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained and all conditions set forth in the communication from the Fire Dept. be adhered and made part of the decision. (on file) Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 18 Brown St. Robert Welch & William Lundregran (petitioners) Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used professional, non-professional and non-retail offices in this R-2 district. The property is presently owned by George Haskell & Karen Lawrence and occupied by Spectrum Training Corporation. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating the property was not in compliance with laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors. He also read letters from John Davidson, Chairman of the Building Committee for St. Peters Church, 24 St. Peter St. ; Councillor George Nowak, Ward 1 and Councillor Leonard O'Leary, Ward IV, all in favor. Attorney George Vallis, 1 Church St. , Salem represented the • petitioners. I am pleased to be here representing my brother attornies Mr. Welch and Mr. Lundregan, they are both held in high esteem here in Salem. The property is nonconforming in use and at one time it was the YWCA. It was taken over by Spectrum under Section 8 which says one nonconforming use may be changed to / MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1986 page six . 18 Brown-St. - Continued another nonconforming use. This change is of a more appropriate nature. This particular use the petitioner proposes is more appropriate that what was there. As far as parking is concerned, there are twenty spaces in the rear of the property. The building itself is probably one of the best examples of architecture and integrity of the inside has remained unchanged. It is a very attractive building. It would be unreasonable for this building to become residential. The architectural integrity will remain and will be improved on. I have known these gentlemen for years, he submitted a brief resume of the members of their law firm (on file) . They have been located in the Naumkeag building for a number of years, because of changes in the bank, the bank is expanding and they are going to remove the elevators. My clients are on the fifth floor and need elevators. They will be investing a substantial amount of money but they will not destroy the interior. They will do extensive landscaping and will repair the fence. Will improve parking area in the back. I am please to see they are going to stay in Salem. These will be professional offices and non-professional offices, what is a non-professional office? Mr. Vallis: they have three floors there, they would like the opportunity to rent some space to someone like an accountant or architect. Mr. Hacker: I would consider them to be professionals. What about a sign? Mr. Vallis: they would have to go to the Planning Board of approval for sign and .the Design Review Board. Speaking in favor: Councillor Harvey: the firm has addressed all the concerns of the neighborhood, I spoke with the petitioners and they have assured me the asthetics will be taken care of. I would like to see them remain in Salem. Councillor Grace: I called the Church and spoke with the Pastor and he has no objection. It is good to keep them in Salem. She submitted a letter in favor from Councillor Gauthier. Attorny Patrick • Burke: they have a first rate law firm. As to the use of the building, I can attest to the care they will take, I am very glad they are staying in Salem. Mr. Kavanaugh, City Planner: the Administration is concerned with the downtown, this is an opportunity to allow people to remain in Salem. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: will you be fencing the property? Mr. Vallis: it is already fenced. Mr. Bencal: the parking will be updated? Mr. Vallis: yes Mr. Bencal: are there 19 or 20 spaces? Mr. Vallis: I think there are 20. Mr. Hacker: this seems to be simple, I agree with Mr. Vallis, I don' t think this will ever be used as a residence,' would like it conditioned on 19 parking spaces being maintained and no parking in the church parking area or driveway without written permission of the church. I think a motion is in order. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to allow professional, non-professional and non-retail offices on condition the property not be used for any other use without approval of this Board, there be no residential units, nineteen ( 19) on site parking spaces be maintained, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the entire building, property comply with all conditions set forth in communication from the Fire Dept. be adhered to (on file) , the driveway for St. Peters Church be kept clear from any vehicles, and signs must be approved by the Salem Planning Board. Mr. Charnas seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 56 Salem St. - J. Alan & Mary Hezekiah Petitioners are requesting Variance from' density and parking to allow a third unit in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire • Dept. , no objection. Attorney Patrick Burke, Lynn, represented the petitioners. My clients recently purchased this property, it is historically a three family, we are just trying to bring it into conformity with the Ordinance. It has been a three family since the sixties. Mr. Charnas: we should decide if this is a Varince or a Special Permit. Mr. Hacker: I think it should be a Special Permit from the MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1986 page seven 56 Salem St. - Continued • density because it is already nonconforming and Variance from parking. I am not too sure why the petitioners are here, if in fact this is already a three family and has been a three family. Mr. Burke: the petitioners took it upon themselves to come to the Board. When they applied for permit for a second exit there evidently was some question as to whether it was a legal three family. Mr. Charnas: could you prove it was a three family prior to 1965? Also, you asked for parking, how big is the garage? Attorney Burke: it only a one car garage, it could be removed to make some parking. Mr. Bencal: it is an R-3 district, they have the right to have a three family. Mr. Charnas: we can give Special Permit from the density but to give a Variance from the parking they have to show a hardship. Again, can you prove it was a three family prior to 1965? Edgar Paquin, Assistant Building Inspector: I am familiar with this house and I can assure you it has been a three family since prior to 1963. Mr. Hacker: then I see no problem, I think we can help these people. I would entertain a motion. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested for a Special Permit from density and a Variance from parking on condition, three on site parking spaces be maintained, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, all conditions set forth in the Fire Dept. communication be adhered to. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 45 Mason St• - Stephen Haley Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit from any any all density and setbacks in order to construct an addition in this Industrical District. Mr. • Charnas read the application and a letter Fire Dept. stating the property is not in compliance to laws relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Haley represented himself. He displayed plans to the Board. This property is bounded by three industrial complexes and Mason St. I cannot construct an addition any other way without disturbing the entire parking area. I will use part of the addition for my business and will rent out the rest. We have sprinklers throughout, don' t understand Fire Dept. 's comments. Capt. Turner, Fire Marshal: he is correct, he has sprinklers, I withdraw my letter. Mr. Charnas: do you have any problem with his storing solvents so close to the property line? Capt. Turner: I don' t think so. Mr. Haley: solvents are just a small part of my business, I have a solvent room. I would extend the sprinklers. Mr. Hacker: we could condition this so it is under the control of the Fire Prevention Bureau. Capt. Turner: when they apply for their building permit they have to come to us for approval. We have had no problem with them in the past. Mr. Haley: to put this addition anyplace else I would lose my parking lot. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the special permit on the following conditions: flammable materials must be stored under the guidance and regulations of the Fire Dept. , addition be constructed in accordance with plans submitted. . Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 10:00 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday March 26, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully suu/bbmmitt/e , Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk Ctv of 'Salem' Ansoar4usetts . �. poxrb of '4veal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - MARCH 26, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, March 26, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other interested persons, notices of the hearing were duly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A on March 12, 19, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Bencal Luzinski and Associate Members Dore and LaBreque The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p-.m. by the Chairman James Hacker. Mr. Dore and Mr. LaBrecque were appointed voted members. Mr. Hacker told the assemblage that the petition of 260 Lafayette St. number four on the agenda had been withdrawn. 4A Buffum St. - Henry Bernson Petition is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow construction of an addition in this (I) district, also a Special Permit to extend rear setbacks. Mr. Bencal read the applicaton and a letter from the . Fire Dept. The petitioner was not present. This case will be put last on the agenda to allow time for petition to be present. 90 Marlborough Rd. - James E. Flynn Petitioner is requesting Variances from any and all applicable density and setbacks to divide parcel of land into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on each lot in this RC district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. Attorney John Keilty, 10 Chestnut St. , Peabody, represented the petitioner. My client purchased this land about thirty years ago, submitted copies of the Assessors Map, at that time it was five, five thousand square foot lots. It has now become one lot. It is located in Residential/ Conservation district which calls for 80,000 square feet. He would like to divide this into two lots, Lot A which would contain 12,540 sq.ft. and Lot B which would contain 12,500 sq.ft. The dwellings would be setback thirty feet and would have 125 feet of frontage and 44 feet in the rear setback. These dwellings would be in conformity with the neighborhood as you can see by the Assessors Map. This property was difficult to develop previously because there was no sewer, but now there is. The hardship is the zoning itself and this runs with the land , the RC district came into effect after he purchased the land. Several of the areas have been residentially developed and developed on lots smaller than this. We will have to go to the Planning Board for approval not required. Mr. Luzinski: is there ledge there? Mr. Keilty: there may be, we have not done study as yet. We do not anticipate any- substantial blasting. Mr. Dore: what are the sensitive water shed issues, how does it apply to this area? Mr. Keilty: it is our opinion it does not apply to this area. MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1986 page two • 90 Marlborough Rd. - Continued No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Theodore Kleros, 91 Marlborough Rd. , don' t like the density, needs 80,000 sq. ft. , I think. Mr. Hacker: have you seen the plans and the size of the lots? Mr. Kleros: no. He looked at the plans. Still opposed. George Gauthier, 85 Marlborough Rd. , I am opposed, we have trouble with the water shed. Mr. Hacker: is there a condition we could put on this that would help this problem? Mr. Gauthier: no, we all have big lots and we don' t want two homes there. Mr. Hacker: you don' t want two homes there, then it just isn' t the water problem. Mr. Gauthier: we can' t stop him from building one house, but we don' t want two. James Gautreau, 92 Marlborough Rd. , there is very extensive ledge, it runs onto my lot, I am concerned with the blasting. In rebuttal: Attorney Keilty: Would like to ask the Board if there is a City storm system out there. Mr. Hacker: I don' t think so. Mr. Keilty: we could provide for a drainage system, we could take the matter under advisement and see if we could do something. I think this proposal is a good one. Any runoff that is occurring will continue to occur, this plan will not affect it. Hearing closed. Mr. LaBrecque: could we get opinion from the City Engineer? Mr. Hacker: we could. Mr. Bencal: I am concerned about the large amount of continuances. When they come to the Board they should be prepared. Mr. Hacker: would you consider withdrawing and coming back at a later date. This would give you a chance to talk with the neighbors. Mr. Keilty: if the Board would continue this, I could guarantee we could get this information by the next meeting. Mr. Hacker; would rather see this withdrawn. Mr. Keilty: I would then respectfully request leave to withdraw. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • 47 Ocean AVe. - T. Ford Co. (petitioner) Salem Public Library (owners) Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit to allow premises to be used for professional offices and a variance from minimum parking requirements in this R-3 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection, and a petition in favor signed by 16 abutters. Mr. Hacker: I received communication from the petitioner outlining his plans, I believe all the members received a copy and there is a copy on file. Mr. Thomas Ford represented himself. He displayed plans and pictures of the building to the Board and the assemblage. I responded to a request for proposals for this building. The two preferred proposals were for offices or condominiums. We are proposing to use the building pretty much as it is, the outside will stay the same, will rehab existing structure. Bring the building back to its original elegance. The front lawn is restricted by deed to remain open, we could use that for parking but we have chosen not to do that. We would like new sod lawn, would replace the foundation planting, enlarge parking area in rear. The building has been used as library for the past 70 years. With regards to the parking, as I said, we will enlarge the parking area, will re-pave and put in six spaces, this is not sufficient but it is the best we could do. We were originally going to put in a second floor but following a couple of meetings and after we were chosen by the library trustees, we became aware of the concerns with inside density. We eliminated most of the second floor. Will just have small mezzanine level above the rear portion of the building. This is the best use because it is more like the library operation, the hours of operation will be more in line with that of the library. It is hard to tell how many professionals will be working • there, probably between 6 & 10 people. A reasonable number of parking spaces for this would be 8, we can only only provide 6. Some will probably park out on the MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1986 page three • 47 Ocean Ave. - Continued street. I think this is a good plan because it keeps the building in tact, and keeps under one owner which will insure a well kept building. The use is more in keeping with the previous use and is a logical use for the building. Speaking in favor: Councillor John Nutting: we have a unique situation here, neighbors have turned out to speak in favor of this proposal. Would like to point out that this is an historical building and comes under their jurisdiction. Would like to be sure that if the board grants this tonight that there be a condition that front lawn be kept and not disturbed. Councillor Gauthier: would like to commend the Library Trustees for getting the best price and the best proposal, I think this is a great plan. I know the parking is a problem, the Board could address the parking and minimize the density. Mr. Zaharis, 46 Summit Ave. , agree with the Councillors. Lena Saradnik, 56 Ocean Ave. , this is better than having condominiums, the parking in that area is a problem and this is the better proposal. Nancy Hovey, 49 Ocean ave. , my mother and father live next door and are very much in favor. David Goggin, 3 Wisteria St. , this will be beneficial to neighborhood, it is the better use. Paul Manika, 59 Ocean Ave. , if it is professional office, we would not have the traffic on the weekends, it would be a nine to five operation. Residential use could be a problem. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, this is good example of developer that is willing to compromise. It is a project that will be an asset to the City. Pat Cloherty, Trustee, Library, over the past few months they've worked with the neighbors and I have been impressed with Mr. Ford. Marcia Lambert, 58 Ocean Ave. ,agrees this will be an asset. Madeleine Turner, 117 Wisteria St. , in favor, Mr. Ford is willing to work with us. I was concerned about the grass in front, but that has been taken care of. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: if we approve this it • will be as per plans submitted. We could restrict it to eight employees. Mr. Luzinski: was there more traffic with the library than there will be with this? Mr. Cloherty: for most of the life of the library a number of the users of this branch were former residents, it did generate traffic. Mr. Hacker: it is my feeling that Mr. Ford has put forth effort to meet with the neighbors and work with the trustees. The Trustees have done a lot of work, no one was opposed. I would be in favor with a few restrictions. He said between 6 & 10 people working here, I would like to restrict it to 10 employees, parking is a problem and he has no room to put anymore than the 6 he is providing, so with those restrictions I would be in favor. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit required on condition, six on site parking spaces be maintained; no more than ten employees, approval of the Historic Commission be obtained for any exterior work on the building, front lawn area facing Lafayette St. be maintained as a lawn with appropriate plantings and under no circumstances shall parking be allowed on this area; character of the exterior of the building not be changed, a certificate of occupancy be obtained. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 20 Dow St. - Paul & lucille Tremblay Petitioners are requesting a variance from rear & side setbacks to allow a carport in this R-3 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney James Peterson, represented the petitioners. He displayed pictures of the carport. The carport was built about 15 years ago, my clients discovered it was a violation when they went to sell. The engineer said it • was a rear yard violation, but I don' t think so, I think it is a side yard violation. Because of the jog, it is an odd shaped lot and would qualify as a hardship. There is room for two cars under the carport. Mr. LaBrecque: how long ago did you say this was built? Mr. Peterson: about 15 years ago, we are here to legitimize it. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal, I have no problem and I make a motion to grant variance as requested. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1986 page four • 112 Linden St. - Peter Wong Petitioner is requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to allow construction of a two car garage in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , objecting because the property is not in compliance with laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Wong represented himself, he said he would comply with the request of the Fire Dept. When bought the property years ago there was a garage there, it was old and rotten and I tore it down. Now I am getting old and I don' t want to shovel snow anymore. There will be no foundation, it will be a little larger than the old garage. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition for a variance from rear and side setbacks to allow a two car garage on condition it be as per plans submitted and a certificate of compliance be obtained from the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 461 Highland AVe. - Robert Vigeant ( petitioner) Nicholas Fiore (owner) Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a used car dealer in this B-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application. Mr. Vigeant represented himself. Would like to use this as a used car dealer. Mr. Fiore, owner of the property showed on a plan where the proposed building would be put. The plan submitted was an old plot plan, had no building showing, no setbacks, etc. Mr. Hacker: I would like to help you but I don' t have anything to hang;my hat on, the plan shows us nothing. Mr. Vigeant: in order to get a class two license I need a • '+ Special Permit to use this as a dealership. All we are asking for now is permission to use the land for that purpose. Councillor Nutting spoke in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: we would be voting on something we can' t see. Mr. Hacker: we need plans to see what the building is going to be and if it conforms, need to see if it is in harmony with the area. Mr. Vigeant: I don' t understand, all we want is Special Permit to use the land for dealership. Mr. Bencal: we don' t have any idea of what kind of building it will be. Mr. Fiore: I would only have to come back if I can' t build in accordance with the Ordinance, did want to go to the expense of drawing up the plans if we couldn' t use the land for that purpose. It is a big lot. Mr. Hacker: we are not opposed to the concept of the use as a used car dealer but you have to come back with a plan that we can approve. Mr. Fiore: I could put up a building there that conforms, I have the room. Could we continue this and come back with plans. Mr. Hacker: I would advise you to withdraw and come back when you are ready. Mr. Vigeant: I would like to withdraw. Mr. Bencal made a motion to allow petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4A Buffum St. - Henry Bernson Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear and side setback in order to construct an addition in this Industrial district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , opposed because of junk cars on property (unregistered) . Mr. Berson represented himself, he told the Board he wanted the addition for a family room and would likea dining room. No one •� appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: can you address the Fire Dept. 's concerns. Mr. Bernson: when I bought the house a tenant had a car that wasn' t registered, I told her to have it moved and she did. i MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1986 page five i 4A Buffum St. - continued A few weeks ago a tenant asked if she could keep her car there till she could get her license and I set she could. Inspector LaPointe: the law says no unregistered cars, when I inspected there were two unregistered, unoperable cars there. There is presently one unregistered car there. Mr. Bernson: the people I just rented to asked if they could put the car in my yard and I said yes. Mr. Hacker: if you were told it was illegal, why would you put another one there? Mr. Berson: I will remove it. Mr. Luzinski: will this be a one story addition, will there be a k foundation. Mr. Bernson: it is one story, my brother-in-law is going to build it. Mr. Bencal: I notice on the map the address is given as 4A Buffum St. Ext. , yet it was advertised as 4A Buffum St. , what is the correct address. Mr. Bernson: it is 4A Buffum St. Mr. Hacker: '.I. am a little unconfortable with granting something to what may be the wrong address, it could hurt you in the future. Mr. Bernson: the plot plan shows this in every way., shape and form, it could not be confused with some other property. Mr. Hacker: We can' t grant something for address that is not correct. He asked Mr. Kavanaugh if he knew which is the correct address. Mr. Kavanaugh: Not use, but would be concerned about granting this to the wrong address or to an address that doesn' t exist. If he put the addition on he could run into problems years from now and might not be able to sell. Mr. Dore: it is a technicality that the cannot correct. It is up to you to get it corrected. Mr. Bernson: what do I do to rectify this. Mr. Hacker: I would advise you to ask to withdraw and come back. If we vote on it tonight it may be denied and then you can' t come back for two years. Mr. Bernson withdrew and left the room. Mr. Bencal made a motion to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. Mr'. LaBrecque seconded. • The Board voted four to one Mr. Hacker voted present, to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. WITHDRAWN. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday, April 16, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk „coau¢1 (1�i# ofttlem, ttsstttl�use##s '. Poxrb of '4peal �cums.� ' MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - APRIL 16, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, April 30, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of the hearing were duly published in the Salem Evening News on April 2, 9, 1986. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski and Strout Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Bencal made a motion to accept the minutes of the February 26, 1986 hearing. Mr. Charnas seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED 73 Harbor St. Michael Marfonselli Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the premises to be used as a twenty room rooming house/inn in this R-3 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a statement of correlation and conclusions (on file) , a letter from the Fire Department, no objection. Mr. Hacker: for the record, I own a business in this area but it will not affect my decision. Attorney Kevin Daly represented the petitioner. We are seeking a Special Permit for 15 rooms, not 20. My client applied for 20 rooms, but did not ask for variance from parking. He does • not have adequate parking for 20 rooms. He does have for 15. They will rent out fifteen rooms by the week, this building was originally licensed as a lodging house, he submitted copy of license dated 1983. The license was not renewed. There is parking for 15 cars. The owners are there all day, they operatie a Sub Shop and lounge. A rooming house is in harmony with the neigh- borhood, there are some in the area and they have no parking what so ever. This would be a plus for the neighborhood. There is a housing shortage. Mr. Hacker; will there be cooking facilities? Mr. Daly: no cooking at all in the rooms. As I said, this was licensed for 20 rooms at one time, we are here for only 15 because we did not ask for variance from parking, the other five rooms will be vacant. These will only be rented by responsible persons. Mr. Hacker: what criteria do you use to determine a responsible person? Mr. Marfonselli we would have a strict lease, require references, no visitors after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Hacker: would this be an annual lease? Yes. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: are there enough bathrooms? Mr. Hacker: I don' t know, I think that would be a Health Dept. issue. Mr. Bencal: perhaps Mr. Daly could tell us if the bathrooms were adequate. Attorney Daly: I have no reason to think they are not up to code. Mr. Charnas: I question whether this is an Inn or not, an Inn is allowed by Special Permit in this district but I'm not sure this meets the specifications of an Inn. He quoted the definition from the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hacker: my concern is the parking, it is a very congested area. They should be allowed to use the upstairs for something but I am concerned about this. Mr. Bencal: the fact is, it was used as this before and they used 20 rooms, now they only want 15 rooms and there is parking for that. Mr. Charnas: there is a great demand in the City for housing of this nature and it would be good for the City. Mr. Hacker: what is the rent going to be? Mr. Marfonselli: about $75.00 a week. Mr. Hacker: I thought there was going to be a yearly lease. Mr. Daly: I think my client was confused, there will be rental agreement but it will be on a weekly basis. Mr. Charnas: this changes my thoughts a litte. Mr. Hacker: the problem I have is the owner says a years lease and his counsel says weekly. Also, we are MINUTES - APRIL 1.6, 1986 page two ,• 73 Harbor St. - continued leaving five rooms vacant. Attorney Daly: if business is good we may be back for those rooms. Mr. Charnas: I was more enthusiastic when I thought it was going to be yearly rental. Even though the nature of the business may be catering to transients there is a need in the City and this may be on the borderline. All in all I would be in favor. The overriding need is to create housing. Mr. Luzinski: is this in the category of an Inn. Mr. Charnas: yes, I think it could be. Mr. .Luzinski: then I would be in favor. Mr. Hacker: we should make sure the 15 spaces are maintained for the tenants. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit on condition: a Certificate of Inspection be obtained, 15 parking spaces by provided on site specifically for the tenants, no cooking facilities and no cooking in the rooms, a Certificate of Occupancy for the entire building be obtained, all applicable state and local fire codes be adhered to and it be limited to one person per room. Mr. Bencal seconded. The Board, by a vote of four to one (Mr. Hacker voted present) granted the Special Permit. GRANTED 12 Willow Ave. - Raymond E. Emery The petition for a Special Permit to convert<a two family to a three familyi-in this R-1 district was continued from the March 19, 1986 hearing. Mr. Vallis, Attorney for the petitioner requested leave to withdraw. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant petitioner Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Charnas seconded. • UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW 4A Buffum St. - Henry Bernson Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear and side setbacks in order to construct an addition in this (I) Industrial district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Assessors pertaining to the address, the Assessors stated the correct address is 4A Buffum St. , not Buffum St. Ext. He also read a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Richard Ploss, brother-in-law of the petitioner, represented the petitioner. Mr. Hacker asked him to explain what Mr. Bernson wanted to do. Mr. Ploss: I thought you knew all about it, Henry was here before and you have all the plans. Mr. Hacker: this is a new hearing, we have to treat it as a new hearing, what happened before has no bearing on this petition. If you could explain the plans to us. Mr. Ploss, he wants to put an addition. I don' t know what else to tell you, I thought everything was all set, that you.knew all about it. Mr. Hacker: I'm a little uncomfortable about this, we had a hearing last month on this application and there was some question about the address and now this gentleman, through no fault of his own, is not prepared to present this petition. I feel he should be given the opportunity to withdraw the petition. He explained to Mr. Ploss that when you represent someone before the Board you are expected to be familiar with the plans and be able to answer questions from the Board. I feel it would be in Mr. Bernson's best interest if you were to withdraw this petition and have him come back to the Board at a later date. Mr. Ploss asked to withdraw. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Strout seconded. • UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1986 page three • 3 Irving St.- David Haight Petitioner is requesting a Variance from front yard setback in order to install an above ground pool in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , stating the property is not in compliance with laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Haight represented himself. He displayed plans of the property, showing the location of the proposed pool. No matter where we put the pool we would still need a variance. I we put it as shown on the plans we would lose less of our yard. There is a fence around property. Speaking in favor: Russell Thatcher, 12 Grove St. , Mr. Haight has made many improvements to the property. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: where do you park? Mr. Haight: I have a garage across the street. Mr. Charnas: the only reason he needs a variance is for the front, if it encroached on the side or rear it would only need a Special Permit. I have a problem with hardship. The Board went over the plans with the petitioner showing him how he could relocate the pool so he would not need a variance. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem with letting him have his pool, just don' t see any hardship. Mr. Haight agreed to move the pool back to the 15 feet required. Mr. Charnas: should we have him come back with another plan? Mr. Hacker: I don' t think we need to have him come back, he will have to show updated plan when he gets his building permit. Mr. Hacker explained to the petitioner that he must go to the Fire Prevention Bureau and have a Certificate of Compliance issued for his smoke detectors. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow a pool approximately 12' x 18' on condition pool be no closer than 15 feet from the front property line on Irving St. and a Certificate of Compliance be • obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 289 Essex St. - Elaine Finbury Petitioner is requesting variances from density and parking requirements in order to convert property into forty one (41 ) dwelling units in this B-5 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, letters in favor from Senator Berry, Effie MacDonald, Health Food Store located in the YMCA Building; Harriet Soiref, Director of Dance Class, 302 Essex St. ; Richard Daly, Parking Dept. Board; Peter Zaharis, Essex Camera Shop. He also read a letter from the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau, no objection. Mr. Bencal: for the record, I am a member of the YMCA located across the street from this property, this will not affect my decision. Attorney Kenneth Lindauer, 14 Lynde St. , Salem represented the petitioner. The major concern of this Board and the citizens of Salem is parking. He displayed plans to the Board and the assemblage, he also displayed renderings and a plan of the ajacent parking lot. This lot has nothing to do with this project. Because of the financing, ten units will be rented to low or moderate income persons. These will not be condominiums, strictly rental units. ,-The first level will be parking lot, 30 spaces. We have tried to meet the requirements of the Ordinance, the project originally was going to be two levels of parking. Could not get funding for that. We went through UDAG and there was insufficient funds to allow the two levels. There is a deadline coming up for financing now. We have met with the parking commission to acquire 32 parking spaces in the City parking, either the garage or the plaza. We were told we could purchase cards for parking but not spaces would be designated. There is no way to build this economically • with the two level parking, it would not be feasible. MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1986 page four • 289 - 293 Essex St. - continued Miss Finbury was part of the theater group and tried to revise it, a good deal of money was put into it and for a while it was running a a profit. When the Sack theaters came to Salem this stopped. They tried live concerts, had some successes but all in all it ran at a loss and the theater was closed. There is no possibility of it re-opening, a theater of this type is a thing of the past. What we are proposing is the only appropriate use for this building. It is zoned B-5, the use is allowed. We have heard concerns about the adjacent parking lot. We would need an easement, right of way and by redesigning this lot the City could increase the number of spaces. Right now there are 41 spaces, as you can see, with this design (he referred to the plan of the parking lot) there could be 43 spaces. There is additional parking in the area such as the parking lot behind Bowmans. Most of the tenants would not be home during the day and should not cause any problems for the businesses in the area. Mr. Strout: The plan you are display, is it a revised plan? It is different from the plans we have. Mr. Lindaur: since we submitted the plans to the Board the plans have been revised. Mr. Charnas: you should officially withdraw these plans and submit the new plans. Mr. Lindaur: I will withdraw the plans previously submitted and submitted these revised plans. He again referred to the plan of the adjacent parking lot, the entrance to the building will be from Crombie St. Mr. Charnas: you said in the petition it would not be feasible to have less than 41 units, could you explain that? Mr. Lindaur: financially, if we don' t have the income, we would not do what we want to do, just for example, the`quilding will need an elevator, this is very expensive. The street level vieAill not look like a garage, tenants will enter and the garage will slope down, there will be an elevator from the garage. It is basically a • structured garage, will cost between 6 & 9 thousand per space. We recently goTan easment from Crombie St. , there will be 30 spaces. Mr. Bencal: at the present time, that adjacent lot is closed till 9:30 in the morning, do you have any evidence that it will be opened. Mr. Lindaur: there will be a gate, we will maintain that gate, so I don' t think there will be a problem. Speaking in favor: Dick Pabich, 5-7 Summer St. , our property looks at the rear of the theater. This is the best thing that could happen to this property. The parking is a problem but it is the city's problem. Michael Walsh, no address, in favor, the parking can be worked out, I don' t think every will own a car. Frank Montessi, 15 Crombie St. , it is good to be here in favor for a change. Will be good for the area. Mr. Kavanaugh, City Planner: I have been working with the developer for months now. We have impressed the need to keep or improve the parking lot. This will be compatible with the architecture, I feel very strongly the developers have done what we have asked. The architectural firm is one of the best. The builder is a quality builder. Mr. Hacker: how do we address the right of way if the parking lot remains closed? Mr. Kavanaugh: a card gate system. Mr. Hacker: are theyt going to change the design of the parking lot? Mr. Kavanaugh: we are negotiating for funds, I think they are regarded favorably. Councillor Gauthier: these people have put a lot of time into this. We have a housing shortage in Salem and they are providing ten low income units. I am in favor. David Doyle, YMCA, the Board of the YMCA was split, they voted that they would not opposed this. Mr. Hacker: are you in favor? Mr. Doyle: just an opinion. Speaking in opposition. Steve Tompkins, 281 Essex St. , not in favor or in opposition, I have a couple of questions. The design of the building is certainly a betterment to the city, I am concerned about parking and about the lot being closed. He was shown on the map the redesign of the lot and told about the card gate system. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: they have not asked for variance from height. Mr. Charnas: that is inclusive with' the density. I would like to see the card system. Don' t want' MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1986 page five 289 - 293 Essex St. - Continued ' to see them taking away from the merchants. Would like it conditioned on the approval of the City Planner and make sure the 30 spaces are provided and designated and that the 10 apartments will be low and moderate income apartments. I am impressed with the efforts made by the petitioner to use the property as a theater. As that is not a viable use, I think this is the best and I .am very much in favor. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variances requested on condition the City give right of way as shown on the plans submitted to the Board, access to garage be approved by the City Planner, thirty parking spaces as defined by Ordinance be maintained on site, percentage of low income units as proposed in the petition be always maintained, all conditions set forth in the communication from the Fire Prevention Bureau be adhered to (on file) , a Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 63 Proctor St. - B & M Realty Petitioner is requesting Variances from use, area, density and setbacks in order to construct six 2-bedroom condominium units in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, a Council Order dated September 10, 1981 which stated that no building permits be issued for the area of Proctor/Pope St. for any new residential construction until the flooding conditions on Pope St. are solved. He also read the Board of Appeal decision dated August 21 , 1985 denying a petition to Robert Maguire to construct six 2-bedroom units and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Robert Gauthier, B & M Realty, represented himself. I was on • the Board of Appeal at the time the previous petition was denied. Mr. Hacker: before we continue we should decide if there is a substantial change. Mr. Charnas; what are the differences? Mr. Hacker: the difference now is the last petition gave us not setbacks, we had nothing to go by. It is my opinion that this plan is a defined plan and it is substantially different. Mr. Charnas: I agree and I make a motion to re-hear the petition. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO RE-HEAR Mr. Gauthier: at this time I would like to ask Councillor Grace to explain the Council Order to the Board. Councillor Grace: I was the author of this Council Order. At one time a developer wanted to put ten houses up in the rear of this land. There was a factory there, would have created a serious drainage problem. Was not a good project, the Council couldn' t say it was that particular developer, the Council did not want that particular area built on. Mr. Hacker; are you saying the Council Order excludes this property? Councillor Grace: yes. The land the Order referred to is all ledge. While I am hear I would like to say a few words about the quality of work Mr. Gauthier does, I mean this sincerely, not saying this because he is a brother Councillor. I live on Irving St. , one of his projects, displayed pictures of her home, I have noting but good to say about it, I am very proud of it. It was an old factory. I am hear to speak on behalf of Mr. Gauthier and to explain the Council Order was not intended to include the land Mr. Gauthier wants to develop and I hope the Board will look favorably on this petition. Mr. Hacker: I think that explains the Council Order. Mr. Gauthier: displayed pictures of the property, the hardship is the land, there is a lot of ledge. Speaking in favor: Bob Bouchard, 110 Jefferson Ave. , I am very familiar • with this building. It is a disgrace and something should be done with it. MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1986 page six 63 Proctor St. - Continued • Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, very much in favor. Robert Maguire, 81 Fort Ave. , I think Mr. Gauthier will do a good job. No one appeared in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: seems like a good use for the property, I have no problem with the hardship and I would be in favor. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Variances requested on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit and the developer comply with all conditions set forth in the communication from Fire Dept. (on file) . Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 220 Highland Ave. - Sunburst Fruit Juices Inc. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow second story addition in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection and a letter from Councillor O'Leary in favor. Attorney John Serafini Jr. , represented the petitioner. I noticed when listening to Mr. Charnas read the application that what he read is different from what we meant to ask for. We are also asking for an addition to the building, not just the second story. Mr. Charnas; we could hear the petition for just what was asked for and what was advertised and you could come back for the other addition but I don' t think we should hear the second part. Mr. Hacker: I don' t think we should hear it either, people may not be in opposition to the second story but they may oppose the addition, looking at the plans you have there you are almost doubling the size of the building. Mr. Serafini: I would request leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Charnas made a motion to allow petition to be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski • seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Marcia Avenue/Vinnin St. - Maine, Post & Beam Petitioner is requesting variances from any and all applicable density regulations in order to construct five 2-story wood frame structurs for a total of 14 dwelling units with attached garages in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney John Serafini Sr. , represented the petitioner. They came in some years ago with a petition and that was withdrawn. The applicant then applied to the Planning Board for cluster development, for some reason the granting of the cluster was not valid according to the court. The people at Maine, Post & Beam looked at this again and worked with the neighborhood to see what their concerns were. My clients are quality builders and do quality work. When I first became involved, I was impressed with the number of hours they worked on this development. The pond is about three acres, it has been used for fishing and skating. It was the pond that attracted them to the site, they have come up with a plan that preserves the pond and pre- serves the open space and public access to the pond. They held meetings with the neighbors from last October to the present. The result of that is a plan that meets with the approval of the people in the area. You will have 14 units that will be attached and 60% is left as open space. After the Board of Appeal there is a Site Plan Review, we will also go to the Conservation Commission. We will make an agreement with the people who presently have septic systems to have them tie into our system. They will have use of the pond. The plan is sensitive to . that area,. we will utilize nature and enhance it. The alternative it to have single family homes, there is enough room for about eleven homes. If this is done the access to the pond would be cut off. We don' t think that is the best use of this area. This is a very innovated project. Mr. Carl Gardner: I work MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1986 page seven • Marcia Avenue/Vinnin St. - continued for Maine Post & Beam and have been involved with this property since 1983. Many of the original ideas are still incorporated in this plan. There will be an 8" water main up to Elm St. Where there are 4" mains that will be replaces with 8" then go to 6" . Mr. Gardner then made a presentation regarding the very technical aspects of the development. There will be a key lock between Mr. Gauthiers and Mr. Cummings land for the Fire Dept. The property will be landscaped and we are willing to work with the abutters regarding the landscaping. We will be cutting very few trees. He displayed pictures of the property. Regarding the drainage, will be trap inclosed system, series of catch basins and dry wells. There is very coarse gravel material which allows us to do this. The property would be owned in common ownership by the 14 condominium owners. Entrance will be along Tedesco and Vinnin. Mr. Charnas: what is the hardship? Mr. Serafini: the actual site varies as far as elevation. The site is not easy to develop, it is very unique parcel. Speaking in favor. Paul Benoit, 10 Peter Road, this will improve the area greatly, it is better that individual homes. Donald Raymond, 26 Chandler Rd. , Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, This has been before the Planning Board, I have worked with the developers and this could be an asset to the City. The developer has been cooperative and willing to work with us and the neighbors. Ray Gauthier, Chandler Rd. initially I was against this, since then I have worked with the developer and are willing to continue to work with them, we have a list here, an agreement with the abutters, copy submitted, as long as these are met, I am in favor. Councillor John Nutting: would like to congratulate Maine Post & Beam for working with the neighbors, there was a court case, zoning change, the neighbors have literally redesigned this project. The alternative is single family • homes and losing the pond. I am glad to see it worked out. Mrs. Gauthier: 24 Chandler Road. Speaking in opposition: Marie Darna, 20 Elm Ave. , this plan is a redesign of the plan that was presented to us. We have the southern exposure, while they have made allowances for open space some of our view is cut off. I have a problem with 14 units in that area. It is a very unique parcel of land and we use. We do use the pond. I have questions about the covenant they left at our house, it states that abutters may fish on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturdays between } hour after sun up and } hour before sundown but not on holidays, skating the same provided the Park Dept. determines the area safe, they call this unlimited use, it is restricted use. Mr. Hacker: to you knowlege have the rest of the neighbors approved of this? Ms. Darnas: I don' t know. Mr.' Hacker asked Mr. Gauthier if the neighbors are in favor:. Mr. Gauthier: most of them are. Ms. Darna: at the last meetin when we came up with this agreement they said it was negotiable, that it was not cast in stone. Mr. Hacker: in your opinion, do you think you view will be wors than what is there now, he showed her the pictures of the property. Ms. Darna: that is not what I see from my house. I don' t want to look out and see someone else' s roof. Mr. Charnas: are you aware that if we deny this they could put single family homes there and they can build to a height of 35 feet, they could obstruct your view even worse. Ms. Darnas: yes, I realize that, I guess what I am looking for is more concessions, I have a problem with the design the way it is now. Mr. Hacker: If in fact this is not granted they could come in with 15 single family homes and they could in fact go up as high as 35 feet. Mr. Edward Darns, 20 Elm Ave. , I am concerned with the sewerage, Elm has been paved so there is a pitch going towards Loring Ave. , and I have a problem with water now. Attorney Serafini: regarding the connection, • we will tend to the pitch when we re-pave so that it will not be towards the + MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1986 page eight Marcia . Avenue/Vinnin St. - Continued • % area you are concerned with. This will all have to be approved by the City J Engineer, he will make sure that nothing we do will cause additional problems for your. This is just the first step, we could have conditons put on the decision and they will become part of the record, we are willing to work these conditions out so that people will be satisfied. As of right now there are no rights to the pond, the neighbors use it because no one is there, but they have not rights. We are giving them permanent rights to use it. Mr. Hacker: can we restrict use to some Salem residents and not all. Mr. Charnas: I don' t think we can make that a condition. Mr. Hacker: I would like to take a look at this and would like to look at Mr. & Mrs. Darna's house. I still have questions and would like to have this continued until the next hearing to allow us to make a site inspection. The next hearing would be closed. Mr. Charnas: I am not opposed to having a look at the site and continuing this, I do have a problem with hardship. I would suggest however, that we schedule this continuance for 6:30 p.m. , April 30th as we have such a full agenda. Mr. Hacker: I have no problem with that. Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that the hearing would be continued until 6:30 p.m, , April 30th to allow the Board to view the site. The hearing is closed and no testimony will be taken. Mr. Charnas made a motion to continue this petition until April 30, 1986. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL APRIL 30, 1986 at 6:30 p.m. Hearing was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday, April 30, 1986 at 6:30 p.m. ; second floor, One Salem Green. • Respectfully submitted, p Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk ,.com4b (Qi#u of "Salem, Aussar4use##s !� �F Poxrb of Appeal �cbmk dt' MINUTES BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - APRIL 30, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, April 30, 1986 at 6:30 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of said meeting were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on April 16, 23, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Charnas, Hacker, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Dore. Mr. Bencal arrived later in the evening. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Charnas made a motion to accept the minutes of the March 19, 1986 hearing. Mr. Luzinski seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED Marcia Ave./Vinnin St. - Maine Post & Beam The petition has been continued from the April 16, 1986 hearing. Mr. Hacker: explained to the petitioners there would only be four members voting on this petition tonight, due to illness in his family, Mr. Bencal is unable to attend. Attorney Serafini said they would go forward with the four member Board. Petitioners are requesting variances to allow construction of five 2-story • structures for a total of 14 units in this R-1 district. Meeting was continued to allow Board Members an opportunity to view the site. Mr. Hacker: after visiting the site, I feel this would be an improvement. I tried to visualize the problem one of the abutters had regarding the view but I don' t know what we could do about it. I feel we should let the plan stay as it is, perhaps have some shrubbery planted. Mrs. Darna, 20 Elm Ave. , we received a slight change in the plans last night. Mr. Gardner:shifted the building 8 to 10 feet. It still allows turning radius. Mrs. Darna: it is an improvement. Mr. Hacker: you would prefer this plan? Mrs. Darna: yes. Mr. Hacker: is there any problem accepting the changed plans? Mr. Charnas; no, if the only change is what is shown. Mr. Hacker: regarding the conditions on the covenant, at the last meeting we mentioned opening it up to the entire city, I have since re-thought the situation and I would limit it to the neighborhood. Mr. Charnas: we have recieved a copy of an agreement with the neighbors, it doesn' t mention access. Mr. Hacker: would like condition the City is not responsible for and drainage correction. Mr. Charnas: I don' t think we have to put that in if the City is responible they have to, it they are not, they are not. Mr. Hacker: still would like it put it. Mr. Gauthier, 24 Chandler Road, at the last meeting you said that what you voted on and what was put as conditions would be cast in stone now I get the impression our conditions will not be part of your decision, I thought we coult bring our conditions up at this meeting. Mr. Hacker: do you have these conditions with you? Mr. Gauthier: we sat down saturday afternoon and discussed changes. Mr. Serafini: we have a draft of the covenant and the agreement. Mr. Charnas: while you are looking for that, there is one issue I am concerned about. What is the legal hardship, could you address this issue? �\ Mr. Serafini: this particular site is unique, the elevation surrounding the pond is unique, in order to develope this conventionally the cost, while not MINUTES - APRIL 30, 1986 page two Marcia Ave./Vinnin St. - Continued • prohibitive would be very costly, and there would be no access for anyone. Mr. Serafini still had no located the draft of the covenant and the agreement. Mr. Hacker: while you are looking for that, we shall go on to the next petition and come back to you later. Mr. Serafini: that is fine. Mr. Hacker: before we begin any further business I would like the record to reflect the Boards appreciation for the work Mr. Charnas has done over the last few years. Would also like to take this opportunity to mention that our recording secretary has worked without any compensation so tonight I would like to stray from the norm and make a motion to request the appropriation of $250.00 as compensation to our clerk. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUS Mr. Hacker: at this point I would appoint Mr. Dore as a voting member. Mr. Hacker then addressed the assemblage, explaining the petition of Maine Post and Beam would be continued later on this evening when they get their documents together. If there is anyone here interested in the petition of Charterhouse Development, 94-100 Highland Ave. & Lafayette Real Estate Trust, 260 Lafayette St. those two petitions have been withdrawn, if they re-apply it will be advertised again and you will be notified. 242' Winter St. - Ada & Donald Roberts ( petitioner) Victor Mazzarini (owner) Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance to allow the premises to be used as a Bed & Breakfast Tourist Home and a Variance from parking require- ments in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application, letters from • Joyce & Russell Gaudet, Nahant; Gladys Cutter, California; Richard Malone, West Germany, & Thomas & Sue Lisa, Marblehead; in favor. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Michael Charnigo, 18 Winter St. , opposed; and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Ada Roberts, 16 Winter St. , represented herself and her husband. She presented each Board Member with a copy of a presentation she had prepared. (on file) As mentioned in the letters Mr. Charnas read, we currently are the proprietors of the Amelia Payson Guest House, submitted a picture of this house, this has enabled us to restore and maintain our property. We manage two guest rooms there. This is the Charles Odell house and was built in 1887, it is in the Historic District. Nothing will have to be done to the outside and very little to the inside. We have already contacted this Historical Commission and the Fire Dept. and we are prepared to follow their guidelines. Regarding the parking, we as residents of Salem are concerned with the parking problem, we live in the area. We are asking for five rooms, four rooms with cars and one without. It has been our experience that many people who visit do not have cars. We have a two car garage and can fit one car in the driveway. Mr. Charnas: is this owned as a corporation. Mrs. Roberts: no, a partnership. As owners of 16 Winter St. , we will park our cars there. We have provided as many parking spaces as we can. As far as hardship is concerned, it would be a financial hardship to try and maintain this as a single family or even a two family. We have been in touch with the neighborhood and tried to addres there concerns. We hope the Board is as excited about this project as we are and will grant us the permit to do this. Speaking in favor: Thomas Mazzarini, I am speaking on behalf of my mother and father who own this property. They have had a number of inquiries about this property, a lot asking about condominiums. Using this as • a guest house would insure the integrity of the building is maintained. Mr. MINUTES - APRIL 30, 1986 page three 2412 Winter St. - Continued • Beach, I am a business manager for EG&G and I have spent months at the Payson House and I am grateful to have a place like this to stay, there is not com- parison between this and the hotel. Attorney Lawrence Morse, 208 Essex St. ,I am the attorney for the Roberts, I think my client made a very good presentation. It would be uniquely appropriate to grant a variance from the parking. There will be three parking spaces on site and one on the street, really only need a variance for } space. The use is a Special Permit use. Councillor Gauthier: the City needs things like this. They have kept their property up, this will be good for the City, I would rather see this than condominiums. David Larchom, Engineer for E G & G, I move to Salem a few months ago and stayed with them and they were one of the big reasons we decided to stay in Salem. They are far superior to other accomodations. I learned a lot about Salem and I hope you will grant this. Pat Huntington, 11 Winter St. , I have no objection, they have done a good job. Kathy Driscoll, past president of the Chamber of Commerce, they run an exemplary guest house. Salem needs things like this. Speaking in opposition. Mrs. Doherty, 6 Oliver St. , too bad it is being turned into a commercial, building. Eleanor Barnes, 19 Winter St. , I am not opposed to a guest house but the parking situation is atrocious and this does not held. The street is practically all business, this would be the third such use on the street. There is no parking. James Coty, 7 Winter St. , this is good for the City but I am concerned about the parking. Jeffrey Laaff, 24 Winter St. , this is our home, it is a beautiful residential area. Hate to see these buildings turned into commercial use. Dr. Robert Smith, 20 Winter St. , I take exception of the fact that I was not notified of this. Mr. Charnas explained that we notify abutters according to the Assessors • and he evidently is not considered an abutter. Kathleen Donlon, opposed, Ann Laaff, opposed. Gary Sturgewall, 17 Andrew St. , opposed to further commercial use in residential areas. In Rebuttal: Mr. Roberts, the area is multi-family, don' t consideer guest house a business. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I have a problem with the parking, at this point I have a negative feeling. Mr. Charnas: I this it is a Variance for use as well as parking. I am sympathetic with the neighbors, would be opposed. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted four to one against granting the petition, Mr. Luzinski voted in favor. DENIED 19 Green St. - Peter Harriss Petitioner is requesting modification of a Special Permit granted April 25, 1984 to allow premises to be used as a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection, he also read the decision of April 25, 1984. Attorney George Vallis, One Church St. , represented the petitioner. All we are presenting tonight is a request to change the language of the previous decision. On condition number two it states the use of the property is conditioned upon the continued ownership and occupancy of the Mr. Harriss. In the event he should sell, it would revert back to a two family, We have no problem with it being owner occupied. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I have no problem as long as it is owner occupied. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition two parking spaces be maintained on site, the use as a three family is conditioned upon one of the units being owner occupied, if it • ceases to be owner occupied it reverts back to a two family. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - APRIL 30, 1986 page four 108 Broadway - Albert & Elaine Minotti • Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit and/or Variance to allow an existing trailer and to make said trailer a permanent structure in this Industrial district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , opposed and stating that according to the Mass. Building Code this structure cannot be used as a sub shop. Athan Bonzelere, represented the petitioners. Would like to clariy, we are here to extend nonconformity. The Board is probably familiar with the property. About 1972 the owner rented the property and it was used as travel agency. .He found it necessary to add space and purchased that trailer. Never got a permit. It is impossible to move that trailer without going on someone elses property. The Sub Shop is allowed. There is a title problem, need variance to allow the structure to stay on the property. The lot coverage with the trailer is fine. Would like to keep trailer and use for storage. If it allowed to remain they will put it on foundation. He displayed pictures of the property. It is not visable from the street. The sub shop will be in the existing building,the trailer will be for storage only. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Yvon Darisse, 109 Broadway, that trailer should have been removed years ago. I am against a sub shop. We have a parking problem and have had for years. There are seven restaurants within a short distance. Norman Darisse, 107 Broadway, there is a sub shop a quarter of a mile from this, opposed to this. Ed Harrington, 112 Broadway, I have a six foot fence. I came home one day and the trailer was there. The parking is bad, my driveway is three feet away from this. It was bad with the travel agency, this would be worse. I_ have put up sign that says do no park in my driveway and they ignored it. You may not be able to see it from the street but I can sure see it from my house. There is • only five feet from my fence and that trailer. Ms. Butterfield, 106 Broadway, opposed for the same reasons, also, they will put a dumpster, I don' t want garbage. Mr. Berube, 120 Broadway, they asked me to sign a petition but I did not realize they were putting in a sub shop, I am against that. In rebuttal: Mr. Bonzelere: I sympathize with the abutters but we are not here for the sub shop, that use is permitted. My clients are willing to put fence. We realize there is a parking problem, but this is a fast food operation, people come in, get sandwich and leave. We are willing to put a chain for Mr. Harrington. We are here to clear the title on the property. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: how long was it a travel agency? About 8-9 years, before that it was a barber shop. Mr. Hacker: I sympathize with the abutters but I agree with 'the attorney, we can' t consider the use. What we are dealing with is a trailer that was put there without permit. I think it would be inconsistent for us to vote in favor of a trailer that was put there illegally. I have a problem with setting a precedent of allowing trailers. Mr. Charnas: I am also opposed, I would vote against it. Mr. Strout: I don' t think it is impossible to remove. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board unanimously voted against granting the variance/special Permit. Mr. Charnas made a motion to advise the Building Inspector of the Board action and to make him aware there is an illegal trailer on this property and recommend he take the appropriate action. Mr. Dore seconded. Motion unanimously carried. DENIED MINUTES - APRIL 30, 1986 page five 121 & 123 Boston St. - Norman & Thomas Tache • Petitioner is requesting Variance and/or Special Permit from any and all applicable density and setbacks requirements in order to divide property into two lots in this B-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Thomas Tache represented himself and Norman Tache: presently there is no parking, the division would not increase this situation. Presently have tenants that have no cars. The buildings as they exist on one parcel are extremely hard to market. Have owned the property since January of 1985. Would suffer financial hardship if this is not granted. Difficulty getting financing. Mr. Hacker: when you bought this property 112 years ago you received mortgage. Mr. Tache: yes, but since then I have received a cease and desist order from the building inspector. I am working with Mr. Paquinn now, I have to put in a second means of egress. It will be a costly situation. In order to get refinancing we need to divide this. Mr. Luzinski: were these houses always the way they are. Mr. Tache: yes, to my knowledge. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: they are making provisions for second means of egress. Mr. Charnas: I can' t see how changing the lots is going to make any difference. Mr. Hacker: I would want it to be owner occupied. We are not increasing the use or changing the parking. What is the hardship? Mr. Tache: the marketablity. Mr. Charnas: why won' t the bank give money? Mr. Tache: they won' t give refinancing. Mr. Hacker: you got mortgage a year ago. Mr. Tache: yes, that was not refinancing. The hardship is financial. Chapter 40A says I can divide this. Mr. Hacker: sounds like he wants to sell. Mr. Charnas: the mortgage rate is not a hardship, a year ago it was marketable. I really don' t see a legal hardship. Mr. Hacker: • we would like to help you but you have to show us a hardship that runs with the land. I honestly can' t see any. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the petition requested. Mr. Strout seconded. The Board voted four to one against the motion, Mr. Strout voted in favor. DENIED 20 Essex St. - Michael J. Cardella Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback and any density and setback requirements needed to allow construction of a one story addition in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Debbie Cardella represented her husband, the petitioner. We would like this addition to use as storage in order to accomodate the bottle bill. We have been using the cellar but there is a limited amount of space and that is where we keep our inventory. We purchased this store in July of 1985• We have done a lot of work there, put new counter and store front. The addition would help the storage problem. We live above the store, this is our home. Mr. Hacker: for the record, I operate a similar business, but not in this area and this will not affect my decision. Mrs. Cardella submitted a petition in favor signed by well over one hundred people and letters from Eleanor Doyle, 48 Forrester St. and Leonard Costa, 17 Forrester St. , in favor. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Attorney Patick Burke, representing Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Galik, and his mother, Pearl Galik, 24 Essex St. , my clients have lived there for many years. That area is very dense, this plan as proposed is a 25 foot addition to the structure, this is more than 12 of the existing structure. It is a substantial increase in the • density. The Galik's house is 7 feet from front, the store is right on the line. This addition would block off my client's view. There is the issue of parking, presently there are five parking spaces and none of that parking is MINUTES - APRIL 30, 1986 page six • 20 Essex St. - continued for the public. I think it is used by the people who live there. This addition would take away some of this parking. The business of the store has increased, the lottery was put in, this was always a corner grocery store. We have no assurance this would be for just storage. Gary Sturgewall, 17 Andrew St. , opposed. In rebuttal: Debbie Cardella, we will be losing one parking space. Most of our business is neighborhood, pedestrian traffic. The parking problem is a City wide problem and I don' t think our addition is going to add to it. Hearing. closed.' Mr. Charnas: I can' t tell from the plans what the distance is between the Calik's property and your addition. Mr. Cardella: 18 feet. Mr. Strout: are you adding to the retail space. Mr. Cardella: no. Mr. Hacker: we can put condition on that it be for storage only. Mr. Luzinski: did you consider any other proposal? Mr. Cardella: yes, we thought about a shed but the addition is the best to accomodate our needs. Mr. Strout: will your rubbish be kept in the addition? Mr. Cardella: yes. Mr. Hacker: would be inclined to go along with a smaller addition. Mr. Cardella: not really, that would be the same as a shed. Mr. Luzinski: I know this area and most of the business is walk-in. Mr. Charnas: the bottle bill has put a strain on small business. I don' t think the abutters have a given right to a view. There is a need for this, I would be in favor. Mr. Dore: I have a problem, why do they need this addition now, the bottle bill was past few years ago. Mr. Hacker: they have only owned the business for about a year. Mr. Charnas: I would like to see the petition come back with plans that show the dimensions. Mr. Hacker: I would be willing to go along with that, but if we continue this he would be dealing with a four man Board. I would like to see a complete set of plans. He explained to the petition he could have the • opportunity to withdraw this petition and come back with complete set of plans, or to continue the meeting and be heard. by a four man Board, which would take a unanimously vote to grant, or they could vote to tonight. Mr. Cardella: would like to have it heard and voted on tonight. Mr. Charnas: we could write into the decision what the measurements would be. Mr. Hacker: I have a problem with' that, I still would like to see better plans. Mr. Charnas made .a motion to grant the petition on condition that addition be no closer than 18 feet to the property line of 24 Essex St. , Shrubs be erected along the proposed addition and the property line of 24 Essex St. , the addition be no longer than 25 feet and no more than 13 feet wide and no higher than 8 feet, the fire alarm system be included in the addition. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted three in favor of granting (Messrs. , Charnas, Luzinski, Strout) and two opposed to granting (Messrs. , Hacker and Dore) PETITION DENIED 27 Szetela Lane - McNeil & Associates Petitioners are requesting approval for revisions to plan which was approved by the Board of Appeal July 24, 1985 allowing construction of thirty six condominium units in this R-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. objecting to these revisions due to the fact they were not brought up to date or made aware of the revisions. Thomas Southworth, Vice President, McNeil & Assoc. , addressed the Board and the assemblage. He displayed plans of MINUTES - APRIL 30, 1986 page seven • 27 Szetela Lane - Continued the proposed revisions. First, I apologize to the Fire Dept. , it was an oversight and we will furnish them with any plans they may want. To explain what has happened, a portion of building one sits on land that was filled in 1942 without a Chapter 91 license, which by law is required so technically this was illegally filled. In order to give clear and marketable title to that unit we would have to obtaine a Chapter 91 license and this would involve an environmental impact report which would be time consuming and costly. We feel it is more reasonable to ajust the building as we are showing on the plan. We would reduce the number of bedrooms in the development by two, building 2 would lose a bedroom, the total number of units will remain the same, there will be less building coverage, the distances between buildings 1 , 2, 3, & 4 will go from 40 feet to 37 feet; the distance between buildings 4 & 5 will be reduced from 43 feet to 40 feet. This is still within the requirements of multi-family districts. Everything else will remain the same, the parking, roadways, etc. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I don' t think this impacts, I would make a motion to grant the petitioner the relief requested on condition all conditions set forth in the Purchase & Sale Agreement between McNeil & Assoc. and the City of Salem be strictly adhered to, work be in strict accordance with plans filed with the Board of Appeal, April 30, 1986, Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained and all work have approval of the Salem Fire Dept. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 83 Bridge St. - Vincent Sanzari & Patric Ryan • Petitioners are requesting a Variance from density requirements to allow a two family dwelling to be converted to a three family dwelling in this B-1 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Ryan & Mr. Sanzari represented themselves. We need affordable place to live. All we need is variance from density, the use is allowed. The biggest concern is parking and we have six parking spaces. If we had the place, we would live there. As a two family we could not afford to live there. Displayed the parking plans to the Board. This building will easily support three apartments, there are two egresses. Mr. Charnas: I believe it is, a Special Permit, it is already non- conforming and the use is a permitted one. Mr. Strout: is the parking area paved? Yes. Mr. Charnas: you would have no problem with is being owner occupied? No. Mr. Hacker: the way the parking is set up, they would have to back on to Bridge St. Mr. Sanzari: we could pave the rest of the yard if the Board wants us to. They would then be able to turn around. Mr. Hacker: if they agree to the parking plan, I would be in favor. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition, five parking spaces be maintained in the rear of the building in such a manner as cars can turn around and not back onto Bridge St. , parking area be paved, premises be owner occupied and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED •l MINUTES - APRIL 30, 1986 page eight • 9 Brooks St. - David & Linda Pydynkowski Petitioners are requesting a Variance from lot size in order to construct a single family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Charnas read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Pyndynkowski represented himself. This was originally one lot and was subdivided. Majority of the lots in this area are this size. Thought this lot was grandfathered, that we had 5,000 sq. ft. , when it was surveyed we found out there was only 4,500 sq. ft. , we have met all the setback requirements and it has the 50 feet of frontage needed for a grandfathered lot. As I said, when we bought the property we were not aware it was only 4,500 sq. ft. , we were all set for financing and when we went to get permit we were made aware this was undersized lot. All we need is a Variance from lot size. Speaking in favor: Mark Zaloof, 33 Fairview St. , this lot conforms with the neighborhood. It is presently a vacant lot and having a single family home there would add to the property values and would be good for the neighborhood. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Charnas: I have no problem with the hardship and many of the lots in the area are smaller. I would be in favor. Mr. Charnas made a motion to grant the variance from lot size and allow the construction of a single family dwelling on condition, plans be submitted to the Fire Dept. for their approval regarding the installation of smoke detectors, all work be done in accordance with plans submitted and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Marcia Ave./Vinnin St. - Continued • Mr. Hacker reconvened the hearing on Marcia Ave./Vinnin St. Attorney Serafini submitted copy of the Tedesco Pond Place Agreement with Abutters and the Covenant Granting Limited Access Privilege. Mr. Charnas read these documents into the record (on file) Mr. Hacker: let the record show we received a communication from the Swampscott Planning Board regarding this petition, it was not received until April 17th and will not be allowed. Mr. Charnas: I would like to have these documents incorporated into the decision and I would make a motion to grant the variances requested on condition, all conditions set forth in the attached "Tedesco Pond PlAce Agreement with Abutters" and "Tedesco Pond Place Covenant Granting the Limited Access Privilege" are and continue to be met, the pitch of Elm St. drain toward Loring Avenue when all construction associated with the petition is completed; the site plan for this project,be reviewed and approved by the Planning' Board, the City is not required to maintain streets, walkways or sidewalks, sewer & water systems within the subject develop- ment, not be responsible for drainage or filtration of the pond, the developer of such property obtain proper numbering from the City Assessor and compliance with Ordinance relative to numbering be adhered to, all laws, ordinances and regulations pertaining to fire safety be adhered to, plans for the building be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to issuance of the building permit, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit all work be done in accordance with plans dated April 28, 1986. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 10:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held May 14, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. •' Respectfully submitted Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk (Qi#V ofttlem, ttssttc!#use##g 3 k Poxra of MINUTED OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MAY 14, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, May 14, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of the meeting were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on April 30 & May 7, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Hacker, Luzinski and Strout. Member Fleming was not present when roll call was taken but was present later. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman James Hacker. Mr. Bencal made a motion to accept the minutes of the April 16, 1986 hearing, Mr. Luzinski seconded. MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED Due to the extensive agenda for this evening and with the approval of all Board Members present, the election of officers was moved to first on the agenda. Mr. Strout made a motion to re-elect Mr. Hacker as Chairman; Mr. Bencal seconded MR. HACKER UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED CHAIRMAN Mr. Strout made a motion to re-elect Mr. Luzinski Vice Chairman;. Mr. Bencal seconded. (. ! MR. LUZINSKI UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED VICE CHAIRMAN Mr. Strout made a motion to elect Mr. Bencal Secretary, Mr. Luzinski seconded. MR. BENCAL UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED SECRETARY Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the petition of Roger & Colleen Ryan for Variance at 414 Lafayette St. has been withdrawn, if they reapply sometime in the future it will be advertised_ again and abutters will be notified. Mr. Hacker explained to all petitioners present that there were only four members present and it would take a unanimous vote of the Board to grant requests. If anyone wished to withdraw at this time they have the opportunity to do so. No one requested leave to withdraw. Mr. Bencal read a letter from Councillor Leonard F. O' Leary, Councillor Ward Four dated May 9, 1986, registering a complaint regarding the petition of Mike Stasinos, 394 Highland Ave. not being moved up on the agenda. (on file) Mr. Hacker: Councillor O' Leary's letter has been duly noted and recorded and put on file. As my fellow Board Members are aware, the Board of Appeal received a resolution from the City Council regarding the fact that this particular case has been continued without a final denial. I did not feel, in light of this resolution that it would be appropriate to put this off any longer. /41� MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986 page two 50 Winter Island Road - Park & Recreation Commission • Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow the overnight of not more than sixty(60) recreational vehicles during the summer months in this R-1 zone. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Gary Moore, Manager of Winter Island, represented the Park & Recreation Commission. This is the fifth time we have petitioned the Board for this use. It has always been granted for a period of one year, we are asking for two years this time as we feel these campers have proved themselves. Mr. Fleming: why are you coming now for two years, I have a problem with granting this for two years. Mr. Moore: it was our intention to come for two years last year but because of the change from the Winter Island Commission to the Park & Recreation Commission we decided to wait. This is the first year it has come under the Park & Recreation. Speaking in opposition. Gerry Irish, no address, I am concerned about the policing of this area, teenage drinking and partying. Mr. Hacker: that is why we have given them the permit for one year at a time, it polices itself, if there were any problems and complaints we would know about them. Speaking in favor: Councillor Swiniuch, as far as the owners of these vehicles, these are adult vehicles and very well behaved people, for the most part these people belong to the National Recreation Vehicle Association. This is very well run and they police themselves. There have been no problems and I am in favor. Armand Blaise, 2 Madeleine Ave. , there are no teenage problems, these people are courteous to each other, it is well run. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinksi: this is the fifth year they have been here and I have been very impressed with them. They come and stay in Salem, they visit our tourist attractions, this is good for Salem, I would be in favor. Mr. Fleming I would like to move to amend their application and grant for only one year rather than the two years they requested. Mr. Strout • seconded the motion. Messrs. , Fleming, Hacker & Strout voted in favor of the motion to amend application. Messrs. , Bencal and Luzinski voted against the motion. Motion did no carry. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow the overnight camping of not more than 60 recreational vehicles for the period of May 1 , 1986 to October 15, 1986 and May 1 , 1987 to October 15, 1987 on condition the location of the recreational vehicles shall be approved by the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau to guarantee access by fire fighting apparatus. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 394 Highland Ave. - Mike Stasinos Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow construction of 163 residential units in this R-1 /R-C/BPD district. Mr. Bencal read the application, a petition signed by 12 neighbors in favor, a petition signed by 8 neighbors in favor, a letter from the City Planner listing 17 conditions the Planning Dept. would like to see put in the decision if this is granted (on file) , a letter of opposition from Ward four Councillor O'Leary and an attached petition signed by 134 neighbors in opposition, a letter from hte Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Luzinski: Mr. Chairman, the correspondence from Councillor .0' Leary and the petition of opposition is dated February 26, 1986 and is in opposition of 185 units. The petition we are hearing is for 163 units. Mr. Hacker: we will accept the petition as sub- mitted by the Councillor and assume that if they were against 185 they are against 163. Attorney John Keilty, Peabody, represented the petitioner. My client purchased the property last summer from Mr. Fiore. This was advertised for 163 residential units this would be 8 units • , per acre, these units will be townhouse style units. There will be tennis courts, swimming pool. He displayed plans to the assemblage and explained the proposal. The proposed roadway will be MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986 page three • 394 Highland Ave. - Continued will be on the Northeast side onto the site, it will be single divided road and the inner road will be cul-de-sac, the proposal allows for a connector to Camp Lions. The land is rocky, the work presently being done is being done with a building permit and in conjunction with commercial use. About 100 feet from Highland Ave. the property slopes up, there is a large outcropping of rock and large deposits of ledge. This is a mixed zoned area, my client has a building permit for commercial shopping area. The zoning was changed, my client went to court and won. Under the court decision we are allowed the B-2 uses. Part of this land is in the RC district and because of that we will have to go to the Conservation Commission. It is unusual to have a lot split in three different zones. We would like to develop the rear portion of the parcel for residential, the front part would be business office park. The feasibility plan was reviewed by the Planning Board. If this is granted tonight we could abandon the building permit we currently have. The Planning Board was concerned about commercial being so far from the downtown area. We offered to compromise. There has been a lot of talk regarding our coming to the Board of Appeal, we feel we are properly before this Board and it is not our intention to avoid the Planning Board and it never was our intention. Regarding the water and sewer situation, the developer is agreeable to retooling of the wastewater pumping facility on Ravenna Ave. The only access and egress to the development will be from Highland Ave. These units will not encroach, will be at least 190 feet from any abutter except for Mr. Amanti's property and we will be 70 feet from that. At the rear of the property there is a significant drop, it you combine that drop with the 190 feet, the impact would be minimal. It would be almost impossible to see the condominiums. • It is not economically feasible for single family homes due to the ledge and topography. The plan makes sound planning sense and is compatible with the area. The water supply is adequate, this will not improve the pressure but we will retool the pumping station. The sewer is presently adequate, the existing system will adequately handle this development and any future development. There are 4 significant drains, the front portion connects to 36" pipe on Highland Ave. With regards to drainage and wetlands, we still have to go to the Conservation Commission and also to the Planning Board. I don' t think we will impact the water shed. Regarding traffic, the traffic would be substantially greater if used for commercial, the shopping mall, would be ten times greater than the proposed residential use. We have been before this Board before, we at the point now where we have entered into negotiations for uses as a shopping mall. We feel residential use is the best use. We would leave the front area to be developed at a later date, perhaps an office park. This is, in all likelihood, the last attempt to develop as residential, but it will be developed. Mr. Luzinski: let me make sure I have this right, right now the front is being prepared for commercial but it this goes through tonight the commercial use will be abandoned, is that correct? Mr. Keilty: yes, we will abandon our building permit for the mall and the front will be left alone for the moment. Mr. Fleming: did you hear the conditions the Planning Board sent to us, do you have any problems with them, would you agree to all of them, even cutting this down to 126 units? Would you be willing to help obtain from the'state additional traffic controls? Mr. Kavanaugh: this would be with contributions from all the developers in the area. Mr. Hacker: if we grant this and make these conditions a part of the decision, they have to go along with them of it is not granted. No one • appeared in favor. MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986 page four • 394 Highland Ave. - Continued Speaking in opposition: Councillor Leonard O' Leary, for the record, the traffic light is already there. I am Councillor of Ward 4, we are the people who live there, we will be there when the developer is long gone. People have homes there, they established roots thinking they will be protected. This developer has refused to bring this before the Planning Board, they insist on coming to this Board instead of getting a zoning change throught the proper procedure. What are they afraid of, that there might be an investigation and there project would not stand up under scrutiny. If this is approved, there is another large piece of land further up, they could come in for variances. For a developer to go this route makes sense to him, going to the Planning Board makes sense to the people. There it can be studied and continued, shouldn' t the citizens of Salem be protected. We feel strongly this should go through the rezoning procedure. Just think of what we have heard from this developer, each time he comes it is with a different number of units. Maybe even the developer knows he is wrong. Some of you know the history of this developer and it has not been good, yes it is true he has the right to try, site plan review will not change that. Once he is granted a variance he has the right to build this, we have rules, lets follow them. Gilbert Gillespie, 5 Ravenna Ave. , is in the hospital, he has some questions, Mr. Meaney who has a bad back could not be here. Why is the City Planner recommending this, what improvements have been made on his recommendations made previously. How could he recommend such a bad plan. Mr. Hacker: I don' t think we have established it was not a good plan. Councillor O' Leary: asked the City Planner how he could recommend this plan. Mr. Kavanaugh: based my • recommendations on my concerns regarding traffic, by right he can put in a shopping mall with no review at all with any city board. There is a major food chain ready to come in, 'the impact of traffic with residential use would be much lesser than with commercial use, on this basis it is a better plan. With this plan we could get some funds to help with a comprehensive traffic study and some recreational land for the city if it is not granted, there will be no funds, no land. The zoning issue has trouble me for year or more. We tried to get this rezoned for light industry. These people, through a legal technicality were able to freeze the zoning. It is true, this development is unacceptable, I have tried to make compromises. The existing zoning is unacceptable, have tried to make compromises, tried to get public recreation area. Of the two proposals, the residential would have the lesser impact. Mr. O'Leary: why are you recommending they come to this Board. Mr. Kavanaugh: I have no problem if it is conditioned upon Planning Board approval. There is a State law as to what Board they can go to, the law says they can come to the Board of Appeal. Mr. Hacker: what is the neighborhood review process? Mr. Kavanaugh: at this hearing we are not sitting around a table discussing changes, etc. , but I think things can be worked out. It is important to note that this petition is not only for 163 residential units but for office space also, 126 should be the maximum allowed. If an approval of 126 is approved, there will be needed a site plan review and this will be done with Planning Board process. Mr. Hacker: according to your plan there is 7,000 sq. ft. per unit, can you tell me what the city is requiring of the Fafard project? Mr. Kavanaugh: 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. O'Leary: these neighbors were here before this Board another time for another petitioner and planning board gave 17 conditions, that person is still without a Certificate of Occupancy and has not complied with the conditions and here we are again. Mr. . Hacker: that is what we have Zoning Enforcement Officer for. Councillor Vincent Furfaro, Ward three, I myself am becoming confused, I have heard so much MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986 page five • 394 Highland Ave. - Continued tonight. My concerns would be basically the same as Councillor O'Leary's. Would like the Board to keep in mind the other large piece of land that could possible come for Variance. Mr. Kavanaugh: I would like to mention that condition number 17 requiring a written statement from the City Planner be provided to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy is a safeguard. With the Planning Board process there will be as a rule, 30-40 conditions. Dick Williams, Pyburn Circle, what kind of precedent would you be setting if this is granted. Mr. Hacker: each and every case is decided on its own merits. Mr. Williams: what kind of a bond is the developer willing to put up. Mr. Hacker: we have not reached a point where we are asking for that. Mr. Fleming: what would you rather see there, would you prefer a business? yes. Mr. D'amato, Clark St. , what about blasting? Mr. Hacker: we could set conditions as to the time of day they could start work and when they would have to stop, without conditions he can continue what he is doing now. Mr. Amanti, 392 Highland Ave. , I am representing my father, would not mind seeing some condominiums, realize that something is going to go there but this is too many, if it was down to only 100 maybe we would consider it. It is too close to my fathers property. Is it the function of this Board to grant something like this and if it is granted tonight, is this it. Mr. Hacker: this petitioner or any petitioner can come to this Board and what we do tonight is final. Mr. Amanti: we have not seen anything. Mr. Hacker: this Board relies on the expertise of other departments. What the City Planner has tried to do is say this is the lesser of two evils. Mr. Amanti: if this is granted it is going to be a disaster. Mr. Hacker: according the communication from the City Planner, the commercial use could • generate in excess of 20,000 trips per day, in contrast, the residential would generate only 650. They can, by right, put in the shopping center, the Court has given them that right. Mr. Amanti: the road is so close to my fathers land. Mr. Hacker: we could put condition on that they change the road. If this is granted, this plan would have to be amended. Louise Pelletier, Ravenna Ave. , after he gets this, he says he will put a business there. Mr. Hacker: the Board could condition this on there being no business use. Louis Dimambro, 1 Ravenna Ave. , I don' t think this Board has the teeth or the control for a project this size, one a building is there, it is there and we have to look at it. Mr. Hacker: the petitioner has said there is a rise in the property, can you see the project from your property. No I can' t. Bill Antoniades, 20 Barcelona Ave. , what is the sense of the rezoning process if anyone can get a variance. Wallace Miller, Pyburn ave. , very much opposed. Councillor Nutting: it is a pleasure to take part in this discussion, I realize the Board of Appeal is overworked, in fact the Planning Board is overworked. If the Board has any qualms, perhaps it should let the developer withdrawn. Mr. Bencal: the City Council issue a resolution regarding continuing this any longer. George Antonio, 20 Appleby Rd. , opposed. Armand Blais, 2 Madeleine Ave. , we have a water problem here, there has always been a water problem here, if you don' t believe me you can come and take a shower at my house. Supposedly this problem was rectified years ago, but it is still there. I am not the only one with a water problem. Elizabeth Winiarczyk, 39 Ravenna Ave. , I don' t think a project this size should be decided a a limited meeting with limited time, should be the rezoning process. Paulette Langone, 29 Barcelona Ave. , part of my driveway collapsed this morning, there is problem in this area. We need protection. There is no legal hardship and there is no 40 question in my mind that if this is granted it won' t stand up in court. MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986 page six 394 Highland Ave. - Continued • Marjorie Holland, 22 Barcelona Ave. , I am opposed to the way this is being presented, how many of you have viewed this site? All members of the Board of Appeal informed Mrs. Holland they have indeed viewed the site. Mr. Hacker.: what is your biggest concern, someday this land is going to be developed for some- thing. Mrs. Holland: I realize that but I am very concerned with the traffic, it is bad enough that Fafard railroaded us we don' t need any more. Mr. Hacker: if this plan were approved tonight, according to the City Planner it would generate about 600 trips per day, much less that a supermarket. Mrs. Holland: there was a supermarket by Rich's and that did not bother me. Irene Provo, 9 Pyburn Ave. , Emily Boucher, 43 Ravenna Ave. Gerard Yarosh, Sophia Rd. , I concur with all that has been said. Don' t want more lights there. As far as having soccer field, how many of you people play soccer. Mr. Hacker: do you think the commercial use would be better? Mr. Yarosh: I would like single family homes. Think of what has been said, everything they've mention is adequate, that is just another word for mediocre. Mr. Hacker: would you prefer the commercial use? Mr. Yarosh: yes. Shirley Yarosh, 8 Sophia Rd. , concerned with crime, more dwellings more crime. Catherine Harmon, 19 Madeline Ave. ,I don' t want to see any business here, would rather see condominiums but there is water problem. Mr. Kavanaugh: The City is upgrading the Highland Ave. pumping station, the Engineer says when it is done the problem will improve. Mr. Antonio, Appleby Rd. , if we have any more meetings we should have them somewhere else, there is not enough room here, half of us have been standing all evening. I want to go on record as being opposed, I think you people should be more familiar with whats going on in the neighborhood, it is a mess, all I do is dust. You ask if we prefer commercial . to condomiums, well I think Councillor O'Leary said it all. Michael Francullo, 19 Barcelona Ave. , opposed. Bruce Macrae, 4 Sophia Rd. , I think the Members of Board and Mr. Stasinos have really held there cool. We are going to have something there, I know that. You can put all the conditions you want but who is going to police them. Mr. Hacker: the Building Inspector. Mr. Macrae: that is the problem and my concern, they are supposed to do something but it doesn;t get done, you can' t do it all, you are overworked. All these things sound good on paper. Linda Vaughn, Greenway Rd. ,not for or against, I am a member of the Planning Board. If this is accepted I think all developers should have to go to neighbor- hood review, I have seen some developers sit down and talk to the neighbors but not all developers do that , We are the ones who have to live there and we are the ones who know what the problems are. Neighborhood review is the best way to handle projects such as this and I would like to see all developers be required to do this. Wilfred Dupuis, 14 Madeline Ave. , opposed; Domenic Scaparotti, 17 Madeline, opposed; Nelson Deroin, 6 Sophia Rd. , opposed, don' t want a compromise. Mr. Hacker: I am trying to ascertain the number of cars that would be generated, it seems to me that a commercial use would generate more than residential. The petitioner is allowed by law to build 400,000 sq. ft. shopping center, the City has no control over that, I certainly think that would produce more traffic, he could even put a small factory there. Mr. Nelson: we just don' t want the condominiums. James & Lillian Twomey, opposed. REBUTTAL: Attorney Keilty: One the the big questions is, why are here before this Board. We don' t feel the Planning Board has the right to grant this, this Board does. Another question is, what protection to they have against further development, we have agreed to relinquish our building permit for the shopping center, once we do that, we lose the right to have commercial use there. To • clarify this, the former use is highway use and we can build under that use, the court gave us that right, and we can build under the new Business Park Develop- ment use, which it is presently zoned as. We think our plan is a compromise. Hearing closed. MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986 page seven . 394 Highland Ave. - Continued Mr. Hacker: Any abutters here that their property touches the land in question? Mr. Amanti: yes? Mr. Hacker: in your estimation, would you, considering the topography, be able to see the projection from your house. Not sure. Mr. Hacker: any other abutters be able to see the condominiums from there house? Mr. Harmon, 19 Madeline Ave. : yes. Mr. Luzinski: I really don' t know where to start. I am surprised that the neighbors would rather have business there considering the traffic impact. Mr. Bencal: I agree, the figures indicate the commercial development would have an adverse affect and I am also surprised the neighbors prefer business. Mr. Hacker: I feel if Highland Ave. is hit with all this traffic that the business use would generate, it would be horrendous. I personally think the 126 units is too many but I would reluctantly go along with the Planner. There are other conditions I would like to see put on this. I think we can control the growth. Mr. Fleming: I think we have a duty to promote the public good. Do we listen to the developer or listen to the public. I is a hard decision but I think we are better off if we listen to the people, although I do not agree with them that the commercial would have less traffic. If they have made that decision then I am prepared to vote that way. Mr. Luzinski: if it does become commercial, we would have another route 114 on Highland Ave. , and I would hate to see that. I still prefer the condominiums. Mr. Fleming made a motion to deny the petition. Mr. Strout seconded. Messrs. Bencal, Fleming and Strout voted in favor of the motion to deny. Messrs. , Hacker and Luzinski voted against the motion. By a vote of three to two, the motion carried and the petition was denied. • DENIED 51 Summit Ave. - Donald & Ida McEwan Petitoners are requesting a Variance to convert a single family dwelling into a two family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau stating the property is not in compliance with laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors. Donald McEwan represented himself. There is only my wife and myself left at home, it is a big house. Mr. Fleming: There was a previous decision granting this property for use as a three family. Mr. McEwan: Was never used as three family. There is adequate parking. Mr. Strout: Would you be changing the structure at all? Mr. McEwan: no. Mr. Hacker: Any other two family homes in the area? Mr. McEwan: yes, there are about five. Mr. Bencal: what is the hardship? Mr. McEwan: financial, this is a twelve room house and to maintain it and heat it is outragious, the heating bill alone was $1 ,400, if we can' t use it as a two family we will be forced to sell. Mr. Fleming: can this be a Special Permit? Mr. Hacker: yes, we can down grade the request. Speaking in favor: Councillor John Nutting: I am familiar with the petition, they have live in the area for six to eight years and it is a big house. It looks more like a three family, I would not like to see the trees removed but have no problem with granting it for two family, would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Strout: where are you parking now? Mr. McEwan: in the garage, third car would park in driveway. Mr. Fleming: it is almost impossible to find a hardship, I think we should grant a Special Permit. Mr. Hacker explained to Mr. McEwan the • difference between the Special Permit and a Variance and asked if he would mind if the Board modified the application for a Special Permit. Mr.McEwan: would have no problem with that. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow conversion to a two family on condition, three on site parking spaces be maintained, it be owner occupied, Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - May 14, 1986 page eight • 50 Valley St. - Leonard & Diane Redican Petitioners are requesting a Variance from any and all density and setback requirements to redivide parcel into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on Lot 84 in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application. The Redicans represented themselves. They submitted a petition in favor signed by thirty seven neighbors and abutters. They stated they bought the lot and were under the impression it was a buildable lot, however, when we went to get the building permit we found out the lot line disappeared and we had only one lot. Mrs. Redican: I lived there all my life and would like to stay there and we could if we could build on this lot. It would give us a good head start. We will be able to meet all the setback requirements. Mr. Hacker: you own both lots? Mrs. Redican: yes, we do. Mr. Hacker: When was the house built? Mrs. Redican: about 55 years ago, the existing house is too small for our family. The house we would like to build would be for us. Mr. Hacker: let the record show there are 29 signatures, although some are signed Mr. & Mrs. which would add up to the 37 previously stated, and all seem to be in the immediate area. I go by that house three or four times a day, it is an old house and has more land than any house in that area. I would be in favor of this. Asked if any one would like to speak in favor. Michelle Rogers, 46 Valley St. : I am not in favor or opposed, just have some questions. I did not get a notice and I am a direct abutter. Mr. Hacker explained that the Board sends to the Assessors for a list of abutters and that is what we have to go by. According to the Assessors list the notice went to Mrs. Rogers ex-husband. Mr. & Mrs. Rogers said they just bought the house. Mrs. Rogers: I am concerned with the drive- way being to close, drainage is a problem in this area. Mr. Hacker: we can • have them direct this away from your house. No one appeared in opposition. hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: this seems like an opportunity to keep Salem people in Salem. I would be in favor is the driveway is pitched so it will not drain on the other property. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant variance from lot size and frontage to allow construction of single family dwelling on condition the driveway for the house on lot 84 not come closer than ten ( 10) feet of the southerly lot line, the pitch of the driveway must be away from the property toward the street and away from abutting lots, and a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 20 Broadway - Michael Cormier/Paul Beaupre (Petitioners) George Feeney (Owner) Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow a miniature golf course in this Industrial District. Mr. Bencal read the application. Attorney Kevin Daly, Church St. , Salem, represented the petitioners. Petitioners are leasing 10,000 sq. ft. from the owner, Mr. Feeney. The parking is more than adequate for a miniature golf course, more than 120 spaces including the bowling alley, which is already there. This will be a shot in the arm as far as looks go, in this area. Mr. Bencal: this plot plan shows 40,000 sq. ft, what we want to see is what part is going to be the golf course. Mr. Hacker: I like the idea of a golf course but I don' t like voting on something I can' t see, this plan shows nothing. O MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986 page nine • 20 Broadway - Continued Mr. Daly: it will situated on the southern side of the street. They own all the equipment. He displayed pictures of a miniature golf course. The will only be open till shortly after Labor Day. Mr. Strout: how much area will the golf course take up? Mr. Daly: about 10,000 sq. ft. This is on the back end of the Bowling Alley, there will be a fence going around it. None of the parking spaces will be touched. Speaking in favor: George Feeney: owner of the property. this piece of property was unusable until about a year ago. 1 made a deal with the MBTA, they leveled it and now it is usable. 1 can park over three hundred cars. We need to find some way to use this land, this is a good use. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed.. Mr. Bencal: 1 agree that Mr. Feeney runs a good operation. 1 am concerned about voting for a pig in a poke. 1 would like to see some plans drawn to scale. Without that 1 would be uncomfortable voting for this. Mr. Hacker: 1 could not vote on this without some plans. Mr. Fleming: couldn' t we continue this till the next meeting and have them come back with defined plans. Mr. Hacker: 1 think they should withdraw and come back with plans. We have a heavy agenda coming up and this is putting them and us under pressure. Mr. Fleming made a motion. to continue this petition until the next meeting, Mr. Luzinski seconded. Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Strout voted in favor of the motion to continue. Messrs. , Bencal and Hacker voted against the motion. Motion did not carry. Mr. Bencal made a motion to allow petitioner to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 220 Highland Ave. - Sunburst Fruit Juices, 'lnc. • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition for additional office space and production facilities in this B-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, a letter from the Fire Dept. , on objection, a letter from Mr. Niman, Director of Public Services, regarding the water table in this area. Attorney John Serafini Jr. , represented the petitioner. He displayed plans to the Board and the assemblage. Also displayed renderings of the proposed addition. My clients business has grown and they need to expand. We are asking for a Special PErmit to extend a nonconforming use, the building is also noncon- forming, it is grandfathered. To add on, we need a Special Permit. This does not derogate from the intent of the Ordinance nor will it be detrimental to the area. We feel this is an appropriate use. Mr. Bencal: before we continue, 1 have some correspondence, in addition to the letter from Mr. Niman, 1 have a letter addressed to Sunburst from Mr. Niman. Mr. Bencal read the letter into the record, (on file) . Basically Mr. Niman's letter concerned itself with the filling of the company's 600 gallon tanks every fifteen minutes. Mr. Niman is concerned that this may be having an effect on the pressure and flow fluctuations on Highland Ave. Mr. Hacker: 1 spoke with Mr. Niman and he suggested that if this is granted it be conditioned upon his approval. Mr. Fleming: on the plan it shows there was a proposed Rockmere Street, is there any problem with that? Mr. Serafini: We are in the process of settling that, the Land Court has signed and for all intents and purposes that street has disappeared. Mr. Fleming: has the City been notified? Mr. Serafini: not yet, it was signed May 1 , 1986, it will probably take another couple of months. Mr. Fleming: did the City file an appearance? Mr. Serafini: 1 don' t think so, but it was advertised. Mr. • Fleming: are there any hazardous substances on the premises? Mr. Wakeland, U.P. , Sunburst: No, there are no hazardous substances. Mr. Fleming: are you connected with a septic system and would you agree to connect to the City sewer? Mr. Wakeland: we have no problem with that. 1 don' t think we are causing the problem Mr. Niman mentioned, we have the same problem. Mr. Fleming: would you MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986 page ten 220 Highland Ave. - Continued -- be will to pay your share as far as retooling is concerned? Also, regarding the the traffic study, would you be in favor of this? Mr. Serafini: We have a curb cut request. 1 don' t think we will add appreciably to the impact, will be virtually no more employees. The plans call for office space and warehousing. Mr. Hacker: there is a trailer on the premises. Mr. Serafini: that will be removed. Mr. Fleming: will you meet the requirements for loading facilities? Mr. Serafini: yes. Mr. Strout: what is kept in the old tanks out back? Mr. Serafini: liquid sugar and plastic for bottles. Speaking in favor. Richard Swiniuch, 33 Forrester St. , 1 would like some assurance that parcels behind them would remain R-1 . Mr. Serafini: 1 think we can work out something with the assurance that it will remain residential. Mr. Swiniuch: if that is the size of the building as shown on the plan, it is certainly an improvement over what is there. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: 1 think it will improve the area. Mr. Fleming: it is a good project, would like to see conditions, would like them tied into the sewer system, handle their share of retooling, would like them to meet with neighbors, think we should continue to allow them to do this. Mr. Hacker; really don' t think it is neces- sary to continue. They have been good neighbors and 1 think to continue this would not serve any purpose. We can condition it upon there tying into the City sewer, get in writing the Land Court decision. 1 do not like to penalize small business. 1 haven' t heard anything said to indicate there is a problem. 1 don' t think we could assess them for water use. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Wakeland how much more water they would be using. Mr. Wakeland; will not be using any • more than we are now. Mr. Bencal: should incorporate the letter from Mr. Niman into the decision. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition, the plans meet all conditions set forth in correspondence from the Fire Dept. , The trailer must be removed, a decree from the land court must be furnished to the City Planner stating that Rockmere St. does not extend to Highland Ave. Mr. Fleming: 1 would like to amend the motion, would like to add that a Certificate of Occupancy not be issued until the building in its entirety is connect to the City sewer system, Certificate of Occupancy not be issued until there is a meeting with abutters and a buffer zone created between Sunburst and the residential area, it be determined by the City Engineer a proportional amount be given by Sunburst for retooling of Pump Station. Mr. Hacker; do you except these amendments. Mr. Bencal: 1 will accept only that a covenant between Sunburst and Mr. Swiniuch be given relative to the use of the property in the R-1 zone and that approval is contingent upon resolution of the water problems noted in a letter from Mr. Niman and all conditions must be met before a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Fleming seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED The Board of Appeal adjourned the public hearing portion at 11 :30 p.m. and went into executive session. The Board adjourned for the evening at 12:00 midnight, next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday May 21 , 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Principal Clerk J �. Ctv of ttlem, Ansenchusetts { Paurb of �kppenl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MAY 21 , 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, May 21 , 1986 at 7:00 P.M. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News. Members. Present: Messrs. , Fleming, Hacker, Luzinski, •Strout and Associate Member Dore The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Dore was appointed a voting member and Acting Secretary. Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the petition of C. Anderson Inge, 158-162 Derby St. had been withdrawn. The petition was withdrawn prior to the hearing so no vote was taken. 1 Butler St. - Nicholas & Deborah Marrotta Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow an existing three family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Dore read the application, a letter from Fire Inspector LaPointe, no objection and a letter from Edgar Paquin, Assistant Building Inspector, e. addressed to the petitioners, regarding the lack of egresses. Attorney Michael McArdle represented the petitioners. In March of 1985 my clients viewed the property and it was fully equipped as a three family. They signed a Purchase and Sale Agreement and did in fact buy the property. Rental income was a factor in the purchase, it was needed to help with the mortgage. Subsequently, they dis- covered it was an illegal egress so they made an agreement with the third floor tenant to move because of this egress problem. They did not have the financing at that time to fix the egresses. There is adequate parking. When Mr. Marotta went to get a building permit he found out this was not a three family, he could not get a permit. The Building Inspector suggested he come for a Variance to clear the title. In 1966 this was listed as Gallows Hill Club, prior to that it was a store, A.O.H. , always been at least two family' s there. If this use is not allowed it would impair not only Mr. Marrotta but any owner of the property. This will not be detrimental nor will it derogate from the intent of the Ordinance. This was built as a three family. Mr. Fleming: what exactly are you asking for tonight. Mr. McArdle: for a three family. Mr. Fleming: you will also need a density Variance, are you asking for that? Also, are you asking for parking? For a three family you will need five parking spaces, you only show four. Mr. McArdle: if I could amend the petition orally at this time, I would do so. Mr. Hacker: it would have to be re-advertised. In lieu of what we have just found out, would you like to withdraw and come back for all the variances you will need or we could vote on just what you have asked for and you can come back for the others. Mr. McArdle: would like the whole package. Mr. Marrotta: the previous owner still lives in the area, it is my understanding that if I can get proof from them that it was a three family, we would not have to go through this? Mr. Luzinski: • the question is, it was never a legal three family. Mr. Hacker: If we are going to help you,you will have to come back to us anyway for the parking. Mrs. Marrotta: all around us there are two and three family houses without parking. MINUTES - MAY 21 , 1986 page two 1 Butler St. - Continued • Mr. Hacker: I would guess they are pre-existing and therefore allowed. Mr. McArdle requested leave to withdraw. Mr. Fleming made a motion to allow petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW 56 Forrester St. - Fred Cardella 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-2 district. Mr. Dore read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Cardella represented himself, he submitted copies of the plot plan. There may be a problem with parking. I do own the lot in back. Displayed pictures to the Board. I have a garage that could be knocked down and I own the parcel of land in the back. There is a fence and garage I could remove. I don' t live in either of the properties. He showed on the plan where the other property abuts 56 Forrester St. Mr. Fleming: you would make a right of way, would you record that right of way. Mr. Cardella: certainly. Mr. Dore: how many parking spaces could you put in there? Mr. Cardella: at least five. Mr. Strout: what about parking for the other house? Mr. Cardella: they have been parking on the street. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Waltrant Caron, 55 Forrester St. , we have a parking problem in this area, next door is a six family house. I don' t have a car right now, but I am going to have a no parking sign put in front of my house. When I have company there is no place for them to park. People are parked in front of my house all the time. Bob Trainor, 51 Forrester St. , I have nothing against Fred, he says he will put in parking from the Essex St. property, all well • and good, but what if he decides to sell. We just don' t have room on Forrester for any more cars. Joan Nestor, 2 Forrester St. , parking is the biggest problem. In rebuttal: Mr. Cardella, I know it is a congested area but all I am asking for is one tenant. As far as parking of Forrester St. is concerned, the people who park there, live there and I I get this I will knock down the garage and the fence and let them park there. Hearing closed. Mr. Strout: what is the width of your driveway? Mr. Cardella: wider than a car. Mr. Hacker: are you aware of the new Council Order, to demolish anything over fifty years old you must go to the Historic Commission. Mr. Luzinski: I think we need to see the lay out of the exit and entrance on Essex St. Mr. Hacker: I agree the parking is a bad situation, I have heard nothing bad about the owner. However, it is not owner occupied and I have a problem with that. Mr. Fleming: I agree with Mr. Luzinski, I would like to see a layout of the parking. Mr. Hacker: if we continued this, how long would it take to get plans showing the parking? Mr. Cardella: I would get started on it tomorrow. Mr. Strout: I think you should consult a professional. Mr. Fleming: definitely, should consult professional. Mr. Hacker: would you like to have this continued or would you like to withdraw and come back with proper plans. The next meeting is next week. Mr. Cardella: why don' t I withdraw. Mr. Fleming made a motion to allow petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW 461 Highland Ave. - Robert Vigeant (Petitioner) Nicholas Fiore (Owner) Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow premises to be used as a used car dealer, property is located in a B-2 district. Mr. Dore read the application and letters from Councillor Vincent Furfaro and Paul Sudenfield, Meineki Mufflers, both in favor. Mr. Vigeant represented himself, he display plans. I am petitioning this Board for a Special Permit to allow me to use this land, which is now vacant, for a used car lot. Mr. Hacker: These are preliminary plans and they look like two businesses. Mr. Fiore: these are the plans for the building I am going to put up. Mr. Vigeant is asking for a use permit. Eventually there will be two businesses and it the other business is not an allowed use they MINUTES - MAY 21 , 1986 page three • 461 Highland Ave. - Continued will have to come to the Board. Mr. Fleming: will the cars be parked inside the building or outside? Mr. Vigeant: inside will be place for me to work on cars, there will be lines of cars outside. He showed the Board where the cars would be. I have to relocate my business because the people I lease from did not renew the lease, they are selling the building. I cannot afford to pay what they are asking. This will be a cement block building, one story, about 16 ft. high. Will have about 35 to 40 cars. Mr. Hacker: would you have a problem if we limited you to 40 cars? Mr. Vigeant: no. Mr. Hacker: this is something positive for the City, I would be in favor with the condition there only be 40 cars. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition there be storing o•f• not more than forty (40) cars on the lot, cars are to be stored only on the area indicated on the plot plan, a license from the City of Salem Licensing Board be obtained, building to be 80' x 50' as shown on plans submitted to the Board and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 148 North St. - Sophie & Robert Harris Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling and a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setbacks to allow construction of a two story addition in this R-2 district. Mr. Dore read the application, a petition signed by six neighbors in favor and a letter from the Fire Dept. , opposed because property is not in compliance with laws • relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Harris represented himself. He displayed the plans to the Board. The existing shed will be removed and a section of the existing addition will be removed. There will be parking , this is going to be our retirement home. We will certainly conform with any codes that have to be complied with. We have been here for 32 years and the property is well main- tained. Mr. Fleming: you do intend to continue living there? Mr. Harris: yes. Speaking in favor: Dave Harris, 5 Varney St. , they will live there the rest of their lives, they have substantial parking. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: it is surprising to find such a large lot in this area. This addition will be two story, is that correct? Mr. Harris: yes but not as high as the house, there will not be an attic. Mr. Hacker: should condition it on approval of the Historic Commission. Mr. Fleming: don' t think we have to act on that, he could not get a building permit to demolish until he had their approval. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition on condition a Certificate of Occupancy and a Certificate of Compliance be obtained. Mr. Dore seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 118 Washington St. - China Square Partnership Corp. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from any and all density and parking requirements in order to rehabilitate the Peabody Block and Post Office building and to construct a new building to provide 75 condominium units and approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of office space. Property is located in a B-5 district. Mr. Dore read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , stating they had no objection as lot as the developer agrees to work with the Fire Prevention Bureau relative • to sprinklers, rubbish chute and parking garage ventilation. (on file) Attorney John Serafini Sr. , represented the petitioner, Michael Padnos. Mr. Padnos is the developer and the owner, the property has been purchased so he is committed. MINUTES - MAY 21 , 1986 page four 118 Washington St. - china Sq. Partnership - Continued • The petitioner is here tonight along with the Architect. This design was conceived sometime in early Sept. or late Oct. Mr. Padnos saw this building and thought it had possibilities and he pursued the purchase of the property. He brought an architect down to Salem, they walked the area to get a feeling of the area. He came away with the feeling the buildings had not be changed for many years. He knew that if restoration was done it would have to be don in conformance with the area. The result is shown on the plans tonight and in the model we have. This is the first major project in the down town area for a long time. The developer has to make sure the different Boards are comfortable with the plans. The project will be here for many years to come. There has been close cooperation with the Planning Dept. The parking concern is one of the biggest concerns. With that in mind the people involved have tried to find a way to put parking on site so the needs of the people who live here will be adequate. This is a large expense but the marketability of condominiums with on site parking is best. I think they come up with a parking plan this Board will approve of, and that is the underground parking area. They also came up with a park area which will be maintained as open space. This is important for a couple of reasons, it fits in with the mall and doesn' t give the feeling you are in canyon. The City has applied to the State for funds to accomplish this park area. The Peabody Block building exists, we will rehabilitate these buildings, will tear down the building in back, the old Sears annex and construct new building using the existing footprint. In between these buildings will be a park, this park will be private. The entrance and exits will be on Barton St. , traffic wise, this works quite well. The total number of units will be 75. We do not exceed the height requirement, it will be about 68' high. I have taken the liberty of typing out a list of the requested variances. He • submitted copy to the Board. We will need another story, the Ordinance only allows six stories and we need seven, but- even with the seven we will not exceed the height and it fits with the existing buildings. A lot of imagination has gone into this. The existing buildings are located in a B-5 district so we can cover 100% of the lot. This will be about an eleven million dollar project. So there will be no problem in the future, we are dealing with the back as new and the rest as rehabing. We have talked with the Building Inspector and we will comply with all requirements. In order to begin, we have this Board's approval first, then we must go for Site Plan Review. I would, at this time, like to have the Architect go through some of the designs with you. Bob Miklos, Architect: I will just briefly outline what we are proposing to do. The Peabody Block & Post Office building there will be complete renovations, we will have all new mechanical systems, we will comply will all codes. We would combine the two buildings by adding in the alley. Can provide new service core. First floor will be office space which will maintain the character of the area. Will be adding a floor to the Peabody building and two floors to the Post Office. In combining the two buildings we thought it would be best to make them the same height. New building will be seven stories above ground. Parking area will be under the park and under the new building. Both parking levels will be accessed from Barton Sq. and will not add to traffic congestion there. We will have some office space on the terrace and entrance to offices will be off the terrace, this will encourage pedestrian use. This block is critical to Salem. The new building will be the same as the other two buildings. We trying to correspond to the character of the area and still bring something new. There are three condos at the top level arranged as duplexes. Some of these units will a direct view of Pickering Wharf. • In the new building we will have two elevator cores, all elevators will go to the basement so residents can enter units from the parking area. Some of the parking will be piggyback. These will be for the two bedroom units, this arrangement MINUTES - MAY 21 , 1986 page five 118 Washington St. - continued • allowed us additional parking. We will not excavate near the tunnel. Michael Padnos, China Square Partnership, owner and developer: from my point of view Salem is a beautiful City and I wanted to make something beautiful for Salem. We walked the length of the mall and we designed this to fit in with Salem but not to be a copy. It is reflective of the old but it is new. We started this project by talking with the Planning Dept. , we found that parking was a problem. When we decided to go ahead with this we knew we had to provide parking. There is a base- ment, but we will still have to go down and it is expensive. I think we have come with a good plan. We will make a profit, not millions but a profit. Again, we are trying to make something consistent with Salem. The park on the corner, a small park between the buildings, this park will be private, the park on the corner will be public, will be two levels, it would be good to be able to do something exciting there, if we get the funds maybe a water fall. Mr. Fleming: will the parking spaces be deed to the condominium owners? Mr. Serafini: I don' t know if that has been decided but I would think so. If we sell condominium a parking space would go with it. Mr. Fleming: we are talking about 90 spaces, correct? Mr. Serafini: yes, at all times would be 90 spaces for the condominium owners. Mr. Fleming: I would like to see them deeded. Mr. Serafini: I think that is the way it will be done. Mr. Padnos: yes, that is the way it will be, the parking spaces will be deeded. Mr. Fleming: will there be some dedication of the public park. Mr. Serafini: right now that park is owned by the City and a private person, the City will try to acquire that space. Mr. Fleming: would like that to remain public. Mr. Fleming: there will be 75 condominium units and 12,000 sq. ft. office of commercial space, you don't know how many offices, could be one large or a lot of small ones. Mr. Serafini: the parking will still remain with the residential use, • not the commercial. Speaking in favor: Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, we have tried to do something with the downtown area, would like to encourage offices and try to encourage residential and hopefully breathe some life into the retail businesses in the downtown. The problem we run into is these old buildings have 100°% lot coverage and cannot provide parking. Whenever possible we like to see the developers do the best they can to provide parking. This developer has done this, he will be providing more than one space per unit. We have worked very closely with the developers. I think we will be able to get the funds for the park. Bill Luster, Salem Redevelopment Authority: The SRA has tried over the years to deal with this property. Since Mr. Padnos purchased the property he has met with the Board and the Board if favorable towards this project. Councillor Nutting: For Mr. Padnos to go forward and find 90 parking spaces in the downtown is com- mendable. The increase in tax dollars will certainly be an asset to the City. Speaking in opposition: Arthur Dimitrakopoulos, owner of the Essex Pizza & Roast Beef, I am not really opposed, but I am concerned. I would like some kind of condition put on which will give me some assurance by business will not be inter- ferred with. George Phillips, owner of the Clock Shop, I am also concerned with my business being interferred with. In Rebuttal: John Serafini, certainly will be construction going on, we will be working with the Building Dept. on the construction. Will not be any interference, the Building Dept. will be supervising this. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I agree with the developer that this is the most exciting thing that has been proposed in Salem for a long time. This plan, which the developer has given us, certainly would be in the best interest of the City. I would go along with a condition that the construction not interfer un- reasonably with businesses that are already there. I would like to see this • project go forward, however, the tenants who have been here during the bad times should not be hurt. Mr. Dimitrakopoulos: what is unreasonable. Mr. Hacker: there will be staging but we can make sure it block your store. Mr. Fleming: I think they have a genuine concern. But anyone who is aware of what has been MINUTES - MAY 21 , 1986 page six 118 Washington St. - (Continued) • i % happening in Salem for the past few years will certainly see the advantage of this project. You people are going to be inconvenienced, that can' t be helped. I would have been against this if they had come in with no parking. I commend the developers for the uniqueness but mostly for the parking. I realize this is a very costly project, it is an excellent plan, again, I commend you and I would be in favor. Mr. Strout: I feel the same way. I know, being in the building business, you have made every effort to meet all the requirements, I would be in favor. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition variances from Table III, B-5 density require- ments, paragraphs, 2, 4, 5, 7. 9, 10, and variance from parking requirements and to allow construction of ninety (90) parking spaces with a minimum area of 815" x18' per space on condition, ninety (90) parking spaces be deeded in connection with ownership of the residential development; developer work with the Building Inspector to protect the present tenants and not impede unreasonable with businesses that presently exist there; meet all fire and building codes and any other City Ordinances and codes, Site Review and Design Review of the entire development and any other applicable City Boards and Commissions; a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for the entire project, both residential and commercial. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held May 28, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitte , Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk (gi#v of "Salem, ttssttcljuse##s S MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - MAY 28, 1986 - A 986A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, May 28, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of said meeting were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming,Hacker and Luzinski The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. , by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Hacker addressed the assemblage, explaining there were only four members present, it would therefore take a unanimous vote of the Board to take any action on the petitions before the Board. Anyone wishing to withdraw should do so now. Attorney Jacob Segal, representing UDAG, 234 Essex St. , for a Variance from minimum parking to allow 34 dwelling units, said he did not wish to withdraw, but would like a continuance. Mr. Fleming made a motion to continue this petition until the June 18, 1986 meeting. Mr. Bencal seconded. Uanimously continued. 33 Barr St. - Paul Emelian Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a deck in this R-2 district. Deck would be on the second floor. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , stating the property was not in compliance with regulations regarding the installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Emelian represented himself, displayed plans to the Board. He stated he purchased this home in 1980, he did not realize he needed a permit to put a deck on. Went to re-finance and found out it was needed. He displayed pictures of the deck. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested to construct a deck, 12' x 12' and 10' off the ground on the second floor at the rear of the building, on condition all Salem Fire Dept. regulations relative to the installation of smoke detectors be met. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 24 Lemon St.- William & Patricia O'Keefe Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit from rear and side setbacks to allow an existing deck in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property was not in compliance relative to smoke detectors. Mr. O'Keefe represented himself, he submitted letters from neighbors in favor, Laurel Sharp, 3 Lemon St. Court and Maureen Mahoney, Michael Amerge, 22 Lemon St. There will not be a building permit, the deck has been there for years. We are refinancing and the bank will not lend money until we have decision from the Board of Appeal. We have smoke detectors. Mr. Hacker: the Fire Dept. is not aware that you have them. Contact Capt. Turner oA Inspector LaPointe to get a Certificate of Compliance. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: this is one story. Yes. Mr. Fleming: • I looked at it, it makes a nice place to look at the water. I have no problem with it. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow a 161x201 , one story deck, no closer than 7' in rear, 3' on side, as shown on plans, must meet Fire Dept. approval, regarding smoke detectors. Mr. Fleming seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - MAY 28, 1986 page two 57 Dearborn St. - Scott Harrison • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a single story addition and a bay window in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property is not in compliance relative to installation' of smoke detectors. Mr. Harrison represented himself, he displayed plans to the Board. This is going to be a family room, we are expecting a child and we need the extra room. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: have you discussed this with your neighbors. Mr. Harrison: yes, they also received the notice and they had no objection. Mr. Fleming: it is a little tight on the lot line but it will not be a problem. He has done a lot of work there and I would be in favor. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow the construction of a 16' x 14' addition as per plans submitted on condition said addition be no closer than 3} feet from the property line facing lot #27 as shown on the plans, all Salem Fire Dept. regulations relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested to allow a bay window which may come no closer than 2'2 feet from the property line of lot #27 as shown on plans on condition all Salem Fire Dept. regulations relative to installation of smoke detectors are met. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 75 Summer St. - Steven J. Navarro Petitioner is requesting a variance to convert a mixed residential/store building into six residential units and a variance from parking requirements in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Navarro represented himself. I would like to take existing store and change it to single bedroom unit on the first level. He displayed pictures of the property as it exists now. There are presently five units there. I don' t think the store is the best use. We are doing a lot of work and putting in a substantial amount of money. He displayed pictures of the renovations being done. We need a variance from parking, we have taken the garage down and will be able to get six cars there, right now there are only two. We feel we are improving by going from two spaces to six spaces, the ordinance says we need nine spaces. That is why we need the variance. We will be helping the situation in this area by doing this. All we are asking is to go from five units to six units and doing away with the store. Speaking in favor: Councillor Furfaro: I feel better about this after hearing the parking plans, would like to ask how many bedrooms there are. Mr. Navarro: the five units have two bedrooms each and will stay at two, the new unit will have one bedroom. Councillor Furfaro: he has done a good job and I am in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: what was the use prior to your purchasing this? Mr. Navarro: it was a store and five units. It was in bad shape when we bought it, the Board of Health was going to condemn it. Mr. Fleming: do you have a building permit for the work you are doing and have done? Mr. Navarro: yes. Mr. Fleming: the Building Inspector had no problem issuing you a permit? Mr. Navarro: no, the work was for the five existing units and the store front. Mr. Bencal: These parking spaces are fine for compact cars, but what if no one has a compact car? Mr. Navarro: A size •' cars will actually fit there. Mr. Hacker: we could condition this on six spaces being maintained and lined and spaces be assigned to each apartment. If he couldn' t meet these conditions then he has a problem. Mr. Fleming: These spaces do not MINUTES - MAY 28, 1986 page three 75 Summer St. - continued • meet the requirements of the Ordinance, the width of the first three are not sufficient. Straight parallel requires 22 feet, these are only 19 feet. Mr. Hacker: perhaps we could word it that they have to maintain five parking spaces. I would hate to have this project scrapped and wind up with a store there. We could limit the new apartment to one bedroom. Mr. Fleming: it is a different use, don' t we have to grant him setbacks and density. Mr. Hacker: it is a lesser use so we don' t have to. Mr. Luzinski: there will be no change in the size of the building. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Variance to convert a mixed residential/store building into six residential units as requested on condition the five existing units remain two bedroom and the new additional unit will be a one bedroom unit, a Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the variance from minimum parking requirements as requested on condition a minimum of five (5) unobstructed parking spaces be maintained and the spaces be delineated and set aside as such. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 94 - 100 Highland Ave. - Charterhouse Development Corp. Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a medical office building/private clinic in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, a • letter from Joseph D'Angelo, Acting District Highway Engineer for the State Depart- ment of Public Works regarding the State's concern over a covered headwall and drainage manhole. (on file) Also, communication from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney Peter Merry represented five local doctors. We are here tonight by way of assignment from Charterhouse. As of this morning there was a dispute but that has been taken care of. Charterhouse has assigned their rights to us. We are here tonight for a Special Permit to build a doctors office building. This is presently a garage station. According to Section 5B, 1f; clinics or doctors offices may be built within 1 ,500 feet of Salem Hospital, by Special Permit. The land that is presently occupied by the gas station is not in use. It is an R-1 district, but it is highly unlikely it will ever be used for residential uses. There are many offices in the area, many are residences. We hope there will be sympathy because we are not taking a residences and turning it into an office, we are taking what we consider a bad use and building a better use. Mr. Gary Herbert is here tonight to discuss the traffic impact. Mr. Herbert: last year, in December and January, two types of traffic counts were taken. One between 7 & 9 a.m. and one between 4 & 7 p.m. , there were 1500 vehicles per day. The gas station generated a good deal of traffic during the peak hours, more than we estimate the clinic will generate. This does not warrant a traffic signal. Attorney Merry: displayed plans to the assemblage. We will provide 57 parking spaces. More than is required. This will be a con- venience for the doctors and patients. I would like to address the letter from Mr. D'Angelo, the thrust of the letter concerns a house building that was built across the street, it was built in violation of the law. In building this house they blocked off the drainage. We are the innocents in this. He said the letter was not meant to prevent this from being granted. This is a problem that will be dealt with, this petition should not be denied because of this. Speaking in favor. Bruce Michaud, I live in Marblehead but I feel very strongly about this. We are blessed with one of the finest hospitals in the state. This would serve a benefit to the public to have a clinic this close to the hospital and their patients. MINUTES - MAY 28, 1986 page four 94- 100 Highland Ave. - Continued • It would serve well to grant this. Councillor Leonard O' Leary: in favor of this Special Permit to take the place of the gas station as long as the neighborhood concerns are met, one was from neighbors regarding the culvert. I understand it is the doctors themselves that own and want to build, that is good. I think it will be good to develop that piece of land and remove the gas station. Would like the culvert cleaned up, the Divirgilio's are concerned. Councillor Gauthier: been involved with the residents and the Greenway Association and I don' t think the house across the street affects this at all. Would like to get rid of the gas station. We have a chance to take it out and beautify the area. These people will go in there and practice their profession. I am always in favor of the medical profession. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner: agree with what the Councillors have said. Will generate less of a traffic flow on Highland Ave. than the gas station did. As a result of the traffic study these people did, at their own expense, it is clear this will have less of an impact, also, this will eliminate a curb cut. Even though they don' t have to come to the Planning Board they have worked with us and have been very cooperative. Speaking in opposition: Steven Shroeder, 6 Almeda St. : I live across the street from the site. We are seeking a quiet neighborhood. We don' t hear any noise from the gas station. Would like to know if there is going to be any blasting. Mr. Merry: not to my knowledge. Mr. Harkness, Architect: there will be no need for blasting. There is a buffer zone. Mr. Shroeder: My problem with noise is, there will be cars parking right next to Almeda St. A representative of Charter house came to my house and tried to sell us on this, told us there would be a buffer zone. I want it to be quiet, would like 6 to 10 foot hedges. Also concerned with the hours, these doctors will • do their rounds in the morning and be in the clinic in the afternoon, that is the peak time as far as traffic goes. With the gas station, a car comes in, gets gas, then leaves. This is different type of business, cars will stay. I am also concerned with lighting, the lights from the hospital shine right on my land. Would like to see lights installed so they don' t shine on my property.• In Rebuttal. Attorney Peter Merry: we cannot add to what was just said. There will be a buffer, and we can have the lights shining towards parking area, not his property. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I have no questions right now, it appears the petitioners have done their homework and have worked with the City. It is good to see people who work with the City. Highland Ave. is one of the main entrances to the City and this would certainly be better than what is there now. Mr. Fleming: clear this is a better use, the gas station is detrimental to the neighborhood, this is a much softer use. Would like Mr. Shroeder's concerns met,-- the 6' to 10' shrubs and the direction of the lighting and would hope that if there is any further imput, they would be heeded. Mr. Luzinski: certainly think will be helpful as far as traffic is concerned. Mr. Hacker: I came here tonight with the feeling that maybe this wasn' t the thing to do but the reduction in traffic impresses me. I would be in favor with the conditions stipulated. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested to allow the construction of a medical office building/private clinic on the following conditions: the Board receive a copy of the reassignment of Charterhouse Development, plans are presented to the Fire Dept. showing type & location of fire alarm devices, existing under- ground storage tanks be properly registered in accordance with code regulation; 6 to 10 feet deep planing or shrubs be placed as a buffer zone along Almeda St. , any lighting be places on the perimeter as to shine towards the new building and ` not towards the residential area, blasting survey be done prior to any necessary •. blasting, any and all concerns regarding the culvert must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector and be bound to the Certificate of Occupancy, a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - MAY 28, 1986 page five • 79 Bridge St. - William G. Rowe Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow an existing store and three apartments and a Variance from parking in this B-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property was not in compliance with regulations relative to smoke detectors. Mr. Rowe represented himself. I bought this property in 1979 in the conditions it is in now, a store and three apartments. He displayed pictures of the four existing meters, letter from tenants on the first floor stating this was as is when purchased. This all came to light when I put the property on the market for sale. He submitted copies of the deed which stated the property was a store and three apartments. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: according to City records, this was a two family and then without application it was converted to a three family and then to a three family plus the store, all this was done before you bought it? Mr. Rowe: yes, it was done before I bought it. Mr. Fleming: did you ever talk to the previous owner, or the realtor that sold it to you? Mr. Rowe: no. Mr. Fleming: is there any parking? Mr. Rowe: yes (he showed on the plot plan the location of the existing parking) Mr. Fleming: there is an unregistered van there. Mr. Rowe: that was supposed to be gone, he has been told to get rid of it. Mr. Luzinski: could you get to the parking on the Beacon St. side of the lot if the shrubs were removed? Mr. Rowe: that is possible. Mr. Fleming: you now have the property up for sale? Mr. Rowe: yes. Mr. Fleming: Mr. Rowe bought this property in good faith but it bothers me that someone did all this without permits and if we grant this we would be condoning this kind of action. Mr. Bencal: are you related with the Archambaults? Mr. Rowe: I know the people but have never had dealings with them. Mr. Hacker: I would be concerned • about granting this if this person had in fact made the changes, but he has not. We should not hold him responsible for something he did not do. That would be clearly inappropriate. Mr. Bencal: nearly seven years have gone by since he purchased property so I would look at it less harshly than if he had just purchased the property. Mr. Rowe is blameless and he should have some recourse as far as the previous owner and the Realtor are concerned. Mr. Luzinski: if we grant this, can we deal with the parking, I would like to see the shrubs removed and the parking be from the Beacon St. side. Mr. Hacker: also have unregistered van removed. Mr. Luzinski: how many parking spaces now? Three. Mr. Bencal: I think we should leave the parking, he is not adding anything. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested to allow existing three apartments and store and to grant a Variance from parking on condition that three on site parking spaces be maintained for the residents of the building, all Fire Dept. regulations relative to installation of smoke detectors be adhered to and any unregistered vehicles be removed from the property. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSL GRANTED. 98-102 Lafayette St. - Jonathon D. Light Counsel for the petitioner, Attorney Richard Stafford requested this petition for a Variance to allow two additional residential units for a total of 17 units and a variance from parking be continued until next meeting. Mr. Hacker informed Mr. Stafford there was no opening on the next hearing, this could not be heard until July 16th. Mr. Stafford agreed that would be fine and agreed to sign a waiver regarding time rights. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this petition until • July 16, 1986. Mr. Fleming seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 16, 1986 MINUTES - MAY 28, 1986 page six 25 Washington Square North - Norman Labrecque & Richard Marrs • Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow a single family dwelling be converted to four family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection and a letter from Angela Bruski, 6 Loring Hills Ave. , Salem, stating her and her sister were part owners of this property and they were very much opposed. (on file) Attorney Robert Bowes represented the petitioners. I would like to point out that my clients were born and raised in Salem, they have been good neighbors. Mr. Marrs does not live in Salem now, Mr. Labrecque does. We could make an adjustment to the parking plan, we could move the parking and keep the trees. We are aware there is some opposition and this should satisfy the neighbors concerns. There will be no exterior changes to the building. If I read the Ordinance right, we are only required five spaces, we are showing six. I am shocked by the letter from Angela Bruski, she is a signatory on the Purchase and Sale Agreement, have no idea what prompted her to send the letter. We will not hottop the entire area and we are providing the required parking. We are tearing down the garage and it will be a pleasure to get rid of it. He displayed pictures of the garage. Major shrubs and trees will remain. Mr. Fleming: it is a beautiful lot. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Bruce Michaud, Salem Witch Museum, as you know, the Salem Common is singularly the most beautiful area in Salem. This has been single family since the 1840's and is one of the most beautiful homes in the City. Ms. Bruski called me with her concerns. It would be a tragedy to put condominiums there. We have a chance to preserve an historic home. We have several homes in the area that have been converted with adequate parking, what happens, they move in and have more than one car, it is a continual hassle for us that park in front of our buildings. We • all know that if two adults live in a house, they have two cars at least. I have seen a lot of wisdom from this Board and you have made many provisions to protect neighborhoods. This house was not on the market very long when these people bought it. This is a Samuel McIntire home, he had a lot to do with what we enjoy today, he left Salem a lot more beautiful than when he found it. I am very much opposed to hottopping. I hope this Board in its wisdom will leave Salem far more beautiful than when you found it. Bill Hoey, 1 Mall St. , concerned with the parking area. I am the immediate abutter and the proposed change would aggravate the parking situation. According to a copy of the plot plan I have, his parking spaces 4, 5 and 6 would take away at least two spaces on Mall St. If you consider there will probably be two cars for each units, that would leave two cars to go on the street and the net loss of the street parking would be four. He displayed pictures of the area, right now, those beautiful hedges would have to be cut out. Ray Parga, 5 Oliver St. , this is a beautiful home and the garage goes with that house. The curb cut will be on Mall St. and that will take two spaces there. I see no hard- ship, I am sure there are people who would buy that property and keep it as a single. Mike Pelletier, 25 Andrews St. ,there has to be a valid reason to go against the Zoning Ordinance, I have not heard any reason to have four familys. This is nothing but a testiment to greed. They could make more money if it is four condo- miniums. Keep the character of the neighborhood in tact. Jane Sturgewall, 17 Andrews St. , the garage is very much in keeping with the style of the building. When you take a building like this and cut it up, it is sad enough, but to take it and make it four units is travesty. Would like to see the building put back on the fair market. Leave it a single or no more than two family. Jean Harrison, Washington Sq. No. , it is a great pity to turn this into four family. I agree with all thats been said. Russel Slam, 9 Forrester St. , I am a former president of the neighborhood association and have been on the Historical Commission, MINUTES - MAY 28, 1986 page seven • 25 Washington Sq. North - Continued and I would like to remind the applicants they will need Historical Commission approval for the demolition of the garage. I am opposed to this proposal for aesthetic reasons, it would be detrimental to the street scape and would deteriorate from the view from the common. The stock of single family homes in the City is rapidly dwindling. Also concerned with density. Joan Nester, 2 Forrester St. , concerned with density, this will be detrimental. Richard Anderson, 78 Essex St. , I question the parking, it is my understanding they need 1s per unit so they would be required to have six, not the five stated. Lynn Marcy, 21 Williams St. , parking, people who have driveways for parking don' t seem to use them. Several years ago my neighbor came to the Board for a three family, he had parking and he was denied. Robert Smith, 20 Winter St. , Eliza Deoley, Oliver St. In Rebuttal. Attorney Bowes: this is not a McIntire house, the parking problem is created mostly by the museum an it is a discrace for him to come here and complain about parking when he has bus loads coming there daily. This is a beautiful home, when it was up for sale no one ame to buy, if it is turned into condominiums, and by the way nothing was mentioned about condominiums, Mr. Marrs would like to live there. There are no parking spaces on the lot now and we are putting six. We can' t help it if people come and park there, it is unfair to present parking as an argument. The Ordinance allows four units by Special Permit. People say we need tourists in Salem, I say we need residents, this will provide permanent housing for people who will take care of Salem. Mr. Fleming: could you address Mr. Hoey's argument regarding the loss of two spaces on the street. Mr. Bowes, yes, we will have to have a curb cut and there will be a loss, the only way to solve that is to grant this without the parking. Mr. Fleming: have you talked to neighbors and your clients, is a • compromise possible, would they consider three family? Mr. Bowes: yes, they might consider that. Mr. Hacker: I can see where Mr. Fleming is coming from, the opposition I think is legitimate, people who live there have presented valid concerns. I would like you, in view of what has been said here tonight, and keeping in mind you need a unanimous vote, to consider withdrawing and sitting down with the neighbors and trying to address their concerns. Mr. Bowes: if this is not granted tonight, the Purchase and Sale Agreement is gone. Would like to confer with my clients. Mr. Bowes: my clients have agreed to reduce the number of units to three. Mr. Hacker: we could amend it to three. Mr. Bencal: which unit would you eliminate? Mr. Bowes: the basement. Mr. Fleming: I would like to see you talk with the residents of the area and try to find the middle ground without deadlines and the presence of this Board. I would rather see you try this than reach a disastrous result for you and your neighbors. Mr. Bencal: I am surprised Mr. Bowes and his clients are not aware of the Salem Common Association and I am surprised they did not meet with them, they are a very active association. I think the time for meeting and compromise is past. This is a prime area and to make it a hottop jungle would derogate from the intent of the district. It is up to us to protect the neighborhood and the City, I would be opposed to this and opposed to continuing. Mr. Hacker: normally I would agree with you, but someone could buy this and put two families. I think we could continue this, let them meet with the neighbors, they could get the abutters addresses from our clerk. The owners have made a mistake by not meeting with the neighbors and by continuing this we can give this the opportunity to do so. Mr. Luzinski: I am opposed to four units, I would be opposed to anything but a two family. Mr. Fleming's motion to continue failed to get a second. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant the petition on • condition they meet with neighbors. Mr. Bencal seconded. The Board unanimously voted against the motion. UNANIMOUSL DENIED Adjourned meeting at 9:45 P.M. , next meeting June 18, 1986. Resp tfullmit ed, Bren a M. Sumrall, Ck a.cowgb� Qjity of 'Salem, 'Mttssarhusetts • , f "'; Poxrb of Ovral BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JUNE 18, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, June 18, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of said hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 4, 11 , 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker, Luzinski and Strout Meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Hacker: if there is anyone present interested in number ten on the agenda, Paulette Gebauer's petition for 357 Lafayette st. , that will not be heard tonight. It has been withdrawn. 234 Essex St. - Urban Development Action Group Petitioner is requesting a Variance from minimum parking requirements to allow thirty four (34) dwelling units in this B-5 district. This petition has been continued from the May 28, 1986 hearing. Petition was continued because there was only a four man Board. Mr. Bencal read the application. Letters from: Diane Pabich, 7 Summer St. , in favor; Richard Golick, 185-89 Essex St. ; Joan Gormalley, 236 Lafayette St. , Mary Roberts, My Florist, 99 North St. ; Robert Monroe, Derby F Square Book Store, 215 Essex St. ; Mr. & Mrs. Frank Gormalley, .13 Surry Road; John Flarerty,27 Northey St. ; Donald Gerolamo, Empire's, 133 Essex St. ; Roger L'Heureux, 313 Essex St. ; Fred Harney Jr. , 474 Lafayette St. ; Mayor Salvo; Richard Daly, Chairman, Salem Parking Dept. Board; all in favor of the project. Attorney Jacob Segal represented the petitioners. We have with us this evening, members of the development team, particularly Donald Burnham from UDAG as well as John Cirvaster from the Architectural Firm. Mr. Burnham is a native of Salem and has done a considerable amount of work in the City, Mr. Cirvaster and architect with the largest architectural firm on the North Shore has done extensive work in the City. With Mr. Cervaster is Greg Warren from the firm. What I intend to do is to outline and highlight certain aspects of our application and Mr. Burnham and Mr. Cirvaster will briefly address some of the more specific items. We hope that in making this presentation we will sustain the burden of showing you that our application meets the requirements of Section 9 of the Ordinance. This property is located in the B-5 zone, the purpose of the B-5 is Central Development District, which is intended to be a composite of major businesses and residential. We believe this will be the first structure that utilizes this zoning as was intended. There will be commercial space on the first floor, general business uses and will be capped off by 34 dwelling units on the top. With respect to the zoning this will be the first project down- town that does untilize the B-5 zoning district. The building is very large and prominent. T.R. Kerr's is going out of business and that building will be vacant. Encompassed in the building is what is referred to as the Foodland building, this has been vacant for at least 12 or 13 years. I don' t this this section lends any- thing, architecturally to the City. We will be using Riley Plaza or the Garage for parking, which, as the Parking Board has indicated, there is plenty of room. The garage in particular is underutilized, especially in the evening. We know it `• would be preferable to have on site parking, no one would benefit from on site parking than the developers. MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page two 234 Essex St. - Continued Could on site parking be done at any cost it could be passed on to the consumer, the architect is prepared and in December of 1985 he did a study which concludes it is impractical to build underground parking at that site because of the proximatey of the railroad tunnel. We have been working with the city and hopefully part of the problem with be alleviate by putting in a deck of parking behind this site. These developers will be most eager to assist in bringing this to fruition. We met with the parking commission as far back as March of 86. Mr. Burnham, UDAG, Would like to introduce John Cirvaster and ask him to explain the research that's been done. Mr. Cirvaster: we were introduced to this project in the summer of 85 and we are very familiar with the T.R.Kerr Building and the Foodland Building. We've done work in Salem. We did the Beef and Oyster, we did the Lyceum, we've been involved with this historical sense of the City. We went to the Essex Institute and researched the building. We are going to receate the 1910 facade that was originally the Kerr building. The foodland building is a 1950 vintage, an infill building that we felt would not be compatible. We will bring it back to 1910 facade. We will be adding two story mansard which would cap the building off. We're very proud of the way the building came out and we feel it's going to be a very attractive building, the materials are going to consistent with downtown Salem. Don Burnham, UDAG: the reason we are here tonight is, basically we have a hardship, that hardship is one, we have a 1954 building which we have to redo and to do it right will cost a lot of money and by adding two floors and expanding the project will make this feasible, 2nd is parking, no on site parking. We have made arrangements with the City to have parking but it will not be on site and that is the main reason and the only reason ' we are before the Board. We comply with everything else. The area from the Masonic -•,� Temple all the way down is going to be retail. He displayed plans to the Board and the assemblage. We are not dislocating any businesses that are there now. Finkles will stay, Beneficial will stay and the Bootery will stay. Of course, by there own choosing T.R. Kerrs is going. If they weren' t we wouldn't be buying anyway. The other space will be available for commercial, retail uses. We wanted to add space and this was a challenge. How do you add two floors without having the building look like you added two floors. I think we have been successful. We haven' t added two floors, we've added a roof, that's what it looks like on this particular building. We've tied the foodland building in with the Kerrs building and a mall area in the middle. This mall area will be public and will shoot through to the parking area. There will be office condominiums, many of the businessmen in Salem have already reserved spaces. The upper levels will be residential. They are small in size, they range from 600 sq.ft. to 1 ,000 sq.ft. That was by design, in this area we did not want three bedrooms, or to have small children playing in the parking lot. This is geared more to the professional singles and couples. Architecturally this is going to blend in nicely with the Masonic Temple. Submitted letter from the Assessor, Peter Caron, which basically states the estimated revenue this project would provide for the City. (on file) Speaking in favor. Phil Mason, I am not a resident of the City of Salem, I live in Peabody but I do represent quite a few residents of Salem and businessmen from Salem. I am also a member of the North Shore Building and Construction Trade and I would like to speak in favor. Our local union particularly is very much aware of the situation in that section of town and we know the real need for the revitalization of the downtown. This project is more than appropriate. I think the developers have done everything to minimize the impact of the parking. ~' Paul L'Heureux, Lafayette Place, the increase in population will increase revenue, • will increase business, the parking issue is a small price to pay for the benefits. MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page three 234 Essex St. - Continued • .3 Pamela Gauthier, Vice President of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, our Executive Director, Joan Gormalley regretfully could not attend this meeting, therefore I would like to submit this petition in support of the project. Richard Denis, 10 Leval Rd. , in favor but I think it would expedite the matter if there was a show of hands of who was in favor here tonight rather than having everyone speak. Would that be acceptable? Mr. Hacker: no Councillor O'Leary, Ward IV Councillor: I remember when this building was Webbers, I would like to see continued of this building. I don' t think the City can afford another empty building, I also would like to point out that this building does blend in with the Heritage Plaza West and also with the Masonic Temple. I understand there is a problem with parking, well this Board here has granted off site parking to the Norman St. project, they also granted another petition of the Peabody Block, which gave 90 parking spots, it didn' t give enough for the building. I believe the thirty four spaces for this project isn' t too many to grant for off street parking. I would like to may be put something in there that they have about 80 spaces of off street parking. I also understand they are going to pay prevailing wages which I am concerned with. I think thats great. I am in favor of this project. Robert E. Gauthier, Councillor at Large, I'd like to commend the Board and I think all this that is going on in Salem is because they did give the old telephone building the Variance on the parking. It should the people in the Commonwealth that we want to work with them, that we want to support them and the City wants to build and they want new citizens in here. I think we are very fortunate at this point to have two young people from Salem who put their future again in Salem. they are going to spend 10 million dollars. Let's hope they make a million. They have taken all the necessary steps, they have gone to the City Boards, Design Review, Planning Board. As far as the esthetics, we need it. You all know how I feel about having vacant buildings in the City and how the City Council feels. I think, probably the ugliest building in the City is the Foodland Building. This will bring people in here, people bring stores. With enough people in the City, the retail stores will come back so I'm strongly in support. Roger Pelletier, 7 Central Rd. , in favor. George Gafney, 36 Lafayette Place, in favor. Dave Sultzbach, Story Rd. , in favor of this project, anything that enhances the tax base is desirable. Jerry Kavanaugh, City Planner, would like to reiterate some of the concerns already gone over on previous hearings held. The Administration has been working two goals in mind, one is to try to retain the retail core, second is to try to promote office development which will bring people in here, finally residential development which will bring people on a twenty four hour basis. Unlike some projects, this project tries to meet all three goals with one project. Going to have some vital commercial space on the first floor, 78,000 total sq. st. of commercial space which will be very important, plus office space, plus 34 condominiums. It is also important to note that if Salem has one thing to offer, its history and archetecture. This building, the architectural team has put together, the development team has put together, have done a first class job architecturally. They could have cut corners financially, but they haven' t done so. This building will generate in the first year close to 250 thousand dollars worth of tax revenue. There is no question that this is going to be vital to the expanison and enhancement of munipal services. This building will give us much more than it will cost. We have been working with this team for about 6 months now, we have had nothing but the utmost cooperation from them. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: I am . � curious, on the dark side, the inverted L, does any of that property belong to the organization, whats in the back of my mind either loading or unloading zone. . Attorney Segal: there is a small part of that land that is available and there is access guarantee for the very purpose. That's why we're asking for the variance for 51 spaces because that's the very purpose of the small amount of space thats in back that will be owned by the developers for that purpose. MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page four 234 Essex St. - Continued \• ;1[ Mr. Fleming: I would first like to commend the development team, especially Mr. Harrington who has worked diligently to resolve the parking situation. I applaud the development team for trying to cooperate with the City. Would like to clarify a few things. The preliminary report seems to indicate that a tiering is possible in the School St. lot which would give the City an additional 85 spaces in that location and my understanding is that there is state or federal money available in the amount of either 70% or 90%. When you told us you would be willing to participate in the tiering process did that mean financially? Mr. Segal: that meant yes, financially. Mr. Fleming: Would you mind, if it were the concensus of this Board that a condition of granting this variance be the tiering of that lot? Mr. Segal: I would seriously resist that since we do not have control of the lot and you would be putting a condition that would be something beyond our control. Would deem it unfair as we don' t own the lot and we can' t do anything to live up to the commitment. I would not accept that condition. Mr. Fleming: when you approached the parking commission what number of spaces did you ask for? Mr. Segal: 51 spaces. Mr. Fleming: that meets the one and half. You heard Mr. O'Leary, he had a number in terms of 80 spaces, is that a problem? Mr. Segal: that would not be a problem. Mr. Fleming: do you have any provision in terms of covenants in terms of the ownership in the condo association that would require ongoing, that it would be left in place. Mr. Segal: we do not, we have not drafted our condo documents, I would also accept that that be a requirement in the documents that those 80 spaces be maintained so long as there are no other available spaces. In other words, if the tiering comes into effect and we have a chance to acquire any of those I would want the condition worded so • we are not required to buy 80 spaces in garage or Riley Plaza. Mr. Fleming: at least initially you would be willing to have that included in the condo documents. Mr. Segal: no problem at all. Mr. Fleming: I don' t understand the term sympatically impossible because of the railway tunnel. Does it mean that because its there you couldn' t dig down? Mr. Segal: that was the new word I learned tonight. John Cirvaster: that is the first word you learn in architecture school, it is how you would build the building, what it means is, we would have to take a good deal of the building down in order to do this, in our study we recommended heavily against doing this. Mr. Fleming: in terms of financial aid, would you mind that a condition? Mr. Segal: that again, I don' t like openended conditions, it might never exist, it might be something so impractical for every- bodies sake. Without knowing the figures I can' t make that kind of commitment. Mr. Fleming: With the two story addition, I am concerned with Essex st. becoming a Government Center situation, I use that term only because is you walk through Government Center with a five mile an hour wind blowing it becomes like a 40 mile an hour wind tunnel, have you considered this aspect. Mr. Cirvaster: yes we have, it has been proven that wind velocity increases with buildings over ten stories high in lower rise buildings you don' t get the same velocity. Mr. Fleming: Will there be any work done in the rear of the building? Mr. Cirvaster: yes there would. Mr. Fleming: you don' t have any renderings of this? Mr. Cirvaster: we have some suggestions how that would look. Our attitude is to maintain the classical building detail on the rear of the building that we have' done in the front of the building the building would then have no "this is the park of the building they haven' t done" . We feel there are going to be a lot of pedestrians in the back of our building we are very sensitive to the treatment on that side. There will be no exterior egresses, all will be within. Mr. Bencal: I think • `� the developers are working with the City and have shown a genuine commitment. The fact that there is no opposition shows how far the developers have worked to take care any problems that may have arisen. It is very good project and I would be MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page five r 234 Essex St. - Continued very much in favor of the proposal as it stands. Mr. Fleming: initially I did not favor this project because of the parking situation. I would like to clear up some misconceptions, I would not have voted for the Norman St. project down there and I don' t think that the mere running out for spaces in Riley Plaza or the garage is an alternative that I favor, also, when Councillor O' Leary refers to the Peabody Building I believe they are only required 75 or 80 spaces because they come under old con- struction law and that would have been one per unit. I think I have been consistent and I intend to be consistent. I would not vote for this variance tonight but for the effort the developers made. I applaud the efforts of the developers. Mr. Hacker: I think it would be inappropriate to compare this to any other buildings that we voted on in the past. Each building has had its own unique problems and I think we should conscentrate of this building. I am also impressed with the work the developer has put into trying to work this out with the City. I think the building could be the cornerstone of downtown Salem. I would be in favor of this if we could have a few conditions. Should have developer pay for 80 parking spaces either in Riley Plaza or the garage, if at a later date he's able to come up with the required parking they could come back and have that condition removed. Would like condition that if partial funds are obtained for the second tier parking lot that the cost be borne by the developer rather than the City of Salem. Mr. Segal: I think thats too open ended. Mr. Hacker: perhaps you could help me work it, the problem I have is coming in and finding its going to cost half a million dollars and we can get funding for say four hundred thousand and the city gets stuck with the remaining. I'd rather have you pay for it. Mr. Kavanaugh: the funding available would be about 70% in which tt case the Commonwealth would pick up 70% of the cost and City would pick up 30%. I �•'Y think what we might do in lieu of just stating that the developer will pay that type i� of cost is some language that would suggest that if funds are made available an agreement shall be made between the City and the developer in a fashion that is mutually agreeable to both parties. That would necessitate a negotiation process which the city would then have to agree to. Mr. Segal: thats fine. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the variance from minimum parking requirements on condition, the developers arrange for and pay for 80 spaces with the Salem Parking Commission at either Riley Plaza or the Central garage; the City will not, now or ever, be respons- ible for rubbish or trash removal; the mall area as indicated by plans are to be opened to the public so as to assure access from Washington St. to the parking lot; the rear facade be granted preliminary approval by the City Planner; if funding becomes available for the tiering of the Sewall St. lot the developer and the City hereby agree to meet and to arrange for financing of said tiering, building meet requirements of building code and fire code. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 23 Arbella St. - Robert B. Bowman Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney William Donaldson represented the petitioner. They have owned the property for about ten years. This is a very large house and at the present time it is occupied by two different families all in the front part of the house and the back is not occupied. The house is very large and it would lend itself to a division so you would have a first floor front apartment a second floor front apartment and an apartment at the rear of the second and third �.'Y floors. Displayed plans to the Board. MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page six 23 Arbella St. - Continued ` • David Jacquith, Architect from Beverly did the plans, the entrance to the rear apartment, first and second floor would be on the side of the house with a deck up above. Its been difficult for the present owners to maintain the house. Also with the housing shortage this would provide an additional living unit. The daughter of the petitioners is planning to live in the apartment that is in the rear, the new apartment. The two families in the front would be undisturbed. There are six parking places. Displayed the parking plans. The house would be brought up to code in all respects. Would not create traffic problem in the area. This young lady is single,the parking is more than' is required. Speaking in favor: Janet Fraser, 21 Arbella St. Jean Bowman, daughter of petitioner. David Jacquith, Architect: just want to point out that this is large area and is presently totally unused. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I spoke this afternoon with Councillor Harvey who could not attend the meeting tonight but wanted to express his opposition to the plan. Stated that Arbella was very congested street and felt this would just add to the congestion. Mr. Fleming: he isn' t even here, I don' t think we should take his comment. Mr. Strout: are there any other three families in the neighborhood? Ms. Bowman: yes there are, there are three family just down the street that don' t even have adequate parking. Mr. Hacker: just the one three family? Ms. Fraser: just one, I applied to the Board and was denied, I had plenty of parking. Mr. Fleming: in looking at the property and looking at the plans, would the parking plan you have given us take out the existing yard. Mr. Donaldson: it would no eliminate but it would take up some space. Mr. Fleming: would the trees be maintained? Mr. Donaldson: we would be glad to do that. Mr. Fleming: and would you mind that being a condition. Mr. Donaldson: not a bit. Mr. Fleming: this would nor require any exterior stairs or fire excape, is that correct? Mr. Donaldson: correct. Mr. Bencal: will this be owner occupied. Mr. Donaldson: it "• will be occupied by a member of the owners family, his daughter. Mr. Hacker: I think what Mr. Bencal is getting at, we have typically not granted these unless they are owner occupied. If we do that here it would be the first time. If we made a condition that it be owner occupied and personally I would not vote for it unless it was owner occupied. Mr. Donaldson: if you wanted to make that a condition we would certainly change the title. Mr. Luzinski: I would definitely want to see the owner occupied condition. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition to convert to a three family on condition the premises be owner occupied, existing trees and shrubs be kept and maintained and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted four in favor and one present (Mr. Hacker) GRANTED. 7 Wall St. - Lydia King Petitioner is requesting an extension of a Variance granted June 10, 1981 which was granted June 10, 1981 which allowed the property to be converted to a two family in this R-1 district. Said decision was granted for a period of five years. Mr. Bencal read the application, referred to the previous decision, letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Lydia King, petitioner represented herself, I would like to make it a permanent two family, it was originally converted because of a hardship. There are two family dwellings on Wall St. Mr. Hacker: we have it advertised to extend. Ms. King: when I came to apply I wanted it permanent. Mr. Bencal: the application asks for it to be extended. Mr. Fleming: does anyone remember why it was only for five years. Ms. King: because it was single family district. Mr. • Hacker: you have a choice, we can act upon you petition now and extend it for a period of time or you could withdraw it and come back later for a permanent. Ms. King: I will go for the five years. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition to allow property to be used as two family for period of five years with same conditions as previous. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page seven Jr 15 Churchill St. - Elisabeth J. Reckis •' , Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback and rear setbacks to allow existing addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Elisabeth Reckis represented herself. I am requesting this Variance because I am refinancing my home at Eastern Savings Bank and they are requiring this Variance. This addition was on my home when I purchased it in 1980, I was not aware there was any problem with it. Speaking in favor: Robert Bramble Jr. 27 Fairmount, I am in favor. Ed Paquin, Assistant Building Inspector, I view the property and I have no problem with it. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: I went and looked at it and we are talking about a rear storage area and it doesn' t affect anyone. It was noted on the survey that there was no permit for this addition, but you didn' t put it on. Ms. Reckis: no, I didn' t. Mr. Bencal: how long has it been up? Ms. Reckis: I purchased the house in 1980 and it was there, neighbors have told me it was there for 20 years. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit for a side yard setback of 61 feet and a Variance from rear setback to allow existing addition which would be 412 feet, according to plans filed. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 9 Liberty Hill Ave. - Elaine Jones Petitioner is requesting a Variance or Special Permit from minimum side yard requirements in order to allow construction of a single story laundry addition in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Chairman I would like to withdraw from this _ petition. Mr. Hacker explained to the petitioner that Mr. Bencal would not be sitting on this petition so there would only be a four man Board and it would take • a unanimous vote of the Board to grant this petition, the petitioner was given the opportunity to withdraw if she so chose. Ms. Jones said she wanted the petition heard tonight. Mr. Luzinski read the application, letters from John & Margaret Sullivan, 13 Liberty Hill Ave. ; Ida Maron, 7 Liberty Hill Ave. ; Dorothy Laborde, 188 North St. ; and Anthony Cervoni, 186 North St. ; no objections. Robert E. Gauthier, citizen of Salem, residing at 52 Bay View Ave. , I am represent Ms. Jones, she gets nervous speaking in front of people. Basically what they are looking for is a Special Permit, they have quite a few children in the home and it is very hard for them to do the laundry in the cellar. All they are looking for is a 6' x 12' one story addition. Will not interfer with the neighbors. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: Would like to make a comment, I have seen Mrs. Jones and her friend Mr. Howell do a lot of work, they have taken an old house and have done a tremendous job with it and I think its been a real great improvement in that neighborhood, I don' t have any problems with this. Mr. Hacker: I would like to add that I just found a letter from the Fire Dept. and they have no objections. Where the neighborhood is in favor of this, I would certainly be in favor. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow the addition of the laundry room of 6' x 12' and to allow a side setback of five feet. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 363 Lafayette St. - Danny K. Wong Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow demolition of a garage which encroaches on rear and side setbacks and to rebuild a two car garage in the same location in this R-1 district. Mr. Luzinski: Mr. Hacker has to leave, there will only be • ,' four members sitting. He explained to the petitioner it would take a unanimous vote to grant the petition. Mr. Wong chose to be heard. Mr. Bencal read the MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page eight 363 Lafayette St. - Continued • application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Wong represented himself. When I first bought the house four years ago the garage was in bad shape. I have had contractors look at the garage and also one of the building inspectors. I was informed that it would cost more to repair it than to replace it and it would not be structurally sound. What we are proposing to do is raze the existing structure, inspect the concrete pad which it sits on and also the fieldstone foundation which it sits on and rebuild a two car garage in the same location. Dorothy Cohen, Salem resident: I have a question. The house which is right next door to this property is number 375 Lafayette St. , my mother lives there. I have talked to Mr. Wong and he has indicated, he sent a note, telling me that he would be perfectly agreeable to having the garage soley for the storage of two automobiles, not to be used for animals, at one point it was used as a kennel, and also, students have lived there. Would like to make sure no animals or people. Then because the houses are so close the driveway is very narrow, if you are aware of that location, you will notice that as you go in the driveway and where my mothers house is, there is a drop, almost six feet. That was originally fieldstone and I think at some point in the past a couple of layers of cement was added. I don' t know how much weight that can take. I am looking not to have anyone hurt in anyway. Mr. Luzinski: I believe Mr. Wong said he was going to have that inspected. Ms. Cohen: the other thing I asked, and I did look at the plan of the garage, the way the land goes, our back yard abuts this and is a good deal lower, the roof of the two car garage, I just want to be reassured the water will not run off and be detrimental. Just want to be sure of the pitch of the roof. Mr. Fleming: we can make provisions for both the pitch of the roof and the retaining wall. Ms. Cohen: I just want to I ►� make sure, he should be able to do what he wants but I don' t want it to add to our problems. Mr. Fleming: I think I have your concerns, you want to be certain its '�•Jr for the storage of two autos only, pitch off the roof, and the foundation. Mr. Luzinski: if these conditions were met, you'd be in favor? Ms. Cohen: yes. Speaking in favor: Mr. Paquin, Building Dept. , if the garage is not granted here, it will probably be ordered down anyway, it is a derelict garage. Audry Helsford: I am another daughter and I would be in favor if those conditions are met. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: you understand Mr. Wong, there is a new demolition ordinance that when you tear down anything you have to make application to the historic commission as well as the building dept. , prior to tearing it down. When I looked at it, it is a very narrow driveway, will you have room to turn a car out of the garage, so you won' t have to back all the way out and on to Lafayette St.? Mr. Wong: no. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant on condition, garage be used for two automobiles only, no storage of animals be allowed in the garage, residential use of the garage not be permitted, garage must have gutters that run away from the abutting property, demolition must be approved by the historical commission, foundation for the new garage must be built to State code and specifications, retaining wall on the south side of the garage shall be shored up and maintained. Mr. Fleming: would like to amend the first condition, the original condition, limiting the garage to use for two automobiles only be stricken. Motion stands with six conditions. The amendment is adopted by agreement. Mr. Stout seconded the motion. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 4A Buffum St. - Henry Bernson Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side and rear setbacks to allow construction of an addition in this Industrial district. Mr. �• Bencal read the application. Mr. Bernson represented himself. I would like to build a 14' x 8' addition on the back of the house to use as a family room. MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page nine 4A Buffum St. - Continued • Mr. Fleming: single story? Mr. Bernson: yes. The Board looked over the plans that were submitted. Inspector LaPointe: there is no more problem as far as the Fire Dept. is concerned, it has been resolved. Speaking in favor: Councillor O' Leary, Ward 4, Mr. Bernson wants a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming side and rear setback, I talked to him and it seems he wants to enlarge his family room and I asked him if there were any problems with the neighbors. There aren' t any. I would be in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: I think the problem we had before was some confusion about the address. Mr. Strout: will this conform with the existing finish on the house? Mr. Bernson: eventually the whole house will be resided. Mr. Fleming: will you have a problem if we condition this on you getting a building permit prior to any work being done. Mr. Bernson: no problem at all. Mr. Fleming: also an occupancy permit before you utilize it. Mr. Bencal: will you show us on the plans where the five parking spaces you are required to maintain are. Mr. Bernson: showed on the plan, there is room for six. Mr. Fleming: I don' t think that would be required, he is not asking for a three family. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition on condition, the proposed addition be no closer than three feet to the side line, rear part of the addition be no closer than 8 feet to the property line on the east side, the north side of the addition be no closer than 37 feet on the 11 ft. 3 inch long boundary, the addition be only one story and measure 14' x 81 , a building permit and a certificate of occupancy be obtained prior to use. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 • Lots 48 & 49 Almeda St. - Thomas Maribito & David Tremblay Petitioners are requesting a Variance from frontage requirements in order to divide parcel into two lots, both lots having sufficient lot area, and to construct a single family dwelling on each lot in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, a letter from Alice Allain, 4 Almeda St. , opposed if blasting is required. (letter on file) . Attorney Michael McMahan, Lynn, represented the petitioners. It is my understanding that the person who wrote that letter was here earlier and participated in a meeting with the Ward Councillor and other neighbors. Mr. Luzinski: we will get to that when we ask people to speak, please get on with you presentation. Mr. Mahon displayed plans. This particular parcel is located off Highland Ave. , the current end of Almeda St. ends about 35 feet before the accepted end of the street. Our main concern is whether this particular parcel, which was divided some 40 odd years ago, but because of the continued ownership by the same person, we are dealing with one lot. We will be going to the Planning Board for subdivision approval. These gentlemen would like to purchase this parcel and build two single family homes. The problem, needless to say, is twofold, the economic charges that would be necessary to build in there versus the environmental impact. Consequently we came and consulted early on with the Conservation Commission and specifically regarding the pond in this area. Based on this plan they have no problem. Mr. Bencal: do you have any correspondence from them? Mr. Mahon: I believe Mr. Kavanaugh, City Planner, is here tonight and will testify to this. Mr. Bencal: I think any statement saying the Conservation has passed judgement of this favorably should not be taken, should have something in writing. Mr. Luzinski: you are aware there are only four members present, you Awkhave the opportunity to withdraw. Mr. McMahon: I am aware of that. Again, I believe Mr. Kavanaugh is now in attendance and can confirm that last week was the second time we appeared before the Conservation Commission and at that time they voted that as the plan presently stands they did not feel the Wetlands Protection Act would not be applicable and therefore approved our proceeding. MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page ten Lots 48 & 49 Almeda St. - Continued • l Mr. Kavanaugh: That's correct, the procedure for Conservation Commission is to ask for a determination of applicability. Mr. McMahon: because of the nature of the work we were doing, we had to submit detailed plans and they determined it was nonapplicable. Essentially the intent was to first go to Conservation, engineer, contractors, etc. , to see if this was financially feasible and we feel that it is for two single family homes. What we propose is; the existing street only extends as is shown on the plans, approximately 35 feet away from the approved line, con- sequently, seeing as the street is only approved to that point it would be neces- sary for us to construct the pavement to that line and what we then plan to do is extend common driveway up to the two parcels. As far as blasting, there will be no blasting for the homes themselves, will be slab foundations and as far as the utilities and driveway, the contractor tells us that in view of the slope there will be very little blasting. Cannot guarantee no blasting at all, but hopes there will not be, if there is any it will be minimal. I have informed the neighbors of this and we have met with the Councillor tonight. I think we have addressed the concerns of the neighbors. The problem is we don' t have the frontage for this lot. There is no anticipation this road ever having to be extended. Driveway will be 35 feet, plenty of turn around space. This would be an appropriate situation to grant this variance from frontage. Next step will be the Planning Board. Mr. Fleming: just what is it you are asking for? Mr. McMahon: variance from frontage on lot #2. The Board Members went over the plans with Mr. McMahon. Speaking in favor: Frederick Cole, Hollister,Mass. , speaking in behalf of my daughter Mrs. Shroeder and myself, we were opposed, had meeting and have gone over everthing and we agree with everything he said. I questioned the driveway and this has been r • ` adjusted. I think it will be a wonderful neighborhood. In favor. I would add ' 1J one thing, that Alice Allain was at the meeting with us and her main concern was the blasting, you have heard what the attorney said, she is in agreement, we are in agreement. Mr. Fleming: we have an Ordinance that if there is any blasting there must be a pre-blast survey. Inspector LaPointe: if there is any blasting there they must use less than five pounds, they have to keep a log. Councillor). ' O'Leary: I am in favor as long as they meet the concerns of the neighbors. Raymond LaParte, Colby St. , in favor. Steve Schroeder, 6 Almeda St. , in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: I know they would not want to pave the road to the end of their lot #2 because of the cost. You have relied of there being no further development,therefore there will be no necessity of a road beyond there, is that correct? Mr. McMahon: essentially there is no way possible, engineering wise, as you can see by the topography, it's impossible to do anything to this particular area without changing the entire flow of the water and just by the proximatety of the pond, we have 77 ft. from the end of that road to the pond. Mr. Fleming: was it the intent of the Conservation that they would not want this to go beyond that point. Mr. McMahon: I think thats a fair statement, if we went any further they would come in with conditions, in terms of just the runoff. Mr. Fleming: regarding the driveway, are you going to give a right of way to both dwellings over that proposed driveway? Mr. McMahon: yes. Mr. Fleming: there are concerns in terms of the Fire dept. that if they had to service the buildings specifically on lot 2, but even the building of lot 1 , that they would need a substantial driveway in terms of construction. I know that is another cost factor, would you accept that condition, it be built to their specifications. Inspector LaPointe: the reason here, if we drive on to private property and you don' t have a driveway to handle the equipment and something happens to the driveway then we are in a big mess. Mr. Strout: any problem with the location of hydrants? Inspector LaPointe: no. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition on condition, any blasting be done with the approval of the Salem Fire Department and in accordance with existing City regulatoons; that a driveway 35 feet wide by built from Almeda St. to lots 48 & 49, said driveway to be built MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page eleven Lots 48 & 49 Almeda St. - Continued •. to accomodate the Salem Fire Dept. equipment and be maintained by both lot owners, driveway shall also be a right of way for the lot shown as lot two on the plans submitted to the Board, proper street numbering be obtained by the City Assessor; a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each dwelling. Mr. Fleming seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 19 Washington Square North - Donald E. Turner, Jr. & Sr. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from side and rear setback requirements in order to construct egresses from the second and third floors in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application. Don Turner, represented himself. .We secured a variance to convert this to a bed and breakfast inn in November 1984. At that point and time we identified the need to meet the codes to build fire escape at the rear of the building and at the side. We proceeded with the construction and the refurbishment of the facility and we actually built those fire escapes. The drawings for those were reviewed by Dick McIntosh, Building Inspector at that time, he surveyed the building and it was actually signed off last year, Mr. Munroe signed the final occupancy permit. When we went to secure additional financing, we had a new plot plan done and it was noted that there was no variance to meet the setback requirements for the fire escapes. We discussed this with Mr. Munroe and he felt it would be best if we came to the Board specically for this to make sure that the setback requirements were known and recorded properly. Mr. Luzinski: I believe we did talk about the fire escapes at the prior meeting. Mr. Turner: yes sir, we did. Mr. Luzinski: we agreed it •was not in your petition as submitted. Mr. Turner: they were in the petition but it was kind of a subtle thing, they were '• on the drawings. Mr. Luzinski: but they were not listed in the decision, is that what it was? Mr. Turner: They were not identified specifically in the decision. No appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. The Board went over the plans. Mr. Fleming: was there opposition to this when it first came to the Board? Mr. Luzinski: yes there was some, but we satisfied the abutters. They were concerned with parking. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the variance from side and rear setbacks on condition, the rear egress be no closer than one foot to the property line bordering the rear of-Kimbal Court; staircase in the front to be no closer than five feet bordering Kimbal Court; and that all other conditions set forth in the previous decision are to be upheld. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 24 Belleview Ave. - Herbert & Mary Conforth Petitioners are requesting Variances from all applicable density and setback requirements to divide parcel into two lots, A & B, and to construct a single family dwelling on lot B, in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application. Mr. Fleming read a letter from the Fire Inspector, no objection. Mr. Luzinski: you realize there are only four voting members and you would need a unanimous vote to have this granted. Daniel Reich, Esq. , yes, we realize that and we wish to be heard. We have a lot of 16,090 sq. ft. which they hope to divide along a diagonal line as shown on the plans. The resulting two lots will both be undersized in an R-1 district. We are looking for a variance from lot size for both lots, in addition we are looking for a variance from front yard setbacks on lot A. As you can see on the plan it is marked 11} feet and therefore does not comply with the required 15 ft. setback requirement. The rear setback on lot A is 17 ft. rather than the 30 ft. requirement. The width of the lot on lot B is somewhat under 100 ft. , need a variance on that as well. The petitioners have lived in this MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page twelve 24 Belleview AVe. - Continued `.'t neighborhood for many years, in this particular house for about 35 years, what they hope to do is sell that house, it has become too large for them to handle and they plan to build a single family home on lot B. There are two structures that are there now, shed and garage, both are which are an eyesore, they plan to remove those. They will live in the new home on lot B. There will be adequate parking on each lot. In addition, if the Board feels it is necessary on lot A because it is a corner lot, we would be looking for a variance from frontage on that lot also. The lot sizes are not going to be derogation from the ordinance, they won' t be a derogation from the public good in that area, that neighborhood has many lots that don' t meet the 15,000 sq.ft. minimum. The hardship is a personal hardship, they have lived there many years, and the lot is simply too large for them to manage at this time. Rather than move out of the neighborhood, which they don' t want to do, they want to establish a more reasonable size, that they can handle and to sell the existing structure. Mr. Luzinski: why the diagonal line rather that straight across. Mr. Reicht: I believe the engineer undoubtedly moved the line around and tried to adjust in as many ways as he could, frankly this is the only way the lots come close to meeting the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Serafini Jr. : I think another consideration was he wanted to keep them both about the same size, this is about an even division. Mr. Reicht: I also think with this division it provides the maximum distance between the two buildings. Mr. Reicht submitted a petition in favor, signed by eleven neighbors. Mr. Fleming: are there any other buildings on the lot besides the two shown, the Assessors map shows three. Mr. Reicht: there was three, one was destroyed by fire a few years ago, a small garage. Mr. Strout: w^ will there be any blasting done? Mr. Reicht: I don' t believe there will be. t Herbert Conforth: I have asthma and the house we have is up and down stairs. Speaking in favor: Councillor O' Leary: I have known these people for a number of f • years, I believe the lot is actually too big for them to maintain, they have both worked hard all their lives and they want to rest comfortably in a new home. They have a vested interest in the City. I think it would be good. I have received no calls about it, I am in favor. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner: this would conform to the neighborhood. This is an example of what we propose to do with the rezoning, make more affordable lots. Francis Kelleher, I have lived there 35 years, I think if would be great. Maureen Brenner, Danvers: I am their daughter and I think it is the ideal solution. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: in light of what the City is proposing I would have no problem with it. I think the lot for that general area is large. Mr. Fleming: I have no problem, I think its an appropriate use, I know that area and most lots are 8,000 or less. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Variances requested for lot area, front yard & rear yard requirements and lot width for Lot A and Variances from lot area and width requirements for lot B on condition, Certificate of Occupancy for new building, requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. be met for both lots be met. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 20 Broadway - Michael Cormier & Paul Beaupre Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow property to be used as a miniature golf course in this Industrial district. Mr. Bencal read the application. Kevin Daly, Esq. , represented the petitioner. As most of you recall, we were here before, I won' t repeat all the details. I do have a plan that was requested. As you can see, the miniature golf is almost kitty corner from the bowling alley. Parking is in the front and there is parking all around the bowling alley. I will r add that these gentlemen are from Salem, have lived in Salem their whole lives. All their business endeavors have been first class and this is no exception. MINUTES - JUNE 18, 1986 page thirteen 20 Broadway - Continued t The Board went over the plans and discussed dimensions. Parking will be hottopped. Speaking in favor: Mr. Dean Boucher, 17 Broadway, they are hard workers and think this will be good for the neighborhood. George Feeney, owner of the property. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: will this be landscaped? Mr. Daly: inside the course itself. Mr. Luzinski: what about lights at night? Will they be facing towards the course? Yes Mr. Bencal: do you anticipate putting a small building of some sort? Mr. Cormier: a little clubhouse. A prefab storage shed. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition, a minimum of 26 parking spaces be maintained in the front of the minature golf course;lighting is to be placed so as to be directed towards the golf course; size of the course is restricted to plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 Mr. Bencal: under unfinished business we have a communication from Superior Court regarding Robert M. Maguire, Tr. vs. James Hacker, et als ORDER: This cause came on for hearing before the court, Delvecchio, J . presiding, upon the Plaintiff's motion for summary Judgment, and after hearing, it is ordered: that the matter be remanded to the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem for reconsider- ation at its next meeting. Attest: Donald E. Nutting, Assistant Clerk. Mr. Fleming: there is a slight problem with the remand, I think the problem is there is a conflict here and maybe Mr. Drucas can initially give his opinion and that is requirements of the open meeting law. Mr. Bencal: this was posted June 17, 1986 at 2:51 p.m. in accordance with Chapter 626 of the Acts of 1958. , with the stamp [ of the City Clerk. Mr. Fleming: in my humble opinion this does not meet the requirements of the open meeting law. Maybe Mr. Drucas would like to address this. Mr. Drucas: we addressed the issue with the Judge, we asked the question as to timing of the hearing, the Judge ordered that the reconsideration hearing be done at the next meeting. Mr. Fleming: I address it to you and not the City Solicitor because at this point and time don' t have any opposition to this particular petition, however, if there were opposition I would certainly think that opposition might rate our consideration of it a violation of the open meeting law. I don' t think a Judge would order us to do an unlawful act. I am trying basically to save you a problem. Mr. Drucas: I would wish at this time to go forward and take the risk. What the Judge is ordering is a reopening and I'm not sure it has to be advertised. Mr. Luzinski: shall we ask the City Solicitor. Mr. O'Brien, City Solicitor: I think what Mr. Fleming is addressing is the required posting of 48 hours prior to a hearing. I agree the meeting should be posted, I do not think it has to be advertised. Mr. Drucas: based on that I think what we would have to do is to ask that this be heard at the next meeting, I was not aware that the posting was not done. Mr. Fleming: I move that we continue this case until July, the first meeting in July. Mr. Bencal seconded. Mr. Luzinski: that would be the July 23rd meeting. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 23, 1986 Meeting adjourned, next scheduled hearing is tentatively set for July 23, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. RESPECFULLY SUBMITTED J� Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk Ctv of ttlem, ttssttc!#use##� Poxrb of Appud �cums.d�' MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JULY 10, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Thursday, July 10, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of said meeting was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of the meeting were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 26, July 3, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Hacker, Fleming Strout and Associate Members Dore and LaBrecque. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Dore and Mr. LaBrecque were appointed voting members and Mr. Fleming was appointed Acting Secretary. 394 Highland Ave. - Michael Stasinos Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow a portion of the property to be developed as cluster residential units in this R-1 /RC/BPD district. Mr. Hacker: because this is a sensitive petition, we would appreciate a little quiet so we can hear. Please address you comments to the Board Members. Everyone will have the opportunity to speak. Each speaker will have a maximum of twenty minutes to speak. This is a very important issue, we have been here many times and hopefully we will resolve this tonight. Is the petitioner here? Mr. Stasinos, Attorney Keilty is r/ not here yet. Mr. Hacker: we will take a short recess to allow petitioners Attorney to get here. Recessed at 7: 10 p.m. Hearing reconvened at 7:40 p.m. Attorney Jack Keilty, Chestnut St. , Peabody, represented the petitioner. There is a substantial difference from the last petition. We now show 193 units and some office space. Last petition has •less units and office space. This has been before the Board several times and was denied about a month ago. As a result of that denial we started a shopping center. Will have some warehouse area and the front will be entirely business and retail uses. Mr. Fleming: I am concerned with M.G.L. 40A s16, how can you ask us to reconsider this when the procedure requires not only that we vote that there is substantial change but there also be the consent of the Planning Board, 8 of the 9 Members of that Board must consent. Have you got that consent? Mr. Hacker: before Mr. Keilty answers, I asked the City Solicitor for his opinion and I have a written opinion. I would like to read that into the record. "Absent a directive from a court of competent jurisdiction the Board of Appeal may so act; but only after the following occur: 1 ) that by a vote of at least four members the Baord finds that specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based have occurred and describe such changes in the record of its proceedings; and 2) Eight of the nine members of the Planning Board consent thereto after notice is given to parties in interest of the time and place of the proceedings when the question of such consent will be considered." (On File) I read that to say they need both, but does not say which one should come first. Mr. Fleming: I very rarely disagree with the City Solicitor but this time I do disagree. Mr. Fleming read M.G.L. 40A s16, this r reads, to me, that prior consent of the Planning Board is necessary. Even if we '!•` wanted, all we could do tonight is decide if there is a substantial change. Mr. O'Brien, City Solicitor: I first came into contact with this Tuesday, I responded to a request from Councillor O' Leary. I just gave him the two things they must do, the order of procedure did not come into it and was not mentioned until today. The better practice would be to go to the Planning Board first but as it has been MINUTES y JULY 10, 1986 page two 394 Highland Ave.- Continued • ,1 advertised, I see no reason not to hear this and condition it on the approval of ' the Planning Board. Mr. Fleming: don' t you think we might prejudice the Planning Board if we made a decision tonight. Mr. O'Brien: You have a point but again, they could possibly influence this Board. Mr. Hacker: then it is your opinion it would be all right to hear this tonight? Mr. O'Brien: yes. Mr. Fleming: I am still concerned that the proper procedure was not followed, after a discussion I would make a motion to send this to the Planning Board. We could table it. I think it is the duty of the developer to have gone to the Planning Board before submitting application to us. Mr. LaBrecque: can' t we let them withdraw? Mr. Hacker: I don' t think that would be appropriate, I think we should take the advise of our City Solicitor. It is the system that anyone has the right to file an appeal, we should hear it. Mr. Strout: would just as soon go ahead with the meeting. Mr. Dore: I would rather the Planning Board advise us first. Mr. Hacker: we need a motion as to whether we are going to hear this. Mr. Fleming: very shortly I am going to make a motion to table this as proper procedure was not followed and it should not be heard tonight, if that motion fails then I may make a motion regarding substantial change. Councillor O'Leary: in doing my job as Councillor, nothing has take as much of my time as this has, no one issue. It has been very difficult. People have been pushed and shoved. This was denied, now, using threats of a shopping center, they are back. Should start with the Planning Board, they should not try to get this passed by force, if seems it is the developer who is calling the shots. I got opinion from City Solicitor and called the Attorney General, the intent of the law is to have them go to the Planning Board first and then come to this Board. Mr. Fleming made a motion to table this petition until ti the developer has followed the proper procedure and obtain the approval of 8 of `r'• 1 the 9 members of the Planning Board. Mr. Dore seconded. The Board voted four to ."j one in favor of the motion. Mr. Hacker voted to hear the petition. TABLED 4-1 Hearing adjourned at 8:05 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday, July 16, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. , 2nd floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted,o Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk (fitof Salem, Massachusetts Poxrb of Aeettl I MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JULY 16, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, July 16, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Said meeting was duly published in the Salem Evening News on July 2, 9, 1986. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker and Luzinski The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman James Hacker. Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that there was only four members present and it would take a unanimous vote of the Board to take action on the petitions this evening. He gave anyone present the opportunity to withdraw their application and come back when there would be a five man Board. Attorney William Quinn, Essex St. , Salem, representing Jonathan Light for a Variance to allow two additional residential units and a Variance from minimum parking, at 98-102 Lafayette St. , requested Leave to Withdraw. Said request was submitted in writing and the Board unanimously granted said Withdrawal. 2 Lawrence St. a/k/a 165 Ocean Ave. - Robert Maguire Petitioner had requested a Variance from density and setback requirements in order • to construct a duplex in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the original application which was heard January 15, 1986 and denied at that time. Mr. Bencal then read read a letter dated June 11 , 1986 and received June 17, 1986 by the Board of Appeal, from the Superior Court, Essex County, ordering this matter remanded back to the Board of Appeal. Mr. Hacker: to refresh your memories, this petition originally came to us on September 11 , 1985 for an Administrative Ruling regarding the decision of the Building Inspector to deny a building permit, his petition was denied. The Board heard a petition on this property again on November 13, 1985 requesting a Variance from density and setbacks, after hearing this the Board unanimously granted the petition leave to withdraw. the petitioner filed again and was heard on January 15, 1986 at which time his petition was denied. He has appealed our decision and subsequently the Court has remanded this back to the Board. Attorney Drucas, One Church St. , Salem, represented the petitooner. We have a lot of land which is over 5,000 sq. ft. with 130 feet of frontage on the Ocean Ave. side and 45.3 feet on the Lawrence St. side. We believe this conforms under MGL Chapter 40A regarding non- conforming lots and can be built on providing it has at least a 50 foot frontage. When we first came before the Board we thought the 50 foot frontage meant 50 feet of frontage no matter which street is was on. We met all the setbacks if the address was Lawrence St. Our thoughts were not upheld by the Building Inspector or by this Board. We will stipulate that the address be known as .165 Ocean Ave. , there has been some question as to the correct address, from now on it will be 165 Ocean Ave. . Our footprint meets all requirements but two, area and rear setback. On Ocean Ave. we have over the hundred foot frontage, we meet the front and side setbacks. It is zoned R-2, the use is appropriate. There will be two parking spaces for each unit. We believe this is the most appropriate way to develop the two family on this lot. We have to prove three things, one, special circumstances and conditions, we have •_ that, the shape of the lot, it is only 45 feet deep, second; hardship, again, the -• ' shape of the lot makes it impossible to build anything on it; thirdly, the relief can be granted without substantial detriment or without derogating from the intent MINUTES - JULY 16, 1986 page two 2 Lawrence St. a/k/a 165 Ocean AVe. - Continued of the Ordinance. Using property for what it's zoned for cannot possibly be • s detrimental. What is there now is nonconforming, three garages, what we propose is an allowed use. He displayed pictures of the area. The construction in this area is a hodgepodge, there are all types of construction, there is just about every kind of structure you can imagine. One of the concerns, of one of the abutters is privacy, we will put a buffer zone. We have a hardship here, the shape of the lot creates the hardship, can' t be used for what it is intended. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition, Steve Lovely, representing his father Warren Lovely, the direct abutter at 4 Lawrence St. This is in very close proximatey to my parents property. I only became aware today about the court decision. He submitted a petition signed by 17 neighbors and abutters requesting the Board adhere to it's prior decision. One of our concerns in the parking. This is heavily congested area, traffic is a serious problem. We all agree something can be built there but it should be compatible with the neighborhood. This is a two family neighborhood but does the ordinance say you must build a two family. The problem is the size of the lot. It has been almost a year since he first petitioned and he has not sat down and talked with the neighbors. As far as putting hedges, it will be twenty years before they are grown. This is the fourth time we have been here and I would hope the Board reaffirms its stand. In Rebuttal: Attorney Drucas: I object to his standing here speaking tonight, it should be his father who is speaking. We have made many attempts to meet with Mr. Lovely. We have not heard from any other abutters. We have talked to him about putting an Arborvitae barrier. No, we do not have to build a two .family just because it is zoned R-2, but the law says we can build a two family, which is what we choose to do. We have made efforts to meet but was not responded to. Mr. Hacker: is there any room for a compromise, could you reduce the size of the building? Mr. Drucas: not without • t make a higher building. We thought by keeping the structure as is would be the proper way to go. We feel that as we are not violating setbacks we are not inclined to change the building. Mr. Fleming: what is the status of the court case? Mr. Drucas: it is still open. Mr. Fleming: does the judge want another decision from us, there are no instructions in the order. Drucas: rather that set instructions, this keeps my motion clear and enables me to bring it back. The merely gives the Board a chance for reconsideration. Mr. Fleming: if you were to build a single family would the footprint be much different? Mr. Drucas: There would still be an intrusion as far a Mr. Lovely is concerned. Mr. Fleming: could you put the parking on the Ocean ave. side rather than Lawrence St. Mr. Maguire: I think the parking has to stay as is. Mr. Drucas: we would prefer to have the parking on this side. Mr. Fleming: it is conceivable that that is not the only house you could build there. You could build a smaller building. Mr. Drucas: no matter what we build there we need a variance. Mr. Fleming: there could be two other uses, it could continue to be used as is. Mr. Drucas: referred to a letter from Mr. McIntosh (on file) , these garages have not been rented for longer than two years so the use discontinues and we cannot rent them now. All we want is what is allowed. We are certainly willing to listen but to change plan totally is not feasible, my client has expended a lot of time and money on this project. Mr. Hacker: it seems to me that the time for compromise has passed. We made a decision, the developer took it to court and here we are. Mr. Lovely would like to have a cottage built and I think that is unrealistic. I have a problem with the parking on the Lawrence St. side, I would like to see it moved to the other side or cut the size of the building. I would be in favor if the parking were moved and if the building were smaller. We could condition it on there being 6 foot hedges. Mr. • Bencal: any size building would be in harmony, there is every type of dwelling possible in that neighborhood. I voted in favor before and I have not changed my mind. Mr. Fleming: I disagree with the Boards findings when this was denied MINUTES - JULY 16, 1986 page three 2 Lawrence St. a/k/a 165 Ocean Ave. - Continued • in January. I do think there is a hardship, however, I think this could be a continuing nonconforming use and it could be a lessor use. I have a problem with Mr. Maguire and Mr. Lovely not meeting, it is up to the developer to make the effort to meet. I would like to see them compromise, I don' t think it is too late. Would like some good faith discussion taking place. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the variances requested on condition a six foot high arborvitae or suitable planting to be approved by the City Planner and to be located on lot line of lot 138 on plan submitted, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, building to be no closer than 1011" to the rear lot line, the side line towards lot #135 be 30.11 , side line on Lawrence St. to be 27.51 , 11 ' from Ocean Ave. in the front. Mr. Fleming: I would like to amend that motion to include all parking be on the westerly portion of the lot. Mr. Hacker: do you accept that amendment? Mr. Bencal: yes. Mr. Luzinski seconded the motion with the amendment included. Mr. Bencal and Mr. Luzinski voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hacker and Mr. Fleming voted in opposition. VARIANCE DENIED Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the petition of Mary Pinto for Variances for 8 Freeman Rd. would not be heard tonight. If they resubmit at a later date it would be advertised again and abutters would be notified. 40 Clark St. - Ralph Salvo Petitioner is requesting a Variance from frontage to allow division of land into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on each lot in this R-1 district. • Mr. Bencal read the application. Attorney John Serafini Sr. represented the petition. Displayed plans to the Board. This is an unusual situation, we have here a piece of land which is about an acre. Would like to divide this into two lots, each lot would have over 20 thousand square feet but only 75 plus feet of frontage. These lots would be larger in area than most lots in the area. The dwelling will comply with the setback requirements, all we need is frontage. Speaking in favor. Mr. Nobel, 39 Clark St. and Mr. Leblanc, 38 Clark St. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I am not usually in favor of dividing lots, but these are so large I would be in favor. Mr. Luzinski: we have done this before, I have no problem. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition a variance from frontage to allow 75.6' on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each dwelling. Mr. Luzinski seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 5 Riverbank Rd. - Monique Caron Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear and side setbacks to allow construction of a one story addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application. Mr. Peter Caron represented his mother. My mother wants to extend her den room and install sliding doors. He submitted a petition signed by 11 abutters and neighbors in favor. He displayed pictures of the dwelling, this will have a minimal visual impact on the neighbors. No one spoke in favor or in opposition. Irene Swiniarski, 7 Riverbank Rd. , asked what the purpose of the room would be. Mr. Caron: my mother is an amateur painter and she would like the extra room for her own recreation. Ms. Swiniarski: I am only concerned that there will be a business there as long as there is no business or increase in units, thats fine. Mr. Hacker: we could make it a condition that it has no business use and remain a one family. Mr. Fleming: you heard what the neighbor said, are you comfortable with those conditions. Mr. Caron: yes. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the SpecialPermit requested on condition the one story addition be to within five feet of side, 23 feet to rear and be 10' x 12' [MINUTES - JULY 16, 1986 page four 5 Riverbank Rd. - continued ,• in size, no use other than recreational may be done in the proposed addition, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained and all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. shall be complied with. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 183R Federal St. - Robert J. Metzger Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow property to be used as a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application. Attorney George Vallis, 1 Church St. , represented the petitioner. Submitted copies of the Assessors Map to the Board Members, the property marked X represents the property in question. My client purchased the property as a three family, I am not sure when it was converted to a three family. There are other three family dwellings in the area. He has plenty of room for parking. Each tenant would have two spaces. The Ordinance permits up to four units by Special Permit in an R-2 district. My client is trying to legalize something that he bought, he did not create. Submitted a copy of the deed. The Board, in the past, has granted similar cases. This would not be detrimental. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Mr. Mr. Zagaeski, 183 Federal St. , they have a right of way across our property and I am concerned with traffic going back and forth. I heard he was going to sell. Mr. Hacker: we can' t control ownership, we can condition it on being owner occupied so that whoever owned it would have to live there. Mr. Zagaeski: what if people have two or three cars, there's not enough parking. Mr. Hacker: we cannot control renting to someone who has only one car or no cars. If we grant this all we would be doing is keeping it as what it is, we can require them to maintain parking. The Ordinance requires 5 spaces for a three family, he is showing six. �,. Carol Tyack, 181 Federal St. , I thought I heard you say four family. Mr. Vallis: no, I merely said that there could be four family by Special PErmit in this zone. We are not asking for four. Mr. Hacker: they only want to make legal what has apparently been there. The opposition was withdrawn. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: was there a Realtor involved and did they represent it as a three family? Mr. Vallis: there was a Realtor but they did not represent it as three. Mr. Fleming: the only other thing is to go to the Historic Commission. Mr. Vallis: there will be no changes. Mr. Bancal made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition the property be owner occupied, minimum of six parking spaces be maintained on site, a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 3 White St. - Robert Ouellette Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to restore and rebuild structure within the confines of the existing foundation for use as a single family dwelling in this B-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, a letter from Alice and Dolores Jordan, 97 Derby St. , expressing their concerns with the project. (on file) Mr. Hacker: before we hear this petition, show us the substantial difference, we have to vote as to whether we can hear this or not. Mr. Fleming: Do we have approval from the Planning Board as to the substantial difference? Attorney George Vallis, representing the petitioner, I realize we must go to the Planning Board for there approval of a substantial difference from this petition and the one denied by this Board last February. Mr. Fleming: I have a problem with the sequence of events here, I feel that all we can do here tonight is determine if • , there is a substantial change. We cannot hear the case until we have approval of the Planning Board. Mr. Vallis: I think you can hear it and have condition that MINUTES - JULY 16, 1986 page five 3 WHITE ST. - Continued it meet Planning Board approval. Mr. Fleming: you are aware that there is a four • man Board and it takes a unanimous vote to have any action taken. It is my opinion that you must go to the Planning Board first, I am just telling you this so you won' t be at a disadvantage. Mr. Hacker: to refresh your memory gentlemen, a petition regarding this property was denied in February of this year. That petition was for a Special Permit to reconstruct a two story building and to add a third story. Mr. Ouellette wanted a two family and there was concern regarding the parking. If we establish a substantial change, I would have no problem hearing this tonight. Mr. Fleming: I still feel it should go to the Planning Board first for their consent but I will listen to Mr. Vallis. Mr. Vallis: the original petition was filed in December of 1986 and was continued until it was finally heard February 26, 1986. This building was partially constructed under a legal building permit. The building permit was for renovations but when Mr. Ouellette began construction he found most of the building was in serious disrepair and he had to demolish it. Not realizing he had to come to the Board because of the Ordinance which states that if a building is more that 50% distroyed by any means it can only be rebuilt in accordance with todays zoning. As far as a substantial difference goes, the petition that was denied was for a two family dwelling, he is now requesting to be able to continue the construction and to use the building as a single family. On the face of this difference, I don' t think we would have any problem getting the approval of the Planning Board and we would have no problem with it being conditioned upon their approval. I have been coming before this Board for twenty years, I feel the Board is now setting a precedent by requiring the Planning Board approval before deciding to re-hear a petition. This proposal has no opposition, I think everyone would like to see this building completed, it has been ongoing for over a year. Mr. Fleming: is what you say is true about there being no opposition, I would be • in favor of hearing the petition tonight. Mr. Bencal made a motion to re-hear this petition as there is a substantial difference. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The motion carried unanimously, the Board will hear the petition. Mr. Vallis displayed plot plan. This will be on the same footprint as the original structure. There is parking for one car, two cars if piggyback and it will be a single family dwelling. Mr. Ouellette obtained a building permit and started construction. He began preliminary demolition, the building inspector came down and discovered he had demolished more than 50% and ordered him to cease and desist. He came to the Board of Appeal to get permission to continue construction. At that time the opposition was because it was going to be a two family and they did not want a two family there, they also thought the building was too high and they did not want a deck. We agreed to eliminate the deck. Also, instead of the original 38 feet in height, the building will be only 32 feet, so we have cut down considerable on the size of the building. He then displayed pictures of the building as it previously existed and as it exists now. The building now will not be a full three stories as in our previous petition. We spoke with the members of the VFW and they did not seep to have any objection to a single family. Speaking in favor: Dorothy Erle, 6 White St. , the property was in bad shape, I would like to see anything that will improve it. He has gone throught the appropriate procedure and it should be granted. Richard Savicky, Derby St. , in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I spoke with the Building Inspector, and there is no question in anyone's mind that Mr. Ouellette in any way did anything intentionally wrong. I think this is a marked improvement and I would be in favor. Mr. Fleming: I believe this is in the Historic District, do you intend to go to them? Mr. Vallis: this is not in • the Historic District. Mr. Luzinski: I think this is a drastic change and is consistent with the area. Don' t see any problem with a one family, it will be a lot better that it has been. Edgar Paquin, Assistant Building Inspector: this is a building permit in force, permits can be revised. MINUTES - JULY 16, 1986 page six 3 White St. - Continued • 1 Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the application for a Special Permit on condition e a minimum of one parking space be maintained on site, the building to be set on F exact foundation as shown on plans, applicant surrender existing building permit for a two family, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 100 - 102 Boston St. - Ira & Judith Rosenberg Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit and a Variance to create a mini-mall by altering and expanding the existing garage in this B-2/R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioners. He displayed plans to the Board. Most of the property is zoned B-2, the rest is R-2. We are hear because of this R-2 zoning. The present building that is along Beaver Street is a concrete garage and it is in bad shape. We are showing 28 parking spaces, we are about 10 spaces shy of what is needed. I think the amount of parking we are showing is sufficient. We are not sure right now what is going to be in there. Just want to building the mini-mall and market it. This area is getting really run down. My client will be putting a substantial amount of money into it. Will certainly improve the area, will be attractive to the neighborhood. To use this as a residential use is not feasible. This will not be more detrimental, will actually improve the area. During the evening the parking lot would be avail- able for the neighborhood use. . Mr. Luzinski: any idea at all what kind of business will be there. Mr. Vallis: it is zoned B-2, would be light business area. Mr. Fleming: will you need on site loading facilities? Mr. Vallis: we are talking f•� small businesses. Speaking in favor: John Driscoll, 10 Beaver St. , anything would improve the area, the neighborhood has been going up and down and right now it is going down, this would improve it. Speaking in opposition: Councillor Leonard O'Leary, this is a very congested area. Would like to ask Mr. Vallis if they have . been to the City Planner. Mr. Vallis: we realize we will have to get Planning Board approval. Mr. O' Leary: parking in this area is a problem, I have received many complaints from people about parking. I am totally opposed, we don' t know what type of business will be here, could be a 7-11 store, we don' t know. Mr. Fleming: we could put conditions on the decision as to types of businesses. Mr. O'Leary: I am still opposed. They have not talked with the neighbors, did not talk to the A.O.H. Mr. Vallis: did not see the need to talk to the neighbors, but would be willing to get together with them. I don' t think anyone is here from the A.O.H. , which is the Councillors biggest concern. We did not expect any opposition because this will improve the neighborhood. Mr. Hacker: in view of the opposition from the Councillor, would you want to continue this so you can get together with the neighbors and the A.O.H.? Mr. Vallis: I have no problem with that. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this petition until the August 27th hearing. Mr. Fleming seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED TILL AUGUST 27, 1986. 1 Oak St. - Donald Bates Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow conversion of a single family dwelling into a two family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application. Mr. Bates represented himself. I have lived in this area all my life, my parents live behind me. I have owned this property over a year, all I want is a one bedroom apartment. He submitted letters from the following abutters in favor of this petition: Casimir & Doris Obremski, 10 Oak St. ; Judith Ouinlivan, • 5 Oak St. ; George Bates, 87 Flint St. ,Mary Pomphrey, 85 Flint St. , Philias Verrette, J no address given. There are other two families in the area. No one appeared in MINUTES - JULY 16, 1986 page seven 1 Oak St. - Continued win favor. Speaking in opposition: Louise Lima, 91 Mason St. , his house is right at the end of my yard, it needs an egress and it would come right into my yard. Mr. Hacker: would it be agreeable to you to have him put a fence there? Ms. Lima: should be a stockade fence and it should be surveyed. Mr. Fleming: it was surveyed in 1985. Ms. Lima: thats okay then. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested from Residential Density Regulations, Table One, Section VI to allow a single family dwelling to be converted to a two family dwelling on condition a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, three on site parking spaces be maintained; a six foot stockade fence be erected to act as a buffer on the northern boundary line; must be owner occupied; comply with all Salem Fire Prevention codes. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 37 Clark St. - Edward Colbert Petitioner is requesting a Variance from frontage in order to divide parcel into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on Lot B in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application. Mr. Colbert represented himself. He displayed plans to the Board. I want to construct a single family dwelling for my son, he would have a right of way on my property. Speaking in favor: Mr. LeBlanc, 38 Clark St. , Mr. Nobile, R39 Clark St. Speaking in opposition: Roger Beyea, 33 Clark St. , so that I would not hear a lot of noise, I set my house way back, now I will have to contend with traffic going back and forth, it is too close to my house. Mrs. Beyea, 33 Clark St. , I am also opposed. In Rebuttal: Mr. Colbert, his driveway is on my land. My son cannot afford to by land in Salem so I am t giving him this land. Mr. Fleming: do you use that back area now? Mr. Colbert: '.,`"•. only use part of it for garden. Mr. Fleming: are there any other houses in that •":F' area that have homes in the back? Mr. Nobile: yes there are. Mr. Hacker: you have to get all four votes in favor or this will be denied. I would suggest to you that you withdraw this petition and try to come up with a better plan. I think if we have to vote now, I would have to vote against it. Mr. Colbert: Yes, I would like to withdraw. Mr. Fleming made a motion to allow petition to be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN 34} Bridge St. - John Spinale Petitioner is requesting the Board of Appeal to instruct the Building Inspector not to go forward with is order to have 341 Bridge St. demolished. Said property is in a B-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Building Inspector to Mr. Spinale, dated April 17 , 1986, which is ordering the demolition of said building. Mr. Bencal also referred to a copy of a decision which was filed in the City Clerk's office on March 12, 1986, which denied Mr. Spinale a Variance to allow completion of 347' Bridge St. Also attached were copies of the minutes of that hearing. Attorney Gary Sackrider, North St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. Would like to give you a brief overview of what has been going on with this property. In 1984 there was a nonconforming structure on this site, in April, Mr. Spinale leased the premises, and they were going to rehabilitate the structure. A building permit was approved and issued for recon- struction. The building was demolished, the permit revoked. Mr. Lagonakis filed an administrative ruling in September 1984, the Board upheld "revokation of.pennit, we filed in •""� February 1986 for Variances which the Board denied. We now have received an order from the Building Inspector to demolish the building, I think it is inappropriate at this time to make Mr. Spinale demolish this building when we have a court case pending. That is why we are here tonight, we just want to prevent having to MINUTES - JULY 16, 1986 page eight 3412 Bridge St. - Continued • demolish this until the issue has been resolved in the courts. Mr. Hacker: I am not sure, were you the attorney in the previous petition? Mr. Sackrider: no, but it was the same office. Mr. Hacker explained to Mr. Fleming, who was not on the Board at the time of the original Administrative Ruling or at the time of the denial for variances. He explained: Mr. McIntosh, the then Inspector of Buildings issued a building permit for renovations. This permit was issued in good faith. The building was subsequently demolished and an appeal was filed by an abutter. A new building was already partially constructed. The Board, at that time felt there was some deception on the part of the petitioner, on checking the lease, which was dated May 25, 1984, it was already agreed that the building would be demolished. The Board decided that the building permit should no have been issued or modified to allow the construction of the new building. When Mr. Spinale petitioned us for variances in February of this year, there was opposition from the Fire Dept. because of the junk cars and overall condition of the property. The building was constantly unsecured, even after repeated notices were sent to Mr. Spinale, the building is still not secured. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Sackrider, why did you not ask for an injunction. Mr. Sackrider: we are going to do that. We met with Mr. O'Brien and there was an agreement made that this would not be done. Mr. Hacker: I spoke with Mr. O'Brien and he did make an agreement, this was on condition the building be secured. Mr. Fleming: can' t we make a condition that security be checked by the Building Inspector. Mr. Hacker: the building is not secured now, how many chances should he get. Mr. Sackrider: could grant it subject to it being secured within so long a time. Mr. Hacker: the Building Inspector has been more than lenient and his office is under staffed as it is. Mr. Fleming: I don' t think we could act and have the building torn down at this time. Mr. Luzinski: we should let the courts decide. Mr. Sackrider: we will file another appeal. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Spinale has shown no good faith, the Building Inspector and the Board of Appeal have been deceived. Mr. Fleming: We could grant and condition it on being secured within ten days. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant Mr. Spinale's appeal and order the Building Inspector not to go forward with his order to demolish the building at 342, Bridge St. on condition the building that now exists be secured within three days, three working days. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Mr. Fleming and Mr. Luzinski voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hacker and Mr. Bencal voted against the motion. By a vote of two to two the motion did not carry, petition is denied. DENIED 143 Canal St. - Pub Realty Trust Petitioner is requesting variances to allow four additional apartments and from minimum parking requirements in this B-4 district. Mr. Bencal read the application. Attorney Gustafson, represented the petitioner. I am sure you are familiar with this property. It has been a pub for many years. My client would like to have four (4) one ( 1 ) bedroom apartments. He submitted copies of letters sent to the abutters which explained the plans and invited them to speak regarding any concerns, at their convenience. We heard from only one abutter, the gas station next door. My Client purchased this building in 1983, it was a pub with apartments above. The pub is presently closed. Mr. Brett Doney, Architect, explained the plans. there is about 1800 feet of usable space. We will not be make any entrances. We will take the pub space and put in four, one bedroom apartments. He displayed the plans to • the Board and the assemblage. These units will be on the first floor, there are presently eight units on the other floors, the second and third. We will be upgrading the property. It is not necessary to have two means of egress because these units are on the ground floor. Mr. Fleming: is there any parking at all? Mr. Sackrider: no. The prior use as a pub generated more parking problems that this would. This 'MINUTES - JULY 16, 1986 page nine 143 Canal St. - Continued r •� is why we went with the one bedroom units. We think this use is better for the \ community. It will provide rental space which is very much needed in Salem: Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would be a financial hardship. Would like to have just residential property. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: I feel this is a Special Permit rather than a Variance. This area is an area where parking is a problem. The parking problem will be lessened if we grant this. Mr. Hacker: I think this type of place is conducive to students. I think it could be used for one business. Mr. Fleming: If it was a business it would generate more traffic. We have a chance to create some low cost housing. The petitioners are reputable business men. To leave this as commercial does not help the area. Mr. Bencal: I agree with Mr. Fleming, I think having four apartments would be better. I would like to have the provision put in that there be two egresses. Mr. Fleming: there are only four members and if I read this right, I think this petition will fail if voted on tonight. He explained to the petitioner that it would take a unanimous vote in order for this to be granted and suggested that he might want to withdraw this and come back when there are five members present. Attorney Gustafson requested leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE Meeting adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held July 23, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. , on the second floor, One Salem Green. --, Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk r,r �. ',c .coamq� y Qlitg of "Salem, Anseac4usetts ' . Pottra of '�lppettl f MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JULY 23, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, July 23, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notice of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on July 9 & 16, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker & Strout & Associate Labrecque Mr. Luzinski, unavoidably detained. Meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. Labrecque appointed voting member. Mr. Bencal made a motion to accept the minutes of the May 14, 1986 meeting. Mr. Strout seconded. Messrs. , Bencal, Hacker & Strout voting to accept; Mr. Fleming voted present. MINUTES ACCEPTED Mr. Hacker read a letter from Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , requesting leave to withdraw the petition of his client Paul Ferris for a Variance for 3 Friend St. Petition having been withdrawn prior to the hearing, no vote was taken. 3 FRIEND ST. - WITHDRAWN 394 Highland Ave. - Michael Stasinos Mr. Hacker: I believe you are all familiar with the petition, it has been on going for the past couple of years. In May of this year, we denied Mr. Stasinos his request for 163 units. Mr. Stasinos appealed that decision in Court. On July 10, 1986 Mr. Stasinos had another petition before us requesting 193 units. The Board voted not to hear his petition on the basis he did not follow the proper procedure and obtain the approval of 8 of the 9 Planning Board Members. We are here tonight to discuss the possibilty of entering into negotiations with Mr. Stasinos. Basic- ally all we want to do tonight is decide if we should instruct the City Solicitor to negotiate on our behalf. Mr. Bencal read correspondence from Walter Power, III, Chairman of the Planning Board urging the Board of Appeal to take whatever steps are at its disposal to prohibit the proposed commercial development, and approve a compromise residential development (on file) . He also read a communication from Mr. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, also urging the residential development and recommending 17 conditions to be part of the decision. (on file) Mr. Hacker: I spoke with the City Solicitor and he suggested we advertise this because of the interest by the neighbors. I am not sure if our procedure is valid, if we should open this meeting to the public or vote to allow City Solicitor to negotiate. Mr. Fleming: I think the procedure is fine. It is appropriate to hear and certainly good to advertise. We should have some discussion, then open it to the public. I have an additional 14 conditions I would like to see in the negotiations. I would favor discussion and I would favor opening this to the public. Mr. Bencal: I agree with Mr. Fleming, we should hear what the people have to say. I appears that the feelings of the neighbors may have changed and we should hear what the neighbors have to say. Mr. Hacker: I feel we should have a motion to open this to the public. Mr. Bencal made the motion to open the hearing to the public to hear if they are in favor of opposed to negotiation. Mr. Strout seconded. MOTION UNANIMI- MOUSLY CARRIED Mr. Hacker explained to the assemblage that what the Board was interested in was whether of not they thought the Board should direct the City Solicitor to enter into MINUTES - JULY 23, 1986 page two 394 Highland AVe. - Continued • , negotiations or not. We will hear from those in favor first. Speaking in favor: Wallace Miller, 7 Pyburn Ave. ; Wilfred Dupruis, 14 Madeline Ave. , Mr. Haskell, 4 Pyburn Ave. , not sure what we are doing. Mr. Hacker explained that all we are deciding tonight is whether or not to go along with the recommendations of the Planning Board and have the City Solicitor negotiate. Mr. Haskell, should negotiate. Terry Rillovick, 25 Appleby Rd. , Eva Miller, 7 Pyburn Ave. , Ms. Newton, 13 Pyburn Ave. , Vincent Amanti, 392 Highland Ave. , my mother and father own the property at 392 Highland Ave. and I would like to explain our feelings. We moved there in 1950 and there was nothing there, not very many people and it was beautiful. Then it was developed and that gave you people a nice place to live. I would like to see it as it was or at least stay as it is, but that's not possible. Something is going to go there and I would to see the best use and the best for the area. I don' t think commercial is the best this for that area. I really think a nice development would be better compared with commercial. We have to deal with what we have. I think 125 units and with the conditions they have mentioned and with the conditions they will add, I think this is the best way to go. I have lived there all my life and I love it there. Barbara Nobel, 1 Savonna St. , Why isn' t Stasinos here? Mr. Hacker explained that the Board is hear to talk with the City Solicitor regarding negotiations. We could meet in executive session but because this is sensitive issue we put notice in the paper and notified the Councillors. Mr. Stasinos was not notified, no formal notice went to anyone. Barbara Nobel: why not have single family homes. Mr. Fleming: Mr. Stasinos has said it is not conducive to single family homes, part of this is zoned RC, would not be financially feasible. Jim Nestor, Barnes Ave. , I am opposed to anything unless he starts to cooperate with the people. It is about time he starts giving something back to the neighborhood. He runs his equipment all hours of the day. Mr. Hacker: if we do nothing this evening he would be allowed to continue what he is doing. We have the opportunity to put conditions on hime. He has won in Court the right to build the shopping center, we cannot decide tonight he can' t build the shopping center. Mr. Nestor: another thing is the blasting. Mr. Hacker: blasting comes under the Fire Dept. Mr. Nestor: I would like to see the blasting being supervised and the stone crusher not be started till 8 a.m. and be done by 5 p.m. I do not want the shopping center, no commercial uses. Joyce Nelson, 401 Highland Ave. , If it is commercial, I am concerned about not being able to get out of my establishment, would like you to negotiate. Ray Sawyer, 5 Pyburn Ave. , Theresas Nicgerski, 21 Mooney Rd. , would like you to negotiate and put more restrictions. Councillor Furfaro, you are talking about directing the City Solicitor to negotiate, how will these people know what happens, what if some of the conditions are deleted. Mr. Hacker: It would have to come back to us. Councillor O'Leary: some of the residents think I sold them down the river, I simply want this done the right way. Since when does the City Planner speak for the Planning Board, when was this posted, who posted it, how could you post a meeting July 15th when the letter was not dated till July 21st. Mr. Hacker: we wanted to give the people the most notice we could. Mr. O'Leary: should you have been at the Planning Board meeting. When Mr. Powers says he is speaking for the Planning Board he is not telling the truth, only four members were present and only three of the four voted. I don' t think this is legal. I have questions about the City Planners letter. He displayed the Assessors Map, the only abutter to the commercial venture is the Amanti's. I think you are trying to scare the people. What you are doing here is opening the door to other developers. You are saying come and get variances and not bother going to the Planning Board. Mr. Hacker: that is not what we are saying, we sent him to • the Planning and one of the conditions is to go to Planning. Jim Crosby, owned and operated Crosby's Market, basically in favor of your Board working with the Planning Board and negotiate. It makes no sense to have a shopping center there. MINUTES - JULY 23, 1986 page three 394 Highland Ave. - Continued • It is true I have a financial interest, but I used to live on Route 114 and I thank the Lord I was able to get out. That' s what Highland Ave. could become. Richard William, 3 Barnes Circle, there is already a traffic problem, why isn' t there a light at Swampscott Rd. already. The City should have control. He has been heard many times and this indicates to me that he has no interest in building a shopping center. He should do this according to the rules. Lets look ahead, I want nego- tiations but I want him bound to it so there is no getting out. Mr. D'Amato, 30 Clark St. , would like to see single family homes. Stasinos has no concern for the people. Why doesn' t he talk to us. He wants to make money, that's all, condominiums are a better deal. I am in favor of negotiating but I don' t think he wants a shopping center. Pauline Alexander, 12 Clark St. , will the noise continue while negotiations are going on? Also, he trucks are not covered, it is dangerous. Mr. Hacker: if you have any problems with what is going on there now, call the Building Inspector. If we negotiate for residential use it will eliminate some of the problems. Ms. Alexander: what if the blasting breaks something, who do we go to? Mr. O'Brien, City Solicitor: they must post a bond, you can get compensated. Ms. Alexander: the last time I had to take them to Court. Mr. Hacker: We could add condition that there be a Clerk of the Works, a representative of the City at the site all the time. Mr. Piccitto, 418 Lafayette St. , why doesn' t this Board instruct the City Solicitor to enforce the laws. I say no negotiation. June Duran, Sophia Rd. , where is all the manpower going to come from? Mr. Hacker: One of the conditions would be to have a Clerk of the Works and the developer would reimburse the City for his pay. Will Jordan, Barnes Ave. , perhaps the only thing he understands is an injunction. Mr. Fleming: what he is doing there now, this Board has no control over. What we are trying to do is get some control by negotiating and the only way • we can is if he agrees to our conditions. Mr. O'Brien: any violations of City Ordinances is the responsibility of the Police Dept. Mr. Jordan: the Police have been there and he behaves while they are there, when they leave it is back to the old way. A Clerk of the Works would cut down on this. Councillor O'Leary: you mention conditions, I have a copy of a variance granted to 2 Orleans Ave. , and there were conditions, they have not been met. Who will control these conditions, if these few conditions are not controlled, who's going to control all these. Mr. Fleming: that is why we will have a Clerk of the Works. Mr. Munroe, 1 Ravenna Ave. , there are two inspectors there now and he has them in his pocket. No one on Highland Ave. has ever gotten away with what he has. If he can get two State Engineers in his pocket he certaily can get to the Clerk of the Works. Negotiations no worth a damn. Mary O' Leary, 31 Barcellon Ave. , what about the Planning Board, what has become of them. Mr. Hacker: the Planning Board would do pretty much what we are doing. Mr. O'Brien: he has the right to develop this, he can do the com- mercial, he had the zoning change overturned so the new zoning does not affect him. Councillor O'Leary: they rezoned only the B-2, not the residential area. Mr. Hacker: the question before us tonight is do we try to make a deal for just 126 residential units or not? Councillor O' Leary: you did that at the last meeting. Mrs. O' Leary: is the Planning Board out of it right now. Mr. Hacker: yes, they are out of it. Mr. Fleming: if you would wait and listen to the conditions I am going to ask the City Solicitor to implement and if Mr. Stasinos accepts these conditions, we will be doing the job of the Planning Board. I don' t think he'll accept my conditions, he is not going to the Planning Board because he does not have to. The public portion of the meeting is closed. Mr. Fleming: this has been on of the most aggravating petitions to come to the Board. I have listened to the • people and I think there is a common reason for them to be here, they want the less detrimental use. If we allow him to continue to go uncontrolled we are doing a disservice. I think these people want to preserve their homes. I would like now to MINUTES - JULY 23, 1986 page four 394 Highland Ave. - Continued . read the conditions I would impose in addition to the 17 conditions listed by the City Planner. 1 . petitioner enter into an agreement with the City Solicitor for dismissal of complaint 86-1534, now pending in Superior Court. 2. Petitioner waive all appellate rights int he matter of his petition to the Board of Appeals, in a form approved by the City Solicitor. 3. petiitoner amend his deed to the real property located at 394 Highland Ave. , said amendment to be a covenant not to build on any portion of said real estate, other than on that portion utilized for 126 condominium units, said amendment is to be approved in form by the City Solicitor. 4. the petitioner deed to the City a total of three acres to be used for public soccor fields. 5. the Board of Appeal have the full time services of a consultant to serve as a Clerk of the Works, monitored weekly, to ensure that proper construction practices are adhered to. Petitioner hall reimburse the City on a monthly basis, the full cost of such Clerk of the Works. No further development of the site shall take place until such Clerk of the Works is hired and is present on the site of the development. 6. The preliminary plan of the development, as has been submitted by the petitioner to the Board be approved by the Board of Health, Conservation Com- mission, Engineer, Superintendent of Streets, Fire Dept. , Police Dept. and School Dept. 7. That prior to any construction, the petiitoner file with the Board of Appeal, a Definitive Plan, in form and with the contents required by Section III B. of the Subdivision regulations. 8. the petitioner, prior to any construction, file an Environmental Impact Statement, clearly showing the relations of the proposed project to the total environment of the City and its inhabitants. 9• the Petitioner upon filing of the Definitive Plan shall also file said Plan with the Board of Health. The Board of Health, within 30 days, shall report to the Board of Appeal the effect of the development on municipal sewerage system and whether any building • on the site might be injurious to the public health. 10. petitioner file a performance quarantee bond, in an amount and form approved by the City Solicitor. 11 . the petitioner meet all the design standards for streets, easements, open space, and the protection of natural features, as set forth in Section IV of the sudivision regulations, final approval resting with the Board of Appeal. 12. Petitioner meet all the required improvements for an approved subdivison in relation to street and roadway, sidewalks, grass strips, monuments, and utilities, as set forth in Section V of the subdivision regulations, final approval resting with the Board of Appeal. 13. the petitioner complete all construction and install all required municipal services within two years of the date of approval of the Definitive Plan. 14. the petitioner meet all conditons recommended by the City Planner, and that they be annexed and merged in these above mentioned conditions. 15• petitioner work on the site only between the hours of 8 a.m and 5 p.m. , Monday through Friday. 16. the collection of trash and plowing be done for perpetuity by the Condominium Association and not the City of Salem. These conditions mirror what the Planning Board would be doing. It cuts him down and limits him to the 126. It keeps him from being able to come back at a later date and asking for more. I don' t want this to proceed any further without controls. I must agree in total, not just one or two of these conditions but all of them and any others the rest of the Board may want to place on him. He would have 30 days to agree. Mr. Bencal: I think the 30 days would be a reasonable time and in addition to the conditions of Mr. Fleming I would like to add that he agree 30 days from July 24th. I would like to ask Mr. Fleming, should the Planning Dept. hire the Clerk of the works? Mr. Fleming: I want us to have control. Mr. Bencal: I agree the conditions of Mr. Fleming and Mr. Kavanaugh will be more than adequate safeguards and I would like to commend Mr. Fleming on the effort he has expended. Mr. Strout: I have a problem with us hiring the Clerk of the Works, I think it should be up to the City Planner. Professionally, he is better suited to it. Mr. Fleming: I can understand MINUTES JULY 23, 1986 page five 394 Highland Ave. - Continued that but want us to have some control. Could amend my condition #5 to read, that we hire the consultant and have the Planner monitor it weekly. Mr. Hacker: would like one more condition, that the City of Salem, no now or in the future be responsible for trash or snow removal. Mr. Fleming: I would go along with that and we have done that in the past. Mr. Fleming made a motion to direct the City Solicitor to enter into negotiations with the Developer Michael Stasinos and that Mr. Stasinos must agree to all 33 conditions within 30 days. Mr. Bencal seconded. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED 204 Highland AVe. - Mary Jane & Robert Kart At the request of the petitioner's Counsel, Attorney John Whipple, the above petition was withdrawn. Petition was withdrawn prior to the hearing so no vote was taken. 51 Bayview AVe. - Gerard .& Marian Hosman The petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear and side setbacks to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection, a letter from John A. McNiff, 43 Bay View Ave. , in favor. Mr. Hosman represented himself. All we want to do is increas the area of our kitchen. Would like to build a small addition. He displayed plot plans to the Board. Submitted two letters in favor, from, Kristen Wenzel who wrote for her mother; Ruth Emon McRae, 51 Bay View Ave. , and from William Leavor, 55 Bay View Ave. Speaking in favor: Robert E. Gauthier, • 52 Bay View Ave. , they are good neighbors and I am very much in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: are you just extending the small section in the rear? Mr. Hosman: yes Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition all work be done as per plans submitted, all construction meet the requirements of the Mass. State Building Code and the requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. and any new exterior be finished in the same material as the existing structure. Mr. Labrecque seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 70 Summer St. - Steven & Patricia Hemphill Petitioners are requesting a Variance to convert a four family dwelling into a six family dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating they had no objection but would like condition that plans are submitted for their approval. Mr. & Mrs. Hemphill represented themselves. Mr. Hemphill addressed the Board. We do have a hardship with this building, when we bought it it was in poor condition, was an eyesore. To this point we have put 50 to 60 thousand into it. He displayed before and after pictures. We got the porches back in a safe condition, got rid of problem tenants, during the rehabing we realized we would not have enough money to finish the exterior. We would like to removee what is there now and replace with clabboard. We have a problem with financing, The only way we can do it is to add two, one bedroom apartments. I spoke with the neighbors and they seemed to go along with this. First thing was the parking problem. I have leased six parking spaces from Rosemarie Spinazola, 58 Endicott st. He submitted copy of a letter from •`, her certify that he had leased said spaces. (on file) I also went to all the neighbors that I could reach and I have fifteen letters from neighbors and abutters (on file) I have brought this appeal to the Board so that we may continue to upgrade this building. We will always keep parking available on a rental basis. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Richard Tardiff, 15 Endicott St. , I ' MINUTES - JULY 23, 1986 page six 70 Summer St. - continued • . can appreciate what he is trying to do. Parking is a problem and I question the spaces he is going to lease. There are cars alreading in those spaces and they will be forced into the street. Mary Anne Tardiff, 15 Endicott St. , opposed because of parking. He has done a good job on the house. The signatures on letters are probably people who have driveways. Mr. Hacker: we could condition this upon his maintaining six spaces, if at any time he did not he would lose the right to use this as a six family, would that be satisfactory to you. Mrs. Tardiff: no, absolutely not. Arthur Sargeant, 81 Summer St. , also concerned about parking. This house is on the corner, it is very seldom that I can park in front of my own house. There are many multi-family in this area. Too congested. Tony Carraro, 45 Endicott St. , it is oneway going up Summer St. , there is no parking in front of his house so they will park on Endicott St. , it is congested, hazardous. I am concerned the Fire Dept. could not get by. Is there any parking at all on the site? Mr. Fleming: we have a letter stating he has leased six parking spaces. Mr.Carraro: the parking he intends to lease is owned by my cousin, I am opposed, too congested. Mr. Hacker: for the record, there are 12 signatures in favor and 6 opposed. In rebuttal: Mr. Hemphill: I am quite in sympathy with the people who spoke tonight. I realize that one of the biggest problems in this area is parking, that is why I propose to always rent parking spaces, as an alternate, I could rent from Riley Plaza. I could get tickets on a yearly basis or monthly. Whether we get this or not, the parking problem is going to continue. We are proposing to make this a part of the lease, that we have parking. I think part of the problem lately is because of construction going on. I know there is a problem there, but I don' t think it is fair to dump it all on us. Mr. Strout: is that lease agreement long .\ term? Mr. Hemphill: no, if I don' t get the variance I will not get the spaces. Mr. Strout: how long have you owned the building? Mr. Hemphill: since 1984. Mr. Strout: do you intend to live there? Mr. Hemphill: no sir, I do not. Mr. Strout: when you bought the house, you knew what had to be done. Mr. Hemphell: yes, but we had a problem with the Health Dept. and it took a long time to bring it up to code. Mr. Strout: when did you discover all this damage? Mr. Hemphill: when I went to replace the railings. Mr. Strout: did you have an inspection of the property done before you bought it? Mr. Hemphill: yes but the home inspector does not tear off to see if there is rot. Mr. Fleming: what do you receive for rent? Mr. Hemphill: $600 for the bottom left, $625 for bottom right, $725 for top left and the top right is vacant. Mr. Bencal: when you purchased and started work, was anyone evicted? Mr. Hemphill: yes, the top right, we had to increase the rent and they would not pay so I evicted them. Mr. Bencal: you said you had lived there for 15 weeks yet you have a Reading address. Mr. Hemphill: not living there permanently. Mr. Hacker: I fail to see any hardship. We look to have an owner occupied building when we are increasing the density. Mr. Fleming: I feel the same way regarding hardship. I have to listen to the neighbors, it is very congested there. The leasing situation bothers me. We could grant a variance from parking but I am not in favor of this. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Strout seconded. The Board voted unanimously against the motion. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED ' MINUTES 0 JULY 23, 1986 page seven Mr. Luzinski will now be a voting member. •f 10 Greenway Road - Jean M. Deschene Petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. which state the property is not in compliance with MGL Chapter 148, Section 26E, relative to smoke detectors. Attorney Kevin Daly represented the petitioner. He stated to the Board he would like to amend this petition and request a Special Permit rather than a Variance. I have seen the letter from the City Solicitor dated March 21 , 1986 in which he said it was his opinion that a Variance is required to allow a three family dwelling in an R-1 zone. Mr. Daly made references to a case in Barnstable Mass, which he said was the same as the Salem petition and in which the judge ruled it was a Special Permit. I also spoke with Mr. O'Brien, the City Solicitor, and he agreed with me, I am sure you could get a written opinion from him on this matter. Basically, what my client wants to do is put on a Mansard about one foot high, and new decks. Sub- mitted a statement from the petitioner, on which she listed members of the Greenway Road Neighborhood Association, and said that here contractor and Stanley Poirier, the president of the Association has spoken to each interested party, discussed the plans and use, also stated there was no opposition. (on file) Mr. Daley: there is a two car garage on the property, we realize that according to the Ordinance we need 41 parking spaces. My client is willing to cut that out of the front yard, but as an alternative and to preserve two trees, we have another plan. He submitted a proposed plan showing an expanded driveway on Cottage St. side. (on file) The proposed additional unit will be a one bedroom studio. My client will live there. I hope the Board will grant a Special Permit. Speaking in favor. Mrs. mcElroy, • ,V 1B Greenway Rd. ; Mary Morris, 1B Greenway Rd. Robert Theriault, 41 Greenway Rd. , this will enhance the area, as long as she lives there and as long as there is parking, I would be in favor. Don' t want to set a precedent of turning an R-1 . Speaking in opposition. Peter Richard, 3 Greenway Rd. , I have signatures here of people who are opposed to this, he submitted a petition with eleven signatures. If you set a precedent now, how can you say no to others in the future. Keep it R-1 . In Rebuttal. Mr. Daly: this is the first I have heard of any opposition. We are asking for a Special Permit, not a Variance, this will not be detrimental, I don' t think a one foot higher roof will be detrimental. Mr. Fleming: some of the signatures that are signed in opposition appear on the statement in favor. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: this again puts us in a hard spot. I know some of the people here tonight who spoke in favor. I don' t want to start a neighborhood problem. It seems from the plans this would make it a better home for Greenway Rd. I don' t feel we are impacting the density when it is the petitioner herself who will live there/ I would be in favor. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Richards is he ever stated he was in favor. Mr. Richards: No, I did not. Mr. Hacker: you name appears on the statement in favor. Mr. Richards: I never signed it. The Board went over the plans. Mr. Fleming: I would rather see all the parking in the rear rather than remove trees. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition five on site parking spaces be maintained, remain owner occupied, comply with all building and fire codes and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr.Luzinski seconded. Messrs. , Fleming & Luzinski voted in favor of the motion, Messrs. , Bencal, Hacker and Strout voted in opposition to the motion. The motion failed to carry the necessary four votes to grant, the petition is denied. DENIED 2-3 • 1 MINUTES - JULY 23, 1986 page eight 55 Broad St. - Robert Kobuszewski �•. r Petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert a carriage house into a single ns family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , stating the property is not in compliance with laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors. Attorney Marcia Donovan, Danvers, repre- sented the petitioner. Submitted plans to the Board and display pictures of the property. As far as we know there was always a carriage house here. There is not much need for carriage houses any more. This building is rapidly deteriorating. There is plenty of parking, the garage will stay a garage. My client only plans to re-roof it and re-shingle it so it will match. The exterior dimensions will not change at all. There is parking for at least 9 cars. The building is really run down. The structure will not change at all, the only thing that is changing is the carriage house doors will be replaced. The hardship is, we have a building that is not fit for any allowed use. It does not qualify for the historic carriage house Ordinance which would allow this by Special Permit, it was built in 1914. There are not many in the City that would qualify because of the Fire, most were destroyed. Mr. Fleming: how did you determine it was built in 1914 . Mr. Kobuszewski asked the Historic people. Ms. Donovan: the hardship is simple, we have a building that has no use in todays world. It is not common in everyone's back yard. The City provides for these carriage houses but because of the Salem Fire this does not qualify, it is not 100 years old. It was there before the fire and it was rebuilt. She submitted a petition in favor, signed by 15 neighbors and abutters. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Ron Parker, 57 Broad St. , I am representing my mother and father. There was not carriage house before the Salem fire, it was built as a garage for taxis, it was never used as a carriage house. • My father has lived there for forty years. We are concerned this will invade their privacy. It is not a carriage house, it was never a carriage house. It is currently being used for storage. The main house was a single family dwelling, it is now three family. This is a very congested area. He display a copy of plans he had showing the proximatey of his parent home to the subject property. This will invade their privacy. They have a garden right there. It has always been a barn. Mr. Strout: his plans show they will be rehabilitating the entire building. Mr. Parker: there are tanks there, the lot is a junk yard. My father signed that petition that he saw the plans and that he approved, I think he was mislead. We feel it will lower the property values. I will be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Hacker: you would prefer to have the building continue to deteriorate and remain as is. Mr. Parker: just don' t want our privacy invaded. In rebuttal: Attorney Donovan: don' t think this will invade any privacy, there are no windows on that side of the building and we could relocate the front window. Mr. Kobuszewski: Salem Plumbing was using this about 6 or 7 years ago but they are not using it now and have not been for years. The yard does have three of my vehicles there and they will be removed. Any storage there now is my own personal stuff. Mr. Fleming: would you object to removing the tank. Mr. Kobuszewski: if this is granted I would give up my license and remove the tank. Mr. Fleming: would you remove the window? Mr. Kobuszewski: I have no problem with that. Mr. Fleming: would you mind a condition that you do not store your business supplies on the site? Mr. Kobuszewski: no problem. Mr. Bencal: I am concerned, the petitioner is in the building business and these plans have no dimensions. I could not vote of this. Mr. Fleming: I think the intent is not to exceed the footprint. The interior is not our concern. Our concern is how it will impact the neighborhood. Mr. Hacker: • I have a couple of problems, I would like to vote for this, it would certainly be an improvement and the petitioner is willing to make concessions. I have a problem with hardship, this building can be used for other things. Mr. Fleming: the Council wants to preserve these historic carriage houses, they voted to amend the Ordinance in 1984 to allow these to be converted by Special Permit. The cut off date is 1900. The reason for the Special Permit is because many people could not MINUTES - JULY 23, 1986 page nine 55 Broad St. - Continued • prove hardship. Ms. Donovan's client fails to meet the requirement by 14 years, because of the fire they need a variance, otherwise they meet the intent of the Ordinance. Ms. Donovan: if you look at the carriage house, you can see it is a carriage house. I submit that this would be in keeping with the Ordinance. If you look at the building, it cannot be used as a garage. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Parker, if we continued this until the next meeting and gave you time to talk to your mother and father, would that help? Mr. Parker: no. Can they build this close to the property line. Mr. Hacker: no, but they are not building, the building is already there and they are allowed to rehabilitate. Mr. Luzinski: the new section that will be the dwelling unit, what is the floor? Mr. Kobusewski: it is a cement slab, no foundation. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition, window shown on the right side of the building, on the plans, be removed, garage not be used in violation of the Ordinance, all work comply with building and fire codes and a certificate of occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. Messrs. Fleming, Luzinski and Strout voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hacker voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Bencal voted present. The motion failed to carry the required four votes necessary to pass, the petition is denied. DENIED 3 in favor - 1 opposed - 1 present 1 Lemon St. Ct. - James T. Mahoney Petitioner is requesting a Variance from density and setbacks to allow an existing single family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property is not in compliance with laws relative to installation of smoke detectors. Stanley McGlovsky, realtor: basically •1 what we have here is a house that has been here for years but the banks will not finance it unless a variance is obtained. It does not meet todays zoning but it was built when there were no setback requirements. Speaking in favor: Mr. Mahoney, 1 Lemon St. Ct. , I bought this property as it is. Mrs. Mahoney: we never added or took anything off. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Paquin, Assistant Building Inspector: at least once a week the office gets calls regarding this type of problem because the banks will not refinance and it is going to get worse. Mr. Hacker: it is getting to be common. Mr. Fleming: I would have a serious discussion with the bank, they have certified that it met the zoning when constructed and yet they won' t finance. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition requested to allow the building as shown on the plans on condition the building be brought into compliance with the Fire Dept. regulations regarding smoke detectors. Mr. Fleming seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 414 Lafayette St. - Roger & Colleen Ryan Petitioners are requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-1 district. Attorney Jonathan Moll represented the petitioners. We wwould like to amend the petition and ask for a Special Permit. What we would be doing is cutting off access and separating the second from the third. The bedrooms will remain the same. Architect, David Jacquith displayed the plans to the Board and the assemblage. The only exterior change would be the stairway, the density of the building will stay the same. There is on site parking. As near as I can tell the building was always . ` a two family. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition - Richard Gonet, 414} Lafayette St. ,concerned with the parking. I have a right of way there. The ,. trash is left out for weeks, squirrels get at it, the trash is out tonight. I don' t believe I have seen Mr. Ryan since he bought the property. Mr. Fleming: if this was owner occupied would you then be in favor? Mr. Gonet: does that mean he has to live there for a month and then move. Mr. Fleming: no, he would have to live — MINUTES - JULY 23, 1986 page ten 414 Lafayette St. - Continued there for as long as it remained a three family, if he sold it, whoever bought it •, J would have to live there or it would revert to a two family. If the Ryans lived there you would not be opposed? Mr. Gonet: I don' t know, I signed a letter in favor but I changed my mind. Mr. Hacker: would you be in favor if they lived there? Mr. Gonet: no, I would still be opposed. Beth Mahoney, 387 lafayette St. opposed. Sefan Vicciotto, 418 Lafayette St. , submitted a petition opposed to this project and signed by 21 neighbors and abutters. Since the present owner has purchased this it has been an eyesore, trash piled up, there is constantly a truck in the middle of the front yard. To grant this would adversely affect the neighborhood. I don' t think they have sufficient parking. The whole idea of converting an already congested area is ridiculous. Mr. Fleming: they have not asked for a variance for parking, if they don' t meet the parking requirements they will not be able to get a building permit. Mr.Vicciotto: they cannot get five cars there. They will probably put it in the front. Mr. Ryan came around with a kind of intimidation, threatend us with college students if this was not granted. He knew what he was buying, I pray this Board does not grant this. Phil Moran, 415 Lafayette St. , to say this is not detrimental or that it will not derogate is wrong. We must protect Lafayette St. , it is a main entrance into the City. Please keep it R-1 . There are pre-existing two family homes, yes, but lets not make it three family area. I have seen no hardship. This should be denied. Joseph Hubbard, 413 Lafayette St. , parking alone is enough to turn it down, they do not have enough. Mrs. Hubbard, 413 lafayette St. , parking is a problem, this should not become an R-3 area. In rebuttal: Mr. Moll, I resent the insinuation that my client was trying to intimidate anyone by putting students there. As far as parking, we have room for five cars. Mr. Fleming: we don' t allow piggyback parking. How long have you owned this? Mr. Ryan: we have owned this since February. We are willing to have it owner • occupied and we will take care of the trash problem. Mr. Luzinski: I would hate to see this house torn up, it is a beautiful house and I think there is a market for is as it is. Mr. Fleming: how many people are living there now? Ms. Ryan: there is a single girl on the first floor, I think there are four men on second, I'm not sure. Mr. Hacker: have you checked the Ordinance regarding how many people can occupy an apartment? I have difficulty with the amount of time they have owned this property and I am under the impression that a Variance is definitely needed. This is clearly a speculative venture and I would be opposed. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant a Special Permit as requested by petitioners Counsel. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED Placed on file by Member James Fleming - Council Order granted Special Employee status to Mr. Fleming. Meeting adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held August 20, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, n / Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk 3i Ctu of Salem, Aussac4usetts �gamr vo"� MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - AUGUST 13, 1986 A Special Meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held August 13, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. The following members were present for this Special Meeting: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker, Strout and Associate Member LaBrecque. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker 394 Highland Avenue - Mike Stasinos Mr. Strout made a motion for the Board to go into executive session to discuss the pending litigation and its consequences. Mr. Bencal seconded. By a vote of four to one, Mr. Fleming voting in opposition, the Board went into executive session. Mr. Hacker addressed the assemblage: I know you folks are here tonight because of you interest in this project. The problem that faces us now is that we are going to recess to discuss the litigation with the City Solicitor and the Building Inspector. Hopefully that won' t take too long to discuss the negotiations that have gone on between the City Solicitor and Mr. Stasinos. We will, I hope be back shortly. We will then be able to answer any questions that you have. The problem we have is, he has sued us and he still has the right to put a shopping center, if we discuss this •� ' publicly, what we are doing is laying our cards on the table and giving him a plan of attack that he normally wouldn' t have. We have put thirty three conditions on the developer and he has till August 22 to agree. Councillor O' Leary: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a white wash, tomorrow morning I'm going to ask the Mayor to ask for the immediate resignation of the Board of Appeals because you are doing a disservice to my neighbors, my constituents, that I'm elected to represent. Lady from the. audience: Mr. O' Leary, you are not speaking for me. Mr. Fleming: I would like, at this time, in order to rectify the concerns of the woman who was talking and the Councillor of Ward IU, to move that the Councillor be allowed to attend the Executive Session. Mr. Bencal: before there is a second, I would like an opinion from the City Solicitor. Mr. O'Brien: can' t see any problem with it, he is a City Official. Mr. Hacker: there has been a motion, would you like to amend the motion to include the other Ward Councillor, Mr. Furfaro, who is here and interested. Mr. Fleming: I do amend. I am sorry Mr. Furfaro, I didn' t mean to overlook you. Mr. Bencal seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Mr. Hacker: we will temporarily recess 7:35 The public hearing was reconvened at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Hacker: if you will remember, we had thirty three conditions, the City Solicitor sat with the developer and made some modifications. We can' t discuss the specifics. I think we have tightened up, for the most part, what we gave him. What's happened, the developer came to us with an offer, he deleted some items that we were insisting on. We put them back in. We have instructed the City Solicitor to go back with a firm and final offer and to have this settled by August 22, 1986. Because we were in executive session, it is illegal for us to discuss the specifics of what we have done • but if you have any questions. Ann Peirney, Swampscott, I own property on Highland Ave. , and I am a recipient of damage. I would like to know if what you discussed under executive session is so profound you can' t discuss it with the public, isn! t this a violation of the open meeting law? Mr. Hacker: lets let the City Solictor .. MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1986 page two 394 Highland Ave. - Public Hearing - Continued • answer that question. Mr. O'Brien: what the Board has done tonight is, they have not conducted a public hearing, they have conducted a closed hearing. Which is permissable and which is an exception to the open meeting law. Any municipal body can go into executive session to discuss litigation and litigation strategy. Ms. Pierney: under a called public hearing like this one? Mr. O'Brien: it always has to start as a public hearing and then they convene into private session. They cannot call just an executive session. Paulina Alexander, 12 Clark St. , again I would like to find out where I can go to see that I don' t get stuck in back of gravel trucks. I'm not home when the blasting is done, I come home and find cracked windows. I have to travel behind these trucks, I believe they have to be covered, I have never seen one of those trucks covered. I don' t seem to get any answer from anyone, where can I get some kind of satisfaction. Mr. Bencal: the Registry of Motor Vehicles would love to see them. Maryanne Ferragamo, 419 Highland Ave. , we won' t know anything until the next meeting? Mr. Hacker: basically it's the same as the results of the last public hearing with some concessions and some fine tuning on everybodys part. We still don' t know that the developer will agree to it. I think we have reached a point that we are very very strict. Ms. Ferragamo: what about blasting? Mr. Hacker: I can' t answer that, the problem was addressed. Jim Nestor, 10 Barnes Ave. , how many units were agreed on? Mr. Hacker: it would be inappropriate to discuss the specifics. The original conditions are still there. The developer has not agreed to them as yet. There was a general discussion among the assemblage regarding the working hours. No names or addresses were given. Mr. Hacker advised them to give formal complaint to the building department. Mrs. Dipetro, 6 Madeleine Ave. , where is the Mayor now? They are around shaking your hands when they need your vote, where are they .now? Richard Williams, 3 Thomas Circle, I read in the paper this evening that Mr. Stasinos or the City Solicitor did make something public and that was they don' t want the Appeals Board to handle the oversite on this project, they want the Planning Board. I am just wondering if you people are ready to give up that condition or are you going to remain adamant. Mr. Hacker: again that is a portion of the agreement and we can' t answer. The problem that we have here is twofold, you may be looking at it that we are doing things behind closed doors, clearly that is not the case, if that was the case we wouldn' t have the opportunity. The Councillor had the opportunity to come in and listen, he chose to leave part way through it, certainly his right. What we don't want to do here, if Mr. Stasinos does not accept the conditions and he continues to build, there's no sense in our laying our cards on the table with our strategy and running a larger chance of losing the lawsuit he has against us. It's kind of in limbo for the next two weeks. Councillor O' Leary: the reason I left is because at that meeting you did something behind closed doors, after all the meetings and all the continuances of this case, and as I said I will write the Mayor tomorrow and ask for the immediate resignation of the Board of Appeal for doing this because I think you did a disservice to these neighbors. Mr. Fleming: I voted not to go into executive session. Mr. O' Leary: okay, then I' ll leave your name out. You did a disservice to these people. The people are concerned. They came to meeting after meeting after meeting and you did not let them in on the final agreement. You let them in on the last one where it was your choice and you could have gone into executive session, you didn' t, you did here and I think you were wrong. Mr. Hacker: the Board didn' t go because they wanted to hear from the neighborhood, on the otherhand, I think it was appropriate action tonight. Vince Amanti, 392 Highland Ave. , I think that after the action was taken at the last meeting the Board of Appeal did the right thing tonight because, at the last • meeting everybody was polled, they all agreed that they would leave the bargaining with the City Solicitor and at that point I think they more or less said okay, we're washing our hands of it and leaving the decision in the hands of the City Solicitor and I think thats where we ended up and I think it was a good decision on everybodys MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1986 page three • 394 Highland Ave. - Continued part. I will be happy to go along with what they did, based on the thirty three conditions that we gave him. We gave him thirty three specific conditions. Mr. Hacker: I think the important thing to remember is what we have done here this evening, the agreement we have hopefully have hammered out is something that should be judged when it becomes fact, not on speculation. We just have to wait and find out if we've done the right thing to protect you, I think you' ll be happy with what we've done. August 22nd is the deadline for the developer to accept our proposal. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held August 20, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk (9i#g of $alem, cmussuchuse##s ^• Poxra of �kpveal Y MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - AUGUST 20, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, August 20, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing were sent to abutters and other interested parties; notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on August 6, 13, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Strout and Dore The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman, Edward Luzinski. Mr. Dore was appointed a voting members. Mr. Luzinski read a letter from Etna Lynne O'Hare requesting her petition for a Special Permit for 30 Beckford St. be withdrawn. Said petition being withdrawn prior to the hearing, no vote was taken. Mr. Luzinski informed the assemblage that this petition was withdrawn and would not be heard tonight. If she reapplies in the future, abutters will be notified and it will be advertised. Mr. Luzinski explained to all present that there would only be four Board members present and that to have any petitions granted would take a unanimous vote of the Board. If anyone wished they would now have the opportunity to withdraw and come back at a later date when there would be five members present. 42 March St. - James D. Santo Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit from any and all applicable density and setback requirements in order to construct a two story addition in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , stating they had no objection. Mr. Santo represented himself, he displayed the plans to the Board. All I want to do is put on a two story addition, it will consist of a dining room and study, the dining room on the second floor and the study on the first. Mr. Luzinski: will this remain a single family? Mr. Santo: yes it will. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. The Board looked the plans over. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow the construction of an addition on condition a building permit be obtained, the proposed addition be approximately one foot from the southwest side of the property line, the overhang be no closer than six feet four inched from March St. , addition be built in accordance with plans on file, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, property comply will all regulations relative to the instal- lation of smoke detectors and the addition is to be used as dining room and study. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 8 Boardman St. - Arthur Bates Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow an existing three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection: Mr. Bates represented himself. I have an existing three family home, it has been and is being assessed as a three family. When we bought it no one was living there. We have moved down stairs and would like to stay there. it was a three family at one time, but it was vacant when we bought it. We would like a three family, we may have a problem with parking. Mr. Bencal: the problem you have is you requested a Special Permit. To get relief from the parking MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1986 page two • 8 Boardman St. - Continued requirement takes a Variance. We cannot grant it because it was not advertised. Mr. Strout: do you need the garage? Mr. Bates: no, we just use it for storage. We could do parking back to back. Mr. Bencal: the Board doesn' t consider that legal parking spaces. Mr. Bencal: if we grant this we could condition it on their having five parking spaces, the burden is then on them. Speaking in favor: Don Kaufman, 10 Boardman St. , as far as parking goes, they have been getting all their cars there and have not impacted on the neighborhood. Barbara Elser, 7 Boardman St. , parking has never been a problem and we have never had a problem with their tenants. Speaking in opposition: Ann Pelletier, 17 Andrews St. , as you know we have been concerned about the increase of density in the area. Would appreciate it if you would not grant the legalization of these apartments. They have no control over the number of cars people own. Every time you add another apartment there are more people visiting and more problems with parking. In rebuttal: Mr. Bates: Andrews St. is one way and one street over, we would never park there. Mr. Luzinski: you did say you bought this as a three family? Mr. Bates: yes, we have be been paying taxes on a three family. We have owned this for five years. Mr. Bencal: I would like to see a better parking plan before I could vote positive on this. Mr. Luzinski: Mr. Bates, the Board would like to see a definitive parking plan, we will give you the opportunity to come up with it. We will continue this until the next meeting. Mr. Bencal: I believe the next meeting is a full one, we could continue this until September's meeting. Mr. Bates, call our clerk and she will be able to give you the exact date of the September meeting. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this petition until the September meeting. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED • 9 Rice St. - Fred C. Page Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a two family dwelling and a Variance from parking in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a from the Fire Dept. stating the property is not currently in compliance with law relative to the installation of smoke detectors. Attorney Philip Litman represented the petitioner. In 1923 Mr. Page's grandfather bought this house, at the time he bought it it was a two family. He moved on the second floor and the rest of the family moved on the first floor. It was always considered a two family. When they went to sell the house, the bank said it was a single family. We can only get three cars and I believe we need four spaces. Mr. Bencal: you are only required to have one and a half per unit, three would be sufficient. Do you have smoke detectors: Mr. Litman: we have spoken with the Fire Inspector and this will be taken care of. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in Opposition: Nancy Massero, 16 Rice St. , parking is a problem, this is a very narrow street. There is not room for three cars on his property. Mr. Luzinski: has this always been a two family? Ms. Massero: I don' t know. Mr. Luzinski: how long have you lived there? Ms. Massero: 20 years. She submitted a petition opposing the plan signed by eleven neighbors and abutters. Elaine Dailey, 8 Rice St. , parking is a big problem, we have had three houses in this area sold to people who don' t live there. Pat Cyr, 10 Rice St: , parking is a problem, their yard is not big enough for three cars, only two. I have lived there for 50 years. Mr. Bencal asked the neighbors if they would still be opposed if an owner occupied condition was put on the decision. All three said they were still opposed. In rebuttal: Mr. Litman: we have asked for a variance from parking. We should not be held responsible because other people • park on the street. Mr. Bencal: how far beck to the hedges extend? Mr. Litman: about two feet. Mr. Luzinski: there is a telephone pole by the hedges. Mr. Bencal: if they can satisfy the required three spaces, that's all they need. It is an R-2 district. Mr. Strout: I don' t think they can get three cars, I hate to see this go down, it is clearly a two family. Mr. Bencal: as it stands now, the parking MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1986 page three 9 Rice St. - Continued • encroaches on the garage. Mr. Strout: I would like to see them withdraw and come back with a parking plan. Mr. Litman: would not want to withdraw, could this be continued. Mr. Bencal: if we continued this till the next meeting, would that give you enough time to get a plan together? Mr. Litman: yes, I believe we could. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this petition until August 27 , 1986. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED 8 Locust St. - Raymond J. Landry Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side and rear setbacks to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Department, no objection. Attorney John Tierney represented the petitioner. This is an application for a small addition. My client would like enlarge their room by another four feet, this room will be heated. This addition will improve the looks of the property. It will not be detrimental, will be about twenty feet from the abutter in the rear. This will comply with the types of houses in the area. He submitted a petition in favor, signed by twenty two neighbors. Displayed a rendering of the proposed addition. Speaking in favor: Mary Decoff, 9 Locust ST. , Marie Decotis, 2 Bay View Circle; David Berube, 1 Gallows Hill Rd. Speaking in Opposition: Charles Anton, 3 Bay View Circle, I feel some encroachment on. our privacy. If this is moved, our family room will be only 19 feet from his family room. In Rebuttal: Attorney Tierney, I would like to point out that there is a six foot fence there, there will be thermo pane on the windows, will be insulated, doors will be facing the other • ,' way. Hearing closed. Mr. Strout: I have no problem with this, it will cut down on noise. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition, the addition be 413" x 12" and to be used only as a family room; a legal building permit be obtained and all work be done in accordance with plans submitted. Mr. Strout seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 19 Buffum ST. - John & Jean Walsh Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow an addition in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. & Mrs. Walsh represented themselves. All we have is a half bath and we want to move it over and put in a tub and shower. The showed on the plot plan where the addition would be. Ted Gavenda, 17 Buffum St. and Robert Peterson, 26 Buffum St. , spoke in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit on condition: the addition be done as per the plans submitted, a legal building permit be obtained and the exterior finish conform to the existing building. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 34 Peabody St. - Frederick Small Petitioner is request Variances from any and all applicable density and setbacks and a variance from parking to allow construciton of 24 residential units in this R-3 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. • no objection. Attorney John Serafini Sr. represented the petitioner. He • MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1986 page four 34 Peabody St. - Continued • introduced the Architect, Mr. Petrocelli. Displayed renderings to the Board and the assemblage. We realize this is a four man Board but we would like to proceed anyway, if we can' t answer all your questions perhaps we will aske to withdraw. You are all familiar with the area in question; you know the physical aspects of the area. For all these years the properties have been lined up in the same way. Buildings were very close together. About twenty years agoa a deterioration of the structures started taking plan. For awhile the area appeared very stagnant. Not many people were investing money there. Very few renovations were made. Mr. Small, the owner of this property, saw, in this area, a future. He saw that if you went in there and did quality job there would be a future there. He began buying property, if you look at his record you will see the quality of work he does. He does not do condominiums. He has brought his properties up to code, he rents about 30% under the Section 8 program. These units will be two bedrooms, the rent will be considerably lower than rents in other areas, about 400 dollars. This is not a short term deal for him, he goes in and he stays. This Street and Ward 'St. , because of the way the buildings are set up, there is a problem with parking. Nothing can be done, so the first request he made was for parking, they have come up with 31 spaces for 24 units, so that problem has been addresses. They will not add to the parking problem. The architecture is compatible with what is there. All in all when you think of that particular area you can see this man is looking to the future. It is in keeping with what is there, will provide parking, will increase the number of units in the area, he will be there for a long time to come, this will be an example for other landlords in the area, will encourage people to bring their property up to this standard. Mr. Petrocelli, the Architect, displayed • the plans to the Board and the Assemblage. Showed the proposed parking. Seven spaces will be from Peabody St. , the rest will be underground. There is a drop 'from Ward St. to Peabody St. , about 12 feet, we took advantage of that for parking. This building will be three stories on Peabody St. , four on Ward St. One story will be parking, the other three will be residential, we are within the height restrictions. Mr. Bencal questioned the height and asked Mr. Petrocelli to indicate on the plans. Mr. Petrocelli did so. Mr. Serafini: in order to avoid any problems, we asked for any variances needed. Mr. Bencal: I think it is up to the petitioner to state specifically what variances they are seeking. Mr. Serafini: this is an R-3 zone and the height restrict is 45 feet, we fall under that, we are looking for density, lot area per dwelling unit, lot coverage, all setbacks and parking, we can only do 14 per unit instead of the required 1J . Speaking in favor: Councillor Martineau: I was Councillor of that Ward for years. We had serious problems with that lot. As is stands now, the City cannot maintain the parks it has now without make a new park, which is what some people would like to see done with this lot. Mr. Small is about the only absentee landlord that I could speak in favor of. I have always been against condominiums. I am overwhelmed with the plans I have seen. Councillor Nowak the present Councillor of that Ward, I am in favor. Mr. Kavanaugh: City Planner, I agree with Mr. Martineau, this is the kind of investment the City likes to see. It is gratifying to see people coming in and spending this kind of money in this area and then to provide the amount of parking they are providing is great. Speaking in opposition: Alice Dubiel, 32 Ward St. . I don' t want anything there, it is right across the street from me. We have nice homes and have spent a lot of money on our homes. Emanuel Boltas, 30 Ward St. , I have mixed feelings; I approve of them fixing it up but I am concerned with the density. Parking should • be two spaces per unit, those are my concerns, density and parking. Hal Miller, 38 Ward St. , I too have mixed feelings, the plans are beautiful, Mr. Small has been really good landlord. Basic problem with the neighborhood is the number of people, there is no place for the kids to play. Mr. Kistman, 38 Ward St. , I also have MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1986 page five • 34 Peabody ST. - Continued mixed feelings. Concerned with density and parking, there is no way to guarantee the people who live here will not have two cars. I do have a personal problem which is not too important, only to me, I do have a great view which I will lose, but not totally opposed but I have concerns. Mark Potvin, 17 Lemon St. , Member of the Board of Directors of the Salem Harbor Community Development Corp. , speaking for himself as a concerned citizen and not for the Salem Harbor CDC (verified in two communiques received by the Board of Appeal the day following this hearing and on file) . This neighborhood is the most densely populated in Salem. This would exacerbate the density problem and the parking problem. They are putting parking in the front of the building but that will cause the loss of parking spaces on the street. In rebuttal: Attorney Serafini: I think the Board realizes that most of what comes to the Board comes as a result of someone want to do something that is not allowed under the law, the Board must then make a decision on what is the best thing to do, they must listen to both sides and make a judgement on what is best for the community. This part of what the City plans for rejuvenation of the City. Trying to bring this area back into the main stream. You can' t do this unless you put money into it. One of the things lacking in this City is rental units. Very few developers in the past 10 years have said, we are going to be here for the duration. As far as the parking, it is true we don' t have the required 1 'i per unit, but there are other factors that make a project worthwhile and the Board has to look at that. The values in that area, if this goes through, will be enhances. We cannot satisfy everyone, I don' t think anyone could. Mr. Bencal asked Mr. Paquin, the Assistant Building Inspector if he knew Mr. Small. Mr. Paquin: not personally but I have dealt with him and his representatives in every aspect of his operation and I have • nothing but good to say. Inspector Lapointe, Salem Fire Dept. : we feel the same way. Mr. Strout: the only problem I have is there are not finishes on the plans. Mr. Petrocelli explained the materials to be used. Inspector LaPointe: this is a fire district, there will be no wood. Mr. Strout: If we were to accept these plans and you made any changes you would have to come back to the Board, I would like to see finishes on them. Mr. Serafini: I see no problem, we can settle this by next week if the Board would continue this. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this petition until the August 27, 1986 meeting. Mr. Dore seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL AUGUST 27, 1986 Hearing adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held August 27, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. ResSpecfullDy submitted, �/G Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk (Qity of csttlem, 'fflttssac4usetts • F Poxrb of �kppzal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - AUGUST 27, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, August 27, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on August 13, 20, 1986. Members Present: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker, Luzinski, Strout and Associate Member Dore Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. 100 - 102 Boston St. - Ira & Judith Rosenberg Mr. Hacker: the first Item on our agenda is 100-102 Boston St. whichl,was continued from the July 16, 1986 hearing and they have asked to withdraw without prejudice. As we have initially heard the petition we must formally vote on whether on not to allow them to withdraw. Mr. Fleming made a motion to allow petitioners to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN Mr. Hacker: the next two petitions are continued from last weeks meeting, so at this point I will turn the meeting over to Mr. Luzinski who chaired last weeks meeting. Mr. Luzinski appointed Mr. Dore a voting member for the two continued ^4� petitions. 9 Rice St. - Fred C. Page This request for a Special Permit to allow a two family dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements was continued from the August 20, 1986 meeting. This was continued to allow petitioner to come up with an acceptable parking plan. Attorney Philip Litman represented the petitioner. As was discussed last week to bring in the parking plan. We are suggesting the garage be razed and that would give ample room for three cars to get in and out. The Board went over the plans for parking. Mr. Strout: how much room from the property line to the house? Mr. Litman: 20 feet. , to the bushes is about 15 feet. We could take the bushes out. Mr. Bencal: would your client have any objection to putting a fence along property line? Mr. Litman: none at all. Mr. Bencal: is this paved now? Mr. Litman: it is paved next to bushes. Mr. Strout: it is awfully tight. Mr. Litman: it may be tight but it can be done. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the bushes on the west side property be removed and in its place a post and rail fence, 4 feet high be installed; the property remain owner occupied and all regulations relative to smoke detectors be adhered to, the existing garage be razed. Mr. Strout seconded. Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski and Strout voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Dore voted in opposition to the motion. Petition having failed to carry the four votes needed to grant is denied. DENIED 3-1 MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1986 page two 34 Peabody St. - Frederick Small The petition for Variances from density, setbacks and parking to allow construction of 24 residential units in this R-3 district was continued from the August 20th meeting. Attorney Serafini, representing the petitioner: at the conclusion of hearing last week, there were some questions regarding compliance with fire construction, the question had to do with solid construction. We have talked with Capt. Turner and the Building Inspector and the suggestion has been made that in the approval to be granted a condition be that we comply with all fire codes, local and state and all building codes local and state, that would give the department sufficient flexability to insure compliance. You asked also for a list of requested variances and we have that. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition on condition a total of not more than 24 units be built, 31 parking spaces be maintained on site, a building permit be obtained, Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, must comply with all aspects of local and state fire code; must comply with all local and state building codes; all aspects of the plan submitted must be adhered to. Mr. Dore seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 1 Holly ST. - Michael & Karen Lehman Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear setback to allow construction of a deck in this R-3 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection on condition compliance with MGL relative to installation of smoke detectors is obtained. Michael Lehman, 1 Holly St. , represented himself, the smoke detectors have already been installed. Mr. Hacker: you may have smoke detectors but the fire department is not aware of them, you should notify them and get a Certificate of Compliance. Mr. Lehman: we want to add a deck, we had a two story porch on the back, the supports were gone, it was very unsafe so I ripped it down and now we want to put a deck off the second floor, extending back close to the property line. As you can see there is not much room in the back. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: what purpose is this building being used for at the present time: Mr. Lehman: it's an owner occupied two family, we live on the second floor. Mr. Fleming: this deck will then extend almost to the property line? Mr. Lehman: yes Mr. Fleming: Have you talked to the direct abutter on that side? Mr. Lehman: no I haven' t. Mr. Fleming: do you intend to have an exterior staircase from this deck. Mr. Lehman: did not intend to unless it is necessary. Mr. Fleming: I am not saying it is necessary, in fact, I would not like to see one. Mr. Bencal: how far will the deck be from the property line? Mr. Lehman: within a couple of feet. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition to extend rear setback to allow construction of a deck on the second floor subject to the following conditions: no exteriod stairway to the deck be built, deck be no more than two feet to the property line, a legal building permit be obtained, petitioner comply with fire dept. relative to smoke detectors. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1986 page three • 158-162 Derby St. - C. Anderson Inge Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit from any and all applicable density and setback requirements to allow building to be used as a combination retail, commercial, office cafe, residential and a Variance from parking requirements. Property is located in a B-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Department, no objection provided plans are presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; a letter from the Salem Historical Commission supporting the renovation of this building. Attorney John Serafini Sr. represented the petitioner. Displayed plans and renderings to the Board and the Assemblage. Displayed photo- graph of the property as it presently exists. Mr. Serafini: when I first spoke with petition relative to this project I did point out the site is in an area that is sensitive to parking needs and a great deal of work had to be done seeking alternatives. He indicated he knew that from talking to people in the neighborhood. He also felt the building itself was such a unique structure that it was worthwhile to try to pursuade pt�d1e in the neighborhood that going along with his petition which basically is six residential units, two on the first floor that by doing that he would be doing several things, while some of them would be personally beneficial to him, after all, a developer is going to invest his money he is going to do it for a profit; at the same time that is done however, if this were granted, I don' t believe anyone in the area who tries to be objective about the value of this particular building would say that what he proposes to do is not worthwhile. If we could solve all the problems and still do what he has to do hear, I think you'd be pleased with the result. The building itself has historical significance. It • would be maintained, would be preserved for ever and would be restored. I don' t have to tell any of you what the building looks like today and this isn' t the fault of the club members who for many years tried valiantly to maintain the building and to keep it going. But circumstances that have befallen many clubs, lack of membership, people have other things to do, etc. , the day of that kind of club is pretty well gone. The members, in good conscience have tried to create a use for this which will not impact any more than necessary on the area. They have not tried to make an extensive area to lease it or transfer it or continue the use as a club. I think the use as a club brought many more people, cars because it was a gathering place. Something has got to go there. If the building is transferred to another use, then we will be back again. It's inconceivable that the club members would just simply walk away, I don' t believe they could, they have a responsibility for their membership, they have a responsibility to themselves to do everything in their power to make this building work for them. This young man who wants to develop this literally walked for miles and miles talking to various people in the hopes of finding possible solution to the problem of parking. He finally was able to enter into a purchase and sale agreement with Mr. Paul Carr who owns a lot on Union St. on which Mr. Inge would purchase eight parking spaces and as a condition we would agree that with each unit would carry with it the deeded right forever a parking space. It could never be changed. He was only able to get eight spaces. We were in hopes we would be able to do some business with the maritime people but they have other plans. These apartments, which deeded spaces, how much negative impact would they have. The primary concern should be the preservation of this historic building, it is a focal point for that little area, when you look at the rendition, you can see what it will look like, that is pretty accurate. That's going to improve that entire area. We have our architect here to run through the plans. Mr. Burtell, Architect: before I run through the plans, has everyone had a chance to take a look at the proposed drawings and the changes to the outside of the building, if you haven' , please take a minute to look at it and if you are not MINUTES -AUGUST 27, 198 page four 158-162 Derby St. - Continued • familiar with the present condition, I have a color photo of what it looks like presently. Basically, what we' re proposing is the removal of some infill brick. He explained in detail all phases of the plans. We are going refurbish the flag post that is on the front of the building. This is very important piece of Derby St. This will be a very positive improvement on Derby St. He then went over the plans for the inside of the building. The ceilings are very high, we are proposing loft type apartments, one bedroom each. Standard kitchenette units. In addition there would be a laundry and storage facility for the apartments in the basement as well as storage for the retail and office space. Mr. Inge: all the uses I have proposed for this building are uses that are permitted in this district. The predominant residential use is low intensity in that district. Rehabilitating this property avoids the dangers of deterioration which occurs when a building remains vacant for a length of time. It is a very important piece of property on that street. Speaking in favor: Delores Jordan, 97 Derby St. this building has been an important link to the Polish community and culture for 80 years and it is now for sale. We have seen enormous changes and transition on Derby St. , the sale of St. Joseph's building is of major significance for it brings an end to an era of local polish leadership. Buildings on Derby St.that once housed grocery stores were changed to apartments and today these apartments are being changed to condo- miniums, with prosperity and growth things change and with change comes some very difficult decisions that are not easy to make for anyone of us here tonight. The St. Joseph's building will change from a function hall and cafe to a use that is much larger in scope, six rental units and retail on the lower floor. The prospective buyer purchased eight parking spaces, that will help accomodate the tenants, I was one who tried to help Mr. Inge find parking in the immediate area. • We want the building to be sold and rehabilitated and not become a burden to St. Joseph Society, who's membership is no longer active or to the local abutters as an eyesore with a potential of physical abuse and deterioration. From the historical point of view, and we have worked for three years getting Derby St. a historical district. I would wish the buyer of the building keep the name of St. Josephs on the building as a reminder that at one time this was a very active polish community. We are in favor of the Board granting the variance in order to preserve the building. To assure the commercial use would be chosen carefully it would be appropriate for the new buyer to reside at that address. Alice Jordan, 97 Derby St. Walter Andruszkiewicz, President of the St. Joseph Society, 17 Columbia Rd. Danvers. The decision of the club to sell the building has been a hard one, one that we have agonized over, what Mr. Inge is proposes, carries on best what we'd like to see in the neighborhood. We realize there has been problems with the parking. , The plans for the building can only be an asset to the area and we ask the Board to please grant the variances. Henry Sobiszinski, 24 Bridge St. , member of the club for many years and I am in favor. Raymond Blanchard, 99 Jackson St. , also in favor. Speaking in opposition: Councillor Nowak, I respect Attorney Serafini's remarks but I think the developer is asking too much for this neighborhood. I wonder if these people would still be in favor if they lived in this neighborhood. I think sir, apartments and business would saturate the area. Eight parking spaces that he is able to provide are very far away from the building and I am sure the developer or anyone who lives there would not want to see their wives walk at midnight, 5 blocks from their parking spot. I hope you reject this. Robert Shapiro, 1 Daniels Street Court, Mr. Serafini summed it up very succinctly and he said what are the alternatives and what would be the impact, first the impact of course is parking, and Mr. Serafini did not tell us it was 3 to 4 blocks to that parking, six apartments could bring at least twelve cars to the neighborhood. Eight of them may be taken care of, but on a cold winter night given a choice of parking in that spot on a closer space, I think we have to take human nature in consideration. So parking is a very big issue. The other issue is the alternatives, now it seems like we are MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1986 page five 158-162 Derby St. - Continued • hearing that this developer is the only one on this planet who can come up with a solution for this building. The facts are that he has negotiated for space within 50 feet and he failed in those negotiations. There may be someone who could negotiate successfully. It doesn' t have to be a residential complex, it can be offices. Offices would not have a severe impact, virtually no impact on parking, based on the fact that between the hours of eight and six there is an incredible amount of parking spaces. There are alternative uses. There are people who can probably make this work, who possibly can find parking spaces and there are other uses. I think if we let the market follow its course a solution can be found that would please the architectural requirements of the neighborhood and also the parking problem as well. As far as all this talk about preserving it historically, there are some families in this district that have more of a history than this building does. I admire the efforts Mr. Inge has put in but he may not be the person to pull this off. Ken Power, 10 Palfrey Ct. , I have a few questions. Was there plans for a roof deck on this. Mr. Fleming: there was. Mr. Power: is that going to be continued? Mr. Inge: it is not on this petition but it is something that would be considered in the future. Mr. Power: I object to that. Can it be constructed with permission of this Board? Mr. Hacker: one of the standard conditions of this Board is that all construction be in strict accordance with the plans submitted, if they wanted to put a deck at a later date they would have to come back. Mr. Power: I think it is important that we note here today that those are in the plans. Mr. Hacker: that is not in the plans. Mr. Power: okay. We are all in favor of rehabilitating this building but I think he is going too far. Also, the entrance on Palfrey Court, I think we will find a lot of cars parking on Palfrey • Ct. Six units is a bit too much. William Kowalski, 14 Palfrey Court, have lived there for 35 years, right now there are seven apartments there, one of them is being remodeled. That alleyway that was mentioned belongs to the three family, not one inch of it belongs to the club, just want to clear that up. The seven residences on the court had at one time 12 cars. Submitted a picture taken from his window showing the cars parked. If there should ever be a fire, the fire dept. would never be able to get up there. That's only part of the problem. Talk about the Maritime association, they put a brick sidewalk, they call it a sidewalk, I was talking to one of the employees there and she said they wanted to ban parking on that side of the street. Previously it was not allow to park on the court. We don' t use our driveways the way we should because then we can' t get out, many times we have had cars towed because they were blocking us. It is sticker parking there but it is not enforced. Mr. Fleming: have you ever called to have it enforced? Mr. Kowalski: for one thing, the Police said they could not enforce that law. Between the businesses and the apartments he wants it would take at least 20 more spaces, there is not enough room for the people who live there now. John Marclona, 10 Palfrey Court, opposed. Nan Shapiro, 1 Daniels St. Alan Pydaski, not opposed per se, I think they have done a beautiful job as far as the building goes, my main concern is the parking, would like to ask the owner a question, if you had a wife would you let her park on Union St. and walk in rain storm, snow storm or any night. Blanche Kowalski, 14 Palfey Court, really concerned about parking. Concerned if there were emergencies. Rebuttal: Mr. Serafini: the concerns that have been talked about are precisely the things the petitioner has been aware of from the beginning and are again the reason for his careful canvassing of the entire area for suggestions on how this can be handled. We can' t promise that if this is granted that as some point some resident isn' t going to create a problem. The present residents, I am sure, create problems, not intention- ally, but it happens. What the Board must decide, and there has been precedent set, the Kerr building for example, they are going to be parking in the Municipal garage, on Norman St. , the old telephone building is parking in Riley Plaza, there was concern about parking, it too is a congested area. MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1986 page six 158-162 Derby St. - Continued • People have come to the Board and requested parking that was not on site and in many cases they have been granted. Each case the petition must stand on it's own two feet. This young man is buying eight spaces so each tenant will have a piece of land that is his and will go with this unit forever. It is possible that someone may buy this space and not use it, I don' t think it very likely. We would not add to the problems down there. You can' t think that sometime in the future someone is going to come along with a use that doesn' t require parking, that's impossible. You could wind up with the same kind of use there without the building even being restored. I don' t think that the use that Mr. Inge has suggested is too intense. I do know, the fact that he has gone and and committed himself to parking spaces should have a great deal of bearing on this. I think everyone here would like to see the building restored. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I am very impressed with the work the developer has done, even though the neighborhood support is not what he would like, there is not animosity or ill-will, which shows he is trying to do the right thing. I am looking at a building that could become derelict and a fire trap in a very short time if something isn' t done. I'm not sure if this is the best plan or not, with talking about it more but in lieu of the circumstances, what I would like to see is to continue till a later date. All the parking problems are already there, it is not the developers fault. Perhaps something could be worked out that would be palatable to everyone. Mr. Fleming: there are some questions I would like to ask before we get to continuing this. Has underground parking been investigated? Mr. Serafini: I think it was, but it is not feasible for several reasons, one the physical layout of the structure, getting in and out; secondly because of the historic significance, you would have to alter the outside. Mr. Fleming: then it is not a cost decision, rather an impact on the physical • appearance and the traffic pattern in the neighborhood. Mr. Serafini: yes. Mr. Fleming: the deeds would run to the individual condo owners? Yes, they would. Mr. Fleming: you are aware of our Ordinance that says even then it must be within 400 feet. Mr. Serafini: yes, we are asking for variance. Mr. Fleming: before you sit down and talk to the neighbors, and I wouldn' t be opposed to your doing that, I'm a lit?eh concerned about the scope of the building, whether it be retail and/or residential, all retail or all residential. Would less than eight units be feasible? Mr. Inge: it is not felt that any less would be feasible. There is not a great market for larger units. It was considered putting residential on the ground floor but would be very awkward. Mr. Fleming: let me ask direct question. Is it not economically feasible to develop this with say two units on each floor? Mr. Inge: at this time and with purchasing the parking, the economics do not work. What might work would be to try to make the ground residential and have one parking per unit. Mr. Bencal: what is the anticipated rental for these apartments? Mr. Inge:they will be for sale. Mr. Bencal: it says three rental apartments on the petition. Mr. Serafini: they will be condominiums, that is not important. Mr. Bencal: I think it is important to the neighbors. Mr. Luzinski: I think I like the idea of retail. Mr. Hacker: I think there are still a lot of questions to be answered, that is why I would like to see it continued. Mr. Luzinski: is it our of the question to have commercial or office space on all floors? Mr. Inge: that would have higher traffic impact, it would work beautifully as a use. I would be willing to consider it. Mr. Luzinski: that is more what I had in mind, during the day the parking is kind of loose but at night it is difficult. Mr. Bencal: I think the time for talking to the neighbors on a project like this, is gone. Many of these people who spoke have been residents of the neighborhood for 20, 30 years, the fact that it is presented in the petition for rental and now lie hear it is condominiums, I think it changes the ideas of a lot of people who may not have been opposed to rental but might be opposed to condominiums. I just could not vote to MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1986 page seven AIN 158-162 Derby St. - Continued •ki continue or to allow the petition. I feel sorry for the members of the Club, but I don' t feel the neighborhood is being considered. Mr. Fleming: I disagree, I think there are people on both sides here who are residents og former residents of the Derby St. area and I think we have to have some empathy with polish society as well as the residents. I think the proposed continuance so that people can sit down and talk, hurts no one. Mr. Luzinski: I agree with Mr. Fleming, this is probably the first time a lot of the people have seen the plan and they may have a lot more questions. Mr. Fleming made a motion to continue this petition in order that the petitioner set up a neighborhood meeting, involving Councillor Nowak, for future discussion. Mr. Luzinski seconded. By a vote of four in favor of continuing, Mr. Bencal opposed, this petition is continued. CONTINUED 65 Mason St. - Leonard S. Bonfanti, Tr. Mr. Hacker: this petition which is number eight on our agenda, the petition has asked to withdraw with prejudice. Mr. Fleming: may I ask why you would withdraw with prejudice. Att.Avanites: we have worked it out and hope it won' t surface again. WITHDRAWN WITH PREJUDICE 29 Barstow St. - Lucy & William Coleman Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a two story addition in the rear corner of the existing building. Property is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating they had no objection on condition the owner of the property obtain compliance with MGL relative to smoke detectors. Mr. Hacker read a communication from Barbara & Barry Cushner, 37 Barstow St. , in favor of the petition. (on file) Mr. Coleman represented himself. I have a two family and I want to add another room up and down stairs because right now it's four rooms up and down, its pretty small. Just to make the house bigger. They said it has to be ten feet to get a permit and its six feet from the line. There is plenty of room on the other sides. There is a deck that will be torn down. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: I know this house and it is very tiny house and I would be in favor. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition for a two story addition on condition, the addition be as per the plans, the side setback for the proposed addition be no more than six feet, meet the requirements of the Fire Dept. and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 3 Hamilton St. - Richard B. Paul Petition is requesting a special permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a single story deck in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. no objection. Mr. Paul represented himself. Just want to put deck outside to create some kind of livability, it is very small courtyard, a lot of shrubbery. The property is surrounded by fence and garage and shrubs. This house is sideways on the street. There will be stairs, to have some access into the yard. Mr. Strout: you have not indicated on the plans where the stairs will be. Mr. Bencal: we would have to see exactly where the stairs are going to be because in the decision it will be as per plans submitted. All we have are dots on a plot plan. Mr. Hacker: it seems to me you would have to put stairs to comply with Fire Dept. Mr. Bencal: yes and there is nothing here MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1986 page eight 3 Hamilton St. - Continued to indicate the stairs and where they would be. Mr. Paul showed the members • - where the stairs would be. Mr. Fleming: your only talking two or three stairs, is that correct? Mr. Paul: yes. Mr. Hacker: we could grant this and condition it that he go no further that the deck. Mr. Strout: the plans indicate an 8' x 10' deck, at least the plans we received. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the petition on condition the petitioner obtain a building permit and that work be done as per the plans submitted. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 5 Nursery St. - Thomas & Constance Moulton The petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow use of the property as a three family in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept.stating the property is in compliance with laws relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mrs. Moulton represented herself. I just want to leave it the way it is, I just purchased it from Mr. Panall, he was not able to come tonight, he has the flu. I just want to make it all legal and continue it as a three family. Mr. Hacker: what is it you bought? Ms. Moulton: I purchased a three family. Mr. Hacker: do you have the Purchase and Sale Agreement? Ms. Moulton: no, I didn' t realize I would need it, I just want to continue it as a three family. Mr. Fleming: How did it get to be a three family, that's an R-2 neighborhood, all Nursery St. is designated R-2. Ms. Moulton: Mr. Panall, the person I bought it from had permission to make it three family. Mr. Bencal: here is the 1981 decision granting it. Mr. Fleming: it seems there was a decision granting this in June of 1981 , it seems that construction had started prior to the application. The fourth condition of that permit is, if the • petitioner sells, it shall revert back to a two family. Any new purchaser may apply for a similar Special Permit. Ms. Moulton: so I am doing what I am supposed to be doing. Mr. Fleming: maybe you should have done that before you purchased the property. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Fleming: did you buy this property through a realtor? Ms. Moulton: no. Mr. Bencal: do you intend to reside in this property? Ms. Moulton: no Mr. Bencal: what's the parking there? Ms. Moulton: there is room for four cars, could be five if we dug the back yard up. Mr. Bencal: are they non-obstructed spaces? Ms. Moulton: no, one parks behind the other. Mr. Bencal: then they have to move their cars to get out. Ms. Moulton: they have no problem at all, they have been living there quite a while. Mr. Hacker: they problem we have, or the problem I have, it has been the policy of the Board for the past few years to expand the density if parking were available and/or it be owner occupied, I think the feeling being that there are less problems if landlords are right there. You have come to us with a predicament and I feel very bad about it, I have mixed emotions. I am sure this was attached to the deed and it states that if he sells, it reverts to a two family, so you had to be aware that it was a two family you were buying. Ms. Moulton: this means if I don' t get it I have to ask this old lady to leave who has been there for years. There is no problem with the parking, they get along fine. If I have to I can extend the driveway into the back yard. Mr. Fleming: I think this is a lovely neighborhood and I don' t like the extension of density. If were owner occupied I might go along with it, to have it non-owner occupied, an investment property, I can' t at this time go along with it. Mr. Bencal: I concur with Mr. Fleming, the lack of showing on the plans were parking is is another reason, we must have some consistency, it's clear it will not be owner occupied. Mr. Strout: we could grant it with condition it be owner occupied and maintain five parking spaces, that would give you the option of selling it to an owner occupant, or living there, or having a two family. Mr. Hacker: had you come to us prior to purchasing this, you would still be in compliance, as it is now, you are in violation. Whether this Board takes action or not, you are in violation. MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1986 page nine S Nursery St. - Thomas & Constance Moulton (Continued) • Ms. Moulton: I am not going to live, its not big enough. I could put parking in the back yard. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the petition and allow a three family on condition five legal, unobstructed parking spaces be maintained on site, the property remain owner occupied. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Messrs. , Hacker, Luzinski and Strout voted in favor of the motion. Messrs. , Bencal and Fleming voted in opposition to the motion. The motion having failed to carry the four required votes to allow granting, the petition is denied. DENIED OLD OR NEW BUSINESS Mr. Fleming: prior to my being appointed to the Board, the Board granted a permit for an accessory shed at 1 Verdon St. , it has come my attention that the Board imposed four conditions and three have not been complied with. This might seem like a small problem but if we are going to be imposing 33 conditions on another project, I want us to set some sort of precedent here that if we impose conditions that we do in fact enforce them. Mr. Bencal: isn' t that 1 Orleans Ave? Mr. Fleming: is is 1 Orleans Ave. , yes it is. So I would like at this time to make a motion that the Building Inspector be directed to go out. Mr. Bencal: before you make your motion, lets ask him if he is aware of the problem. Mr. Munroe: The office is aware, and correspondence has been sent regarding this. I don' t see every piece of correspondence that goes out of the office. To best of my knowledge the last piece of correspondence instructed them to comply with all conditions or remove the shed. Mr. Bencal: do you know approximately how long ago that was. Mr. Munroe: the last couple of weeks. Mr. Fleming: all my motion was going to be was to direct the Building Inspector to go out and confirm • or not confirm that conditions are being met or take any other suitable action that he deems necessary. Mr. Munroe: one of the conditions was that it be attached. It is attached by a fence. Councillor O'Leary: if I may speak. I got a call from Mr. Amenti, he calls me every day, he was the one who brought this back up. He said he called the building department, he called me, these conditions are not met. These were supposed to be met by the spring, we are now going into the fall. The shed was supposed to be painted the same as the house. The individual went out and put FU on the shed, on the side the abutter looks at, just to antagonize him. There's another neighbor that has gotten involved and he is advising this neighbor to do these little things. He came for a Variance but Mr. Charnas said he could get a Special Permit if he attached it to the house. He put up a gate, that is not attached, that is, it is attached but the gate is open so it is not attached. He was asked to put up bushes to cover the view, he put up 2 foot bushes. A friend of mine had to put 10 foot bushes. With the fence there no one can see the bushes, it will take 20 years anyway. The shingles on the shed were supposed to match the house, he hasn' t done that. If he meets all four conditions fine, but he hasn't met them. Mr. Hacker: clearly this Board cannot make a motion to tell the Building Inspector what to do unless it comes before us as an administrative decision. We can then direct him to take action, which it appears he is already doing. Mr. Fleming: my motion is not directed towards Mr. Munroe in any respect, however, when we start imposing conditions, whether it be one or thirty three, I think we have an implied duty to make sure that those are being followed, and if we receive information or from our own personal observation that these conditions are not being met then we should take some action and we should jog the building department or anybody else concerned, jog thier attention so that something is done. We' re going to sit here and impose conditions that are not being enforced we might as well not put any conditions on anything. What I'm saying is this is our problem. Mr. Hacker: do you want • ° MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 1986 page ten OLD/NEW BUSINESS - Continued • to pull the file and find when the last letter went out? I agree, if we attach conditions and they are not followed, we have an obligation to point it out, but once they are pointed out I think our obligation ends. The City pays for Zoning Enforcement, the obligation of enforcing is up to him. Mr. Bencal: can' t request he look into the matter? Mr. Hacker: sure, but its already being done. Mr. Bencal: as a body itself, is that within our rights or within our charge by the City and State. Mr. Fleming: we have a duty to put on conditions, we have a duty to see they are enforced. Mr. Bencal: is it possible to make a motion to have the building inspector look into it. Mr. Hacker: he's already doing that, he's already taken action. He's already conferred with the City Solicitor about the fence issue, to make a motion now to have him take action would be redundant. Mr. Fleming: there are obviously conditions that are not being met. I want the guy to know that we won' t put up with it. Mr. Munroe read the letter from the Building Dept. which was sent August 12, 1986. Mr. Bencal: what then is your next step. Mr. Munroe: They may have contacted Mr. Paquin, I really can' t speak for that. Mr. Bencal: if they have not, I think a reasonable time, 14 days has passed. Mr. Munroe: the next step then would be to go to court. Mr. Fleming: that satisfies me. I withdraw my motion. Mr. Hacker: again, under old business, I don' t know if you received a copy of a letter from City Solicitor to the Board of Appeal with a copy of a motion for hearing and Consent Judgement. On two of the conditions, the developer is here this evening he is submitting an Invironmental Impact Report and his Definitive Plans to the Board. Plans were displayed to the Board and the Assemblage. Mr. Stasinos explained the Plans. All of this complies with the City Planner. Mr. • Fleming: what is the date of these plans. Mr. Stasinos: 8/26/86. This is for 140 units. Everything the Board agreed to. Mr. Fleming: I think at this time we should take it under advisement. Is this what is called a Definitive Plan? Mr. Stasinos: this is a landscape plan, shows the location of the buildings, sidewalks, drains. Thats everlything. Mr. Munroe: this is not a definitive plan. Mr. Hacker: if the Planner has favorable comments, I assume we will confer with him. Mr. Fleming: should take this up at the next meeting. Mr. Bencal: when will item J, the neighborhood review process come about. After Mr. Kavanaugh's approval? Mr. Stasinos: we can do that before. Mr. Bencal: it appears that Mr. Stasinos is ready to go, I think the neighbors, the timeliness of the meeting, should be very soon. Mr. Hacker: what if we, if Mr. Kavanaugh had any questions then he would have to refer back to us, if he has no problem with plan as submitted why don' t we allow him to proceed with letter j and have a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Fleming: I think thats good enough and have him come back at the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Bencal: that has not been set but will be within a month. Mr. Hacker: if Kavanaugh has no problem with this theres no sense in holding him up. Mr. Stasinos: I will comply with all those conditions. Mr. Hacker: what if we send Kavanaugh a letter instructing him to refer back to us if any changes are necessary. Mr. Fleming: would like to. come to the next meeting. Mr. Hacker: we will have him come back at the next meeting. If there is no other business, the hearing is adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Principal Clerk ,_,acow"yb (Ilitu of 'Salem' Aussuchusetts PnxrD of Appeal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was scheduled for Wednesday, September 17, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Notices of the meeting were properly published in the Salem Evening News on September 3, 10, 1986. Members present: Richard Bencal, Peter Strout and Associate Member Peter Dore Mr. Bencal, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Dore was appointed a voting member. Mr. Bencal addressed the assemblage, he informed them there was a lack of quorum. Mr. Strout made a motion to suspend the meeting unit Monday, September 22, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. , Mr. Dore seconded. Unanimous. Meeting suspended until September 22, 1986, 7:00 p.m. r.rt� Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Principal Clerk Ctv of X. Salem, ttsstttljuse##s Poxra of 4ettl • •� �'cums.�� MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, September 22, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. This meeting was originally scheduled for September 17, 1986 but was suspended due to lack of a quorum. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail and notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on September 3, 10, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker, Luzinski and Strout The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. , by James Hacker, Chairman. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the May 28, 1986 and August 13, 1986 meetings, as corrected. Mr. Strout seconded. Minutes accepted by a vote of 4-1 , Mr. Fleming voted present. Mr. Hacker apologized to all present for the lack of a quorum on September 17th. He then informed anyone present interested in the petition of PAUL CARR for Variance for 37 UNION ST. that the petition has been withdrawn. Said petition was withdrawn prior to the hearing so no vote was taken. He explained that if Mr. Carr should decide to come back, his petition would be readvertised and abutters would be notified. iW Lots 48 & 49 Almeda St. - Thomas Maribito & David Tremblay ` Petitioners are requesting a Variance from frontage to allow property to be divided into two lots and to construct a single family dwelling on each lot. Property is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and. a letter from Herbert C. Hagele, Jr. , support this petition. Attorney Michael McMahon, represented the petitioner: We came to this Board June 18, 1986 and were granted a variance for zero frontage, it was also approved by the Conservation Commission. What we are here tonight for is, the Planning Board did not approve it, they want twenty feet of frontage. We went back to the Conservation Commission, they approved the twenty feet. We will pave twenty feet and have a cul de sac. The Planning Board approved this plan so we are seeking a new variance. The conditions would remain the same, with the exception of the number two condition which deals with the driveway. Mr. Fleming: this looks like very steep terrain. Will that be on a slope. Mr. McMahon: yes it will. Speaking in favor: Councillor O'Leary: I spoke in favor of this before. There was a problem with one neighbor but that has been worked out. I have received no calls from the neighbors. I think it will work out well. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I think this is as good as plan as the previous one but I would like to add a condition that the City Engineer approve the street. Should put condition this be subject to the approval of the Planning Board and be reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. McMahon: . I would like to have the part regarding the City Engineer struck, he might think he has to look it all over again. Mr. Hacker: I disagree, if he has already approved it there is no problem. Mr. Fleming: we could phrase the condition that we have written approval of the City Engineer. .� Mr. McMahon: He sent a letter to the Planning Board, I don' t have a copy, I ' was not given one. Mr. Hacker: what if we said all conditions of the Planning MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 page two Lots 48 & 49 Almeda St. _ Continued Board and the Engineering Dept. be met. Mr. Fleming: I think we have already • . gone over the problems the last time they were before us and we voted for what was the best plan. The petitioners have run into the beaurocracy. My concern is with the cul de sac on the slope. If they meet the conditions of the Planning Board and the City Engineering Dept. I would be in favor. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition, any blasing be done with the approval of the Salem Fire Dept. , proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessor, A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each dwelling and the plan meet all conditions of the Salem Planning Board and the City Engineer. Mr. Fleming seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 15-151 River ST. - Lorraine Gadala The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to alter existing nonconforming lots by the transfer of a strip of land. The property is located in an R-2 district. Attorney George Vallis, 1 Church St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. He displayed the plans to the Board. Ms. Gadala bought the property in 1982, it was in very bad condition and she has restored it. Mr. Dacy owns the front lot and my client has a right of way. Since Ms. Gadala purchased the property there has been some problems the two abutters, both thought they had the right to use it. The parties have come to a meeting of the minds and Mr. Dacy has agreed to sell her a portion of the property. The right of way will become part of her property. He submitted a petition in favor signed by 18 abutters and neighbors. Both these parcels are nonconforming, we are altering them and making one more nonconforming. Speaking in favor: Carol Carr, 7 River St. this house was in • terrible condition and she has made it a asset to the community. I hope the Board grants this. Marie Pizzo, 14 River St. , in favor. Sandy England, 17 River St. , I share the driveway,my interest is in make sure nothing interfers with my driveway. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: should the width me mentioned? Mr. Hacker: we could condition it as per agreement. Mr. Strout: why not as per plans submitted. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested as per the plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 26 Buffum St. - Robert & Valerie Peterson Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit from density and side setback to allow construction of a second means of egress to convert to a two family in this R-2 district. . Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Prevention Bureau which stated the building is in compliance with laws relative to the installation of sutomatic smoke detectors for a single family. Mr. Fleming: I don' t know the petitioners but I am a resident of Buffum St. and I am going to withdraw from hearing this petition. Mr. Hacker: explained to the petitioners that as Mr. Fleming would not be sitting on the petition, It would take a unanimous vote of the Board to grant. He gave the petitioner the option of withdrawing his petition and coming back at a later date when he could be heard by a full five member Board. The petitioner chose to be heard tonight. • MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 page three 26 Buffum St. - Continued • Mr. Peterson, representing himself, addressed the Board: I have lived there since 1983. We are interested in putting in a one bedroom apartment in the attic. We need a permit for the egress. He displayed plans of the proposed egress. There will be three distinct parking spaces, there is a two car garage, showed where the third space would be, on the plan. The front of the house will not be changed, the integrity of the building will be maintained. The height of the tower, where the stairs are going to be is about 30 feet. He displayed pictures of the property. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: how wide is the proposed parking space? Mr. Peterson: not sure, it could easily be ten feet. Mr. Hacker: we could state that it be a legal space. Mr.• Bencal made a motion to grant the petition on condition plans for the construction of the second means of egress be submitted to the Fire Dept. prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner obtain compliance for this property as a two family prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, must be owner occupied, three legal parking spaces be maintained on site. a legal building permit be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Messrs. , Hacker, Luzinski and Strout voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Bencal voted in opposition to the motion. Motion failed to carry the required four votes, petition is therefore denied. DENIED 2 Crescent Drive - Bryan Corriveau Petitioner is requesting a variance to allow an existing shed which encroaches on side setback and distance to dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal. read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property is not in • compliance with Mass. General Laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Corriveau represented himself. This is just a tool shed. There is a pool in the back yard and no place else to put the shed. In order to refinance we have to have a variance. The shed was there when I purchase the house. Speaking in favor. Councillor O' Leary: Mr. Corriveau called me about this shed. The shed was already erected when he purchased, he went to refinance and because it does not conform, they will not lend money without a variance being granted. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: I have no problem with this, the hard- ship would be the physical layout of the land. Mr. Fleming: I agree with that. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the variance requested on condition the shed remain located as per plans submitted and a Certificate of Compliance be obtained from the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 1 Butler St. - Nicholas & Deborah Marotta Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow property to be used as a three family dwelling, said property being located in an R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney Michael McArdle represented the petitioners. We came to the Board last May, but we withdrew that petition. My clients bought this property from Carlsons in 1982 as a two and a half apartment building. When they went to make renovations they found out they did not have a legal three family. After many conversations with the Building Dept. we could not come up with a consistent use. This property has had many uses in the past. It has even been a Civic Center, it's been a store, • etc. It would be a hardship for my clients is this is not granted it will be a hardship on my clients. They need the extra rent, they want to make renovations. Mr. Fleming: does the parking take the entire yard? Mr. McArdle: is is already entirely paved, it was pave when they purchased it. No one appeared in favor or in MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 page four 1 Butler St. - Continued ". opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Marotta what he considered s two and a half apartments. Mr. Marotta: the third apartment was smaller than the others. however, the Building Inspector said there was no such think as half an apartment. Mr. Hacker: would you have a problem if we condition this on it being owner occupied? Mr. Marotta: no. Councillor Gauthier: if I may Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the property, it was at one time a club, I have never seen a problem with the parking, these are good kids and as long as it is owner occupied I think it would be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Bencal: Mr. McArdle, in the application you state you can fit four (4) , it looks to me as though they would have to be piggyback. Mr. McArdle: yes, they probabl ' would have to be. Mr. Fleming: Would it help to relieve some of the economic problems of the petitioner if we granted a two family? Mr. Marotta: the way it is now, the only ones parking there are the people on the top two floors, also, there is street parking. Two family would not really help. Mr. Hacker: I feel bad for the petitioner but I• think the problem here is bigger than the Marottas. If the Realtor misrepresented the property we would be doing a disservice by granting this, we could be setting a precedent. It could encourage realtors to advertise what they wanted and tell the people go ahead and go to the Board of Appeal, they will grant it. It would be encumbent upon us now to send a strong message to the Realtors. Mr. Fleming: I could go along with a two family but no more. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant a variance to allow a two family on condition the property remain owner occupied, three (3) on site parking spaces be maintained, all requirements of the Mass. State Building Code be adhered to, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to fire prevention be adhered to, and a Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. The Board four to one to grant the Variance as modified, Mr. Hacker voted against the motion. GRANTED - TWO FAMILY (4-1 ) 143 Canal St. - Pub Realty Trust, Thomas Powers, Trustee Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow four additional apartment units and a variance from parking requirements in this B-4 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire dept. , no objection. Attorney Gustafan, Malden, represented the petitioner. He submitted plans to the Board. This building is located in a B-4 district, the first floor was a pub. The petitioner purchased this in 1983. At that time the pub was being operated by the tenants, about two years ago they left, the license was seized and sub- sequently transfered. We propose to convert this to four, one bedroom units. We cannot provide parking for this particular use. There is one, possible two spaces on the side, but that is all. We understand there are concerns regarding parking, but we feel a commercial use would definitely require more parking and would impact greater on the neighborhood than the four, one bedroom units. We purposely went with the one bedroom units so as not to impact as much. Mr. Gustafan quoted the Salem 'Zoning Ordinance, Sections VIII F, IX D, and IX E relative to the granting of Variances and Special Permits. We cannot provide parking for any use at all. We were here in July and we were allowed to withdraw. At that time we sent notices to all abutters, we received only one response and that was in favor. Robert Zarelli, Architect, displayed plans of the proposed units. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Councillor Nutting, I am opposed mainly because of the parking, there is no more than one parking space, may be able to two cars piggyback in the driveway. Abutters have been .;•( • notified, but they are mostly business people. I have receive one call from Mrs. Ball on Meadow St. , in opposition, she is concerned about the parking, there is limited parking on Meadow St. . They presently have 8 apartments there with MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 page five • 143 Canal St. - Continued something like 11 or 12 people and I can see the time coming when it will be occupied by students. Mainly opposed because of parking, it is posted no parking in the front of the building. This would definitely be detrimental to the neighbor- hood. In rebuttal: Attorney Gustafon: We have talked to the Councillor about his concerns, we cannot meet the. parking, that is why we have a hardship, we cannot meet the parking for any type use, we are taking the less detrimental route. They are proposing to spend a good deal of money renovating. Mr. Fleming: Mr. Nutting, are we to say they can't use the first floor for anything or are we to consider the lessor impact of the apartments. Mr. Nutting: I thought perhaps a low density business, such as an architect office. Maybe something could be worked out where there is only two units. There are other possible uses. Mr. Fleming: Mr. Gustafon , there are people in the area who have large parking areas, have your clients approached these people to make arrangements for parking? Mr. Gustafon: We would be glad to do that. To address the Councillors problem, if we did, go for that type of use, it would have to be a very large firm or several firms. Residential use would only impact in the evening, other uses would impact all day long. As to less units, the units would be larger and be faced with perhaps even more cars. If the Board saw fit, we could go with three units. Mr. Hacker: how long have your clients owned this? Since about 1983. Mr. Hacker: what have you done to try to rent this as a pub? We have tried to rent is, however, my client does not have a liquor license. We have looked for commercial renters. Mr. Powers, Trustee of Pub Realty Trust: we have advertised for businesses but we have not been successful. Mr. Hacker: The logic the attorney uses is valid, however, the owner • chooses not to have a bar, not to incorporate with the second floor, has not even made an effort to find parking. It is a very difficult area for parking. We have had a problem there with students, it's not going to be owner occupied. We should be consistent. I have difficulty with this, I am leaning towards the mixed use. Mr. Fleming: then we have to be prepared to give a variance for greater amount of parking. Mr. Hacker: he has not explored all the avenues. Mr. Strout: I have a problem with four units, would rather see two. The rooms are very small, I have a problem with that. Mr. Fleming: perhaps the petitioner would consider a lesser residential use. Mr. Gustafon: my clients would consider three, as we said they have tried to rent to business. Mr. Fleming: I don't think three is the answer, I could live with two units. Mr. Luzinski: I agree, would have no problem with two. Mr. Bencal: how big are the other units? Mr. Powers: about 400 sq.ft. , they are one bedroom units. Councillor Nutting: I would be receptive to two. Attorney: we will go along with two. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant a Variance to allow an addition two units on the first floor on condition: All requirements of the State Building Code be adhered to, all the requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire prevention be adhered to, all necessary building permits be obtained and a certificate of occupancy of each unit be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski and Strout voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hacker voted opposed. GRANTED 4-1 10 Leval Rd. - Richard & Marie Denis Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback • to allow construction of a two story addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the petitioner; also, communication from the fire dept. , stating the property has current compliance. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 page six 10 Leval Rd. - Continued Mr. Fleming: I was in the same political race as Mr. Denis and if he feels this would influence my decision I would withdraw from hearing this. Mr. Denis: I have no problem with Mr. Fleming hearing this. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Denis has done electrical work for me but this will not influence my decision. Mr. Denis represented himself. He displayed plans. . This would make my house look better from everyone's view, would square it off and would give me my porch, increase my living area. Speaking in favor was Councillor Robert Gauthier: I now Mr. Denis and I think this would be beneficial. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition all construction be according to plans submitted, all work comply with building and fire codes, a building permit and a certificate of occupany be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 2 Lawrence St. a/k/ 165 Ocean AVe. - Robert Maguire The was a petition for variances from density and setbacks to allow construction of a duplex in this R-2 district. The petition was denied January 15, 1986 and subsequently appealed. The petition was remanded back to the Board by Judge Delvecchio and was heard again on July 16, 1986 and once again was denied. As a result of this denial a Summary Judgement in favor of the petitioner was granted. Said summary judgment gave the Board the right to impose conditions. Mr. Hacker read the Summary Judgment to the Board. Mr. Bencal read a letter from Mr. O'Brien the City Solicitor which explained that the Summary Judgment grants the Variance • so the Board has no need to make the grant, it does homwever allow the Board to impose conditions and safeguards. (dated Sept. 10, 1986) He also read a letter from the City Solicitor dated Sept. 15, 1986 which stated the Board could grant a formal variance if the petition chose. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Maguire if he wanted the Board to grant a formal variance. Mr. Maguire said he did not at this time. Mr. Fleming asked Mr. Lovely, the direct abutter, if he had any preference as to type of buffer. Mr. Lovely: would prefer a fence. Mr. Hacker: this is usually a six foot stockade. Mr. Fleming: could you put all four parking, spaces on the westerly side? Mr. Maguire: would like to leave building as it is. Mr. Hacker: you don' t think this is dangerous? Mr. Maguire: no Mr. Fleming: I would like to accomodate him but I think backing out into the intersection is dangerous. Mr. Maguire: would like it where it is because that gives us back yard but I will have to live with any conditions you make. Mr. Fleming made a motion to have the following accepted as conditions: 1 . A six foot stockade fence be erected on the southerly boundary running the length of the property. 2. Parking plan as submitted be modified so that the two spaces on the corner of Lawrence St. and Ocean Ave. be moved to the southwest corner of said lot so as to maximize the open space to the intersection. 3. Construction comply with all building and fire codes. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit. Mr. Luzinski seconded. CONDITIONS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 page seven OLD BUSINESS • 183R Federal St. Mr. Fleming: In July we granted a Special Permit on this property to allow a three family and conditioned it on being owner occupied. I have received a letter from a tenant. Mr. Metzger has vacated the premises and now intends to have condominiums. I feel that less than the truth was told to us. I would like to find out if the Special Permit is still in effect as he does not live there. Mr. Bencal: this is the second time this has been done to us. Mr. Fleming: I think someone played a game with us. Mr. Hacker: I think if we grant a three family they have a right to make it condominiums. If the permit was obtained .under false pretenses then it is up to the Building Inspector to do something. Mr. Fleming: I would like to make a motion to review the minutes and take action at the October 8, 1986 meeting. Mr. Bencal seconded. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY PASSED Mr. Hacker: as a point of information, the District Attorney checked into the allegations of our having an illegal meeting and came to the conclusion the Board had acted accordingly. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be September 24, 1986, 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk a 01i#u of "Stt1Em, Aussar4usetts •` � g Poxrb of �kypettl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, September 24, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Notices of said hearing were duly published in the Salem Evening News on September 1,0, 17, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker, Luzinski, Strout .&. Associate Member LaBrecque The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, James Hacker. Mr. LaBrecque was appointed a voting member. 8 Lawrence St. - Eleanor Schialdone Petitioner is requesting a Variance from density requirements to allow a second dwelling unit to be constructed above the first floor. Property is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau stating the property has no current compliance with laws relative to the installation of automatic smoke detectors. " Charles Schialdone, son- of the petitioner, represented his mother. He submitted floor plans of the proposed second unit. My father passed away in January and my mother has been alone, she is not capable of being alone, she just had surgery, if I could put r the second floor, she wouldn' t have to move. We would like to live there and be able to take care of her. Speaking in favor: Councillor Furfaro, Ward III, Mrs. Scialdone does live alone. I would hope the Board would grant this and let her family live with her. Councillor Gauthier: I have know this family a long time, they are great people, I am in favor of this. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: did you go to the Building Inspector for a permit and get denied? Mr. Scialdone: no, but it doesn' t meet the densiy requirements. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the property remain owner occupied, plans for construction be presented to the Salem Fire Dept. prior to the issuance of a building permit, a building permit be obtained, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained and all work be in accordance with plans submitted. Mr. Fleming: I don' t think it is necessary to have it be owner occupied, it is in an R-2 district which allows for two family dwelling and I would like to move to amend the motion and eliminate the owner occupied condition, Mr. Strout seconded Mr. Flemings motion to amend. The Board voted 4-1 to accept the motion as amended, Mr. Bencal voted against the amendment. Mr. Fleming then seconded Mr. Bencals motion to grant the Variance, no owner occupancy required. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 18 Briggs St. - Timothy Berry Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side and rear setbacks to allow construction of a deck in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Berry �. represented himself, he expained he wanted to have this deck for the enjoyment of • his family. . He displayed the plans to the Board. No appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: do you intend to utilize the existing porch. Yes. Mr. Strout: is there a fence or anything there? Yes, my neighbor have a fence, there are shrubs and I have a small fence. Mr. Bencal: the MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 page two • 18 Briggs St. - Continued s '• deck is only on the second floor? Yes. Mr. Hacker: where there is not opposition I would have no problem. Mr. Fleming: I am not happy with the open stairs but where there is not opposition, I would be in favor. Mr. Strout made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow deck and stairs which shall not encroach more than four feet on the side yard on the northeast property line and shall not encroach more than four feet on the rear property line on condition all work be in accordance with plans submitted and a building permit be obtained. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 204 Highland Ave. - Mary Jane & Robert Kart Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a building to be used as a kennel/shelter for the Northeast Animal Shelter which is located in a B-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney Robert Ledoux represented the petitioners. You are all familiar with this property, my clients have been there for about ten years. He submitted plans to the Board. The doctor wants to expand and utilize the down stairs of the existing building for his practice. I have been to the Conservation Committions and the Planning Board for their permission and both were granted. There is no provision in the Zoning Ordinance for veterinary clinic anywhere in Salem. The size of the building is slightly larger that the original plans submitted, the line showing on the plan is imaginary line. The former building inspector has suggested we go to Planning for a Form A to divide, but we would like • to have the Special Permit to extend nonconformity. No one appeared in favor or ' in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: there was no size mentioned in the ad so there is no problem voting for the larger building. Mr. Strout: is this a single story building? Mr. Ledoux: may be two stories but the upstairs would be for storage. Mr. Strout: we don' t have any elevations or anything. Mr. Hacker: even under those conditions, I think it is safe to assume the doctor is going to be there, he had a chance to build something else and he chose this, which I think is a better plan, I would have not problem. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit on condition the structure be built in strict accordance with plans submitted and shall not exceed two stories with a maximum height of thirty feet, structure to be used as a pet clinic/animal shelter only, plans be submitted to the Salem Fire Prevention bureau for their approval prior to this issuance of a building permit, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Bencal seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 2 Liberty Hill Ave. - John B. Giunta Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit or Variance from density requirements and from rear yard setback to allow construction of a two story addition Which'-will be used a a second dwelling unit in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Giunta represented himself. He submitted four letters in favor from abutters. I would like to get married and would like to stay close to my parents, my father is not in the best of health. Speaking in favor was Councillor McCabe. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant a Variance from density and rear • setback to allow construction of a two story addition on condition all work be in accordance with requirements of the Fire Dept. , adhere to the building code, obtaine Certificate of Occupancy and building permit and be as per plans submitted. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 page three • , 42 Jefferson Ave. - Richard Decesare (Petitioner) Carlo Marfongelli (Owner) Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another, namely, a freight service to an auto repair and sale in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Decesare represented himself. I am just looking for a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another, I have permits from the Fire Dept. already. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: will you store cars in front? No Mr. Fleming: will you sell cars there? No, they will be taken to auction. Every thing will be inside, I will not alter the building. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition no cars be stored outside the building, all applicable licenses and permits be obtained from the City of Salem Licensing Board, property be in compliance will all requirements of the Salem Fire dept. and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Bencal seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 3 Friend St. - Paul Ferris Petitioner is requesting variances from lot area, rear yard setback, lot coverage and other density requirements. to allow construction of a duplex in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney John Serafini Sr. , represented the petitioner. He submitted a copy of the Assessors map showing the lot in question which contains 4,100 sq.ft. , he indicated the surrounding lots which ranged from 1 ,150 feet to 4,100 feet. Most • i of them containing less than the 4,100 sq.ft. He also displayed pictures of the lot. My client purchase the property in April of this year, there was a house • on this lot which was destroyed by fire about two years ago. According to the Zoning Ordinance if a building is more than 50% destroyed by any means in can only be built according to todays zoning. Which is why we are here tonight. My client has met with the neighbors to review his plans and to try to alleviate their concerns. These meetings were held at the suggestion of Councillor McCabe. The proposed plan calls for construciton of a duplex dwelling approximately 24' x 461 , there is sufficient parking for four cars. This is an R-2 district, so the use is an allowed use. There was a building, as I said, on this lot. I believe it was a single family, Mr. Ferris bought this property with'the intention of demolishing the building which had been gutted by the fire, and building a duplex. Due to the configuration of the lot and its topography, developing this is difficult, part of the lot is ledge. As I said, we have met with the neighbors and tried to satisfy their concerns, the building was shifted, parking plans were spelled out, we would have room for four parking spaces, but with the landscapingthis did not satisfy all the concerns. I think the question the Board has to decide is if a brand new duplex with on site parking is going to create a problem. Something is going to built on this property. With the on site parking the traffic situation is certainly helped. The neighbors do not want anything there, but that is not realistic. If you look at the lots in the area you will see this is in harmony. the question is how much harm this will create if it is granted, I submit it will not cause any harm, on the contrary, it will improve the area, we will be getting rid of an unsightly area. We have tried at three differenct meetings to resolve the problems with the neighbors, but cannot satisfy everyone. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. William Melanson, 103 Mason St. , my main concern • is with arson, this is a grossly congested area, the idea of a developer coming in and developing this and creating a fire problem, causes me great concern. Michael McKinnon, 101} Mason St. , Mr. Ferris was. informed before he purchased the lot that it was undersized. I am opposed to the position of the house, the MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 page four • 3 Friend St. - Continued neighborhood does not warrant a two family. There are only four 2 families in the area. The parking is in the front, the street is narrow and to back cars out would be very difficult. This is a very congested area and for him to make parking would require his taking 41 feet of sidewalk. There are many children in the area. This property is 8 feet from my home, I am concerned that if there was ever another fire, we might not be so lucky. This would also interfere with my light and air. Mary Cushing, 5 Friend St. , I am so close, I almost lost my home to the fire, I was very lucky. I have two windows on that side, he wants to put parking right in front of one window and the house will be in front of the other window. Robert Talbot, 1 Friend St. , the area is just too congested, it will take all the sunlight, my house faces it. It will run the whole length of my house. It is not feasible. Richard Brennan, 105 Mason St. , I agree with everything that has been said. The street is very narrow, the whole opposite side is used for parking. There is only one other two family on the street that is not owner occupied and there is one that is. I am concerned about the kids. The street if packed with cars. Seven of the eight houses on the street are owner occupied. As far as it being a brand new house, I have seen brand new houses become old within a year when the owner doesn' t live there. Mr. Fleming: I can understand the problem about air and light, but if a single home was built the problem would still be there. Also, if the house is moved to front then Ms. Cushing is not happy, if it is moved back Mr. McKinnon is not happy, the only solution would be if nothing was built there. Mr. McKinnon: he is asking for a Variance, pleading a hardship, where can the hardship be if he was aware of the problems when he bought it. Mr. Fleming: • how else could this lot be used if not for residential. It is obvious that Ms. Cushing would be opposed if it is buildt to the front. Ms. Cushing: the original plan he showed us had the house right between our windows, he did move it two feet back. Mr. Fleming: whether it is one or two family, the same problems exist. Mr. Talbot is concerned with the parking, yet he parks on the street, this property will have four parking spaces. Tell me Mr. Brennan, do you park on the street? Mr. Brennan: yes, I do. Mr. Fleming: this plan shows four parking spaces. Mr. Brennan: I don' t think the cars will be able to get out. Mr. Strout: as far as pulling out, did you notice on the plans the parking doesn' t start till seven feet into the lot. Mr. Fleming: if you are concerned with the turning radius, we could limit the number of spaces to three which is all he is required to have. Mary Cushing: did I understand you to say the parking will come 7 feet from the street and then another 21 feet, my house is right on the line and he will be blocking one of my windows, I won't get any light. Mr. Melanson: will this be on the original foundation. No, but possibly could move it 8 feet and use the existing footprint. The Board discussed this possibility and the possibility of enlarging the existing footprint to allow building of about 1 ,200 sq. ft. , this would allow for more open space and still provide for the four parking spaces. Hearing closed. The Board discussed all possible alternatives for the placement of the proposed duplex in an effort to satisfy all concerned. They agreed with the suggestion of Mr. Melanson idea to have the building on the same footprint and extend it. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition for Variances to allow construction of a two family duplex on the existing footprint and to extend 14 feet in a southwesterly direction towards Front St. on condition there be no blasting, four on site parking spaces be maintained, adequate plantings and shrubs be installed, work comply with all requirements of the Fire Dept. and the Mass. State Building • Code, petitioner obtained a building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 page five 357 Lafayette St. - Paulette Gebauer Attorney John Serafini Sr. , representing the petitioner submitted a letter requesting leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Hacker read the letter to the assemblage and explained that should Ms. Gebauer come back to the Board the case would be advertised again and abutters would be notified. Petition was withdrawn prior to the hearing being opened, no vote was taken WITHDRAWN 95 - 101 Congress St. - H & R Realty Trust Mr. Hacker will not sit on this petition. Mr. Luzinski will be Acting Chairman. Mr. LaBrecque was appointed a voting member. Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit from lot size, coverage, setbacks, height and parking to allow construction of ten multi-family residential units in this B-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application, letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection and a letter from Councillor Nowak, in favor. Attorney Daniel Reich represented the petitioner. The property is an existing convenience store and laundry and is under agreement for residential units which will be built over the existing building. My clients are under contract for sale to Salem Harbor Community Development. They are an agency that deals with low and moderate income people. These units will be made available to people who otherwise would not be able to buy homes. The variances requested have been outlined in the application, they are lot size, lot coverage, setbacks and height. Also asking for parking variance, we believe the need for parking can be accomodated within the twenty seven parking spaces available as the use by the customers of the convenience store is not steady. This property is in a B-1 district which allows for multi-family. We were not sure if it was • a variance or a Special Permit we needed where the use is allowed. It is an undersized lot, the coverage of the building will be about 50 sq. ft. more than what is allowed, will a zero foot rear setback, this already exists and we need side setback on the northerly side, stairwell will come right on property line. Also from eight, this will be about 36 feet. The required parking is 46 spaces, we have 27. The traffic from the store is transient, coming and going, there would be no need of parking for the retail in the evening when it is closed. The residential use will not need the parking during the day when the store is open. We believe that except for the parking these could be granted by Special Permit. The area in which the building sits is a mixed neighborhood, there are many retail and residential there. This will contribute to the quality housing in an area that needs it, we will provide affordable housing for people who need it. Mr. Fleming: would you be happier with a variance rather than the clouded special permit. Attorney Reich: would prefer the variance but was not sure if it was a variance or special permit. Mr. Livermore, the Architect, displayed plans to the Board and the assemblage. He explained that he did not do the plans but was now the architect. Mr. Fleming: do you have a copy of the contract? Mr. Reich: the contract has not yet been executed. Mr. Reich then submitted a petition in favor signed by 31 neighbors and abutters. Speaking in favor: Councillor Martineau, Ward 5, we have received correspondence from Councillor Nowak in favor of this. I was the Councillor in that area for many years, I used to go to that store quite regularly. Most of the people using that store are walk-ins. I think many people in the area use it because it is convenient. I see no reason the parking would be a problem. Would like to commend the CDC, my dealings with them have been comfortable, overall, they have been a vehicle to bring affordable housing to that area, they have done nothing but good. I hope this can be worked • out, it will benefit the neighborhood and is needed. Orille L'Heureux, in favor. Bill Luster, Salem Planning Dept. , we concur with the design, affordable housing is needed in that area. Mr. Hixon, Director, CDC, we are very excited about this project, only problem is the financing. Councillor Gauthier: I have been involved with CDE and they have provided much needed affordable housing. I think they have MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 page six 95-101 Congress St. - Continued `.' '• , addressed the parking. There is more parking with this project than with any of the others. This would certainly improve the neighborhood, put something decent there and it would make a difference. Jim Lyons, 96 Congress St. , I just have one question, will the units be sold to 10 different owners? Yes. Mr. Fleming: is that a problem. Mr. Lyons: no, it will be beneficial. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed.. Mr. Bencal: I have a problem with your request for variance from height, it says 36 feet more or less, could we have something more exact. Mr. Livermore, 36 feet will be fine. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant variances to allow 13,604 sq. ft. lot, lot coverage of 40.4%; zero rear yard setback; zero side yard setback on the north side of the property; maximum height of 38 feet, and variance from parking allowing 27 spaces instead of the required 46, also a special permit to allow expansion of existing nonconforming structure, subject to the following conditions: all construction be in accordance will all requirements of the fire dept. and be done according to Mass. State Building Code and that a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for all units. Mr. Fleming seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 10:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be held Wednesday, October 8, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, • ? Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk ('gitu of "Salem, cmassuchusetts Poxrb of �}r}ieul MINUTES OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL - OCTOBER 15, 1986 A hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal on Wednesday, October 15, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail and said hearing was duly advertised in the Salem Evening,::, News on October 1st & 8th, 1986. Members present: Messrs. , Fleming, Hacker, Luzinski Strout and Associate Member Labreque The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, James Hacker at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Fleming was appointed Acting Secretary. Mr. Labrecque was appointed a voting member. 333 Bridge St. - Edmond & Joseph Morneau Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the petition of Edmond & Joseph Morneau for a Special Permit to extend nonconforming setbacks & use had been withdrawn. Said petition was withdrawn prior to the hearing, no vote was taken. If the petitioners should decide to come back to the Board at a later date, the hearing would be advertised again and abutters notified. • Mr. Fleming read a letter from Gerard Kavanaugh regarding the hiring of Mr. Jonathan Moore as the Clerk of the Works for the Stasinos project at 394 Highland Ave. Michael O'Brien, City Solicitor, addressed the Board regarding the Consent Judgment for the Stasinos project at 394 Highland Ave. Mr. O'Brien: I met' with the Building Inspector and the Planning Director and we'd like to make changes. One of the changes for the description for the Clerk of Works, in the Consent Judgment it called for a licensed engineer, while Mr. Moore is not a licensed engineer, he is highly qualified for this job. Condition 2(b) called for the deeding of 4.1 acres of land to the City, his plan called for 3.9 acres, for him to come up with new plans would cause unnecessary delay so we would like to change that. Thirdly, the building for the sales office was supposed to be one story and it is two stories, aesthetically the one story building would not look in place, would like to change that. Mr. Fleming: when I wrote the condition that the Clerk of the Works be a licensed engineer, I did not consider the cost. Would like to see the wording of from Registered Engineer to Clerk of the Works. Mr. Hacker: should we say, no less than 3.9 acres? Mr. Fleming: would like it to say at least 3.9 acres. Mr. Hacker: is there any problem striking the work Engineer? Mr. Strout: it is common to have a Clerk of the Works. Mr. Hacker: any problem with allowing a two story building for the office building? Mr. Fleming: I did have a problem with that but I went out and looked at it and it does look better as a two story. Mr. Fleming made a motion to authorize the City Solicitor to ament the Consent Judgment as follows: paragraph 2a line three be amended by'striking out the word '!one" and substituting in its place the word • "two"; paragraph 2b line two be amended by striking out 4.1 acres and` substituting 3.95 acres; paragraph 2c be amended by striking out the words professional engineer and substituting Clerk of works. Mr. Strout seconded. CONSENT JUDGMENT AMENDMENTS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1986 page two • 33-35 Forrester St. - M & Y REALTY TRUST Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert the existing two family dwelling into three residential units. Property is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Fleming read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property is not in compliance with laws relative to installation of smoke detector, they have no objection on condition the property obtain compliance. Attorney John Serafini Sr. represented the petitioner. This is not an unusual case, this is an R-2 district and the Board can grant up to four units by Special Permit, this is for a third unit. There is adequate parking on site. He displayed parking plan. The building lends itself to a third unit and there are several three family dwellings in the neighborhood. Financially, the extra income is needed to maintain the property as it should be. This will provide additional housing and we do not feel it is detrimental and does not derogate from the intent of the Ordinance. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Jane Sturgewall, Salem, although there are three family homes in the area, the intent of an R-2 district is to limit the density and keep it residential. I am opposed to any more increase in the area. Joan Nestor, 2 Forrester St. , parking is a big problem, we have people parking on Forrester St. who live on Essex St. There are three family homes there, but it should be kept two family. Michael Pelletier, 25 Andrew St. , Salem Common Association. Very concerned with people getting variances to go to three family dwellings. Would like to keep the character of the neighborhood. I think the legal definition of hardship is more than financial. In rebuttal: Attorney Serafini, the characteristics of the neighborhood are not going to change. In addition, the Board has the authority to grant a special permit in these cases. There is sufficient parking on site. I don't believe the granting of this would cause any problem. As I said, there is sufficient parking so it will • not impact. I don' t see that you are creating such an impact on a neighborhood that is already mixed. Salem is a city of mixed uses. I don' t believe that asking the Board to do this is going to affect the quality of life in the area. Mr. Fleming: it is not clear, do you want a variance of a special permit. Mr. Serafini: Special Permit. Mr. Fleming: would owner occupied be a problem. Mr. Serafini: it could be in this case. Mr. Fleming: the parking is adequate at this time? Mr. Serafini: the garage will have to come down. Mr. Fleming: that garage acts as a buffer. Mr. Serafini: it would have to be torn down, we could put a fence. Mr. Strout: will you be doing outside work? Mr. Serafini: yes, but no structural work. Mr. Fleming: would you mind putting something in place of the garage. Mr. Serafini showed him on the plans where the green area and fence would be. Parking would be from Emmerton St. Mr. Fleming: and you say you would be opposed to a condition of owner occupancy. Mr. Serafini: it is difficult to accpet that condition because the objective here is to remodel the building and use it as an investment. Mr. Fleming: two months we had a problem with a fellow who asked for three family and made it into condominiums, are your intentions to have condominiums? Mr. Serafini: I would have to say yes, it is vacant however, there are no tenants. Mr. Fleming: there are some neighbors here and there are some concerns, I am familiar with the area and although there are some legitimate concerns I feel the honesty of the developer is a plus and we would be making three owner occupied units, I could live with that. Mr. Hacker: I concur, I think I could vote favorably as long as we define the parking and have the parking screened. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow property to be converted to three units on condition; existing garage be demolished and parking for six vehicles be provided as per plans; stockage fence on each boundary line be erected as per plans; building permit for demolition and any construction be • obtained prior to any work being done; a Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained; if converted to condominiums, each unit must be owner occupied. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1986 page three • 35 Pleasant St. - Nile Shipka & Kathleen Teetsel Petitioners are requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit to allow an existing two family dwelling to be converted to a nine room bed and breakfast. Property is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Fleming read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property has no current compliance relative to smoke detectors, they would not be opposed subject to certain conditions (on file) . Mr. Fleming then read a letter signed by David Goodman and Marian Ahearn, 11 Andrew St. , opposed. Attorney John Serafini Sr. represented the petitioners, he displayed pictures of the property. I have listened to the comments of the concerned neighbors and their points are well taken, I think it is natural to be concerned when you live in a neighborhood and someone wants to change it. People think, how is this going to affect me. I think that is why the zoing law permits exceptions to be taken in certain cases. The Board must decide it the granting of a variance will be detri- mental to the area. This is a 15 room house, to utilize this as a one or two family building is not economically feasible, cannot be maintained as it should be, what happens to the property then. When the current zoning was passed, they tried to take into account all foreseeable problems, that of course is not possible. This property has adequate parking, if it didn' t, it shouldn' t be granted. How much is going to be done to the exterior, how much impact is it going to have, these are the issues to be taken into account. My clients are a young couple, this will be owner occupied. This is a good use for this property and it is appropriate in this neighborhood, there are inns in the area and it is not far from the hotel. As I said, it will be owner occupied and we would have no problem with that being a condition. The plan is a good plan. We do understand the concerns of the neighbors but this use, in this case is a perfect use. Will really only be used during the • tourist season. Mr. Fleming: again, Mr. Serafini, you have asked for a Special Permit or a Variance, which is you are seeking? Mr. Serafini: I believe this will need a Variance. Mr. Fleming: do you want to deal with the hardship? Mr. Serafini: the size of the building, the shape of the lot, it cannot be developed the way it is within the confines of the ordinance. Speaking in favor: Katy Hezekiah, 1 Collins Cove, I think this would be an asset to the City and to the neighborhood. John Andrews, Peabody, I am under a purchase and sale agreement for property on Essex St. I am interested in the historic and architectural aspect of the building, it would be a welcomed asset to the area. Mr. Kavanaugh, Planning Director, the Board should keep in mind that we are going to see a lot more of these coming before the Board. Salem is a City that people want to visit and we don' t have the capacity or the facilities for them to stay overnight. If tourism keeps up at its present level the need for these bed & breakfast inns will be greater than ever. There is no question this type of use is an asset to the City and the down town area. We must make sure however, they meet the criteria and it should be owner occupied. Also keep the architecture and the historic quality maintained, also would like to see the parking area landscaped. Speaking in opposition: Marian Ahearn, 11 Andrew St. , our property abuts the rear of this property, we may be the only direct abutters to that property. We are concerned with the neighborhood, I am not against development but this is a two family and it is feasible to use it as a two family. This neighborhood has already absorbed more than its sahre of growth and development. Also, we are concerned with the legislation which will apply the hotel tax to these bed and breakfasts, granting variance could permanently establish this property as a hotel or restaurant. Mr. Fleming: that is a local option tax. Ms. Ahearn: I don' t think we can really make sure it is owner occupied. There is no hardship, this is an investment, if they • have finances to establish new business, then there is not financial hardship. David Goodman, 11 Andrew St. , in the last 18 to 24 months our neighborhood has seen construction of 4 family condominium, conversions of two famiy into three family, permission for roofing company to expand, conversion of a two family into a cat clinic, and at all these meetings there was neighborhood opposition, the Board only sided with us once. Attorney Serafini was very good and made a good presentation, 4 MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1986 page four • 35 Pleasant St. - Nile Shipka & Kathleen Teetsel however, he does not live in the neighborhood. We have come to this Board to oppose encroaching of business and density. This neighborhood is a very active neighborhood, we are concerned that the neighborhood is disappearing, there has certainly been an impact. Any realtor will tell you that two families are becoming rare and they are desirable pieces of property. Salem needs people who are coming to stay here awhile, already there are four bed and breakfasts on the Common. This building can be developed for an attractive two family and it would be more appealing to the neighborhood. We in this neighborhood have been here time and time again in an effort to protect our neighborhood. We urge the Board to keep it residential. David Pelletier, 31 Pleasant St. , have lived here for 17 years, have lived in the neighborhood for 40 years. It is a beautiful mixed neighborhood. We do have a problem with parking, I have 7 spaces for myself and my tenants but can never park in front of my house because of the increase in the number of units. Parking is a serious problem. A lot of nights we have to go to another street. The density is just too high. Now you are proposing a 9 room bed and breakfast. They have 12 parking spaces, so there are nine cars, plus the staff and owners. There are accidents here every week, very dangerous area and this will add more traffic and you say it is not going to impact the neighborhood. The whole problem with rooming houses is, they are transients, they don' t care about Salem or about the neighborhood. I don' t think this use fits in with a residential neighborhood. There are also single family homes in the area. I don' t see any hardship with this building. To change this from a two family to a rooming house would definitely change the character of the neighborhood and the quality of life. It would be going against the intent of the ordinance. What's already there we have to suffer with, but to increase it • should not be allowed. Will be detrimental to the public good. Other single and two family homes survive. We have had enough impact in our neighborhood, it is time to stop, enough is enough, as far as the tourists, they come last, the neighbors should come first. He submitted a letter from Campbell Seamans, 34 Pleasant st. , opposed. Marjorie Wilkinson, 33 Pleasant St. , what we have is a concrete jungle, the traffic is horrendous, drainage with be a problem. There is no hardship, I have not doubt they can use this as a two family. Michael Pelletier, Andrew St. , I have had plenty of opportunity to watch the neighborhood change, in the last year the Board, in its wisdom, denied a Bed & Breakfast on Winter St. and I hope it will deny this tonight. This is residential area, I appeal to the Board to leave us alone. Please, no more commercial uses. Mike Johnson, 74 Washington Sq. , would like to echo what my neighbors have already said. Jane Sturgewall, 17 Andrew St. , this will put a parking lot right behind my house. Nine rooms is not a small business. We have 14 children on the street, we are trying to raise our families in this area, people have moved into this area with families and then have moved out because of the traffic etcetera. The increases that have been allowed in this neighborhood have been an impetus on us. The taxes have been raised so people can' t afford to live there. This property is visible from the Common and to have signage would not be appropriate. There are other sites that can be developed for this type use. The Attorney says that in this one instance it will not affect the area, you gentlemen know we have been here many times in the past and it is not just this one instance. Joan Nester, 2 Forrester St. , we have a number of businesses in the neighborhood, it is a very busy area, parking is indeed a problem. I agree we should have something for the tourists, but there are other sites in the downtown area. A nine room bed & breakfast is too much in this neighborhood. In Rebuttal: Attorney Serafini, all • remarks are well taken, there is little I can say, your concerns are valid. I approach this from the fact that they are going to live there and will be bringing MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1986 page five 35 Pleasant St. - Continued • up their family there. I am sure there will be a condition on the decision that this be owner occupied, that takes the marketability away. As they will be living there, they would have the same concerns that you have. If they ever did sell the same restriction would apply. The condition would say that if the property were not owner occupied it would revert back to a two family. There are a lot of safeguards. Perhaps the nine rooms are too much, I don' t know if there could be a 'compromise. I am sure they would be willing to talk about it. Mr. Hacker: you mentioned a compromise, do you think it would be appropriate to withdraw and meet with the neighbors, or do you want us to vote on this tonight. Mr. Serafini: I would like to talk with my clients. Mr. Fleming: the neighbors addressed many concerns and if I lived there I would say the same. I don' t like to see the Board come under attack, I don' t think we have a lack of concern for the neighborhood and I don;t like to see Mr. Serafini attacked 'but with all the concerns of the neighbors and I agree with them, I would like to see them withdraw and I so move. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN 47 Barr St. - C. F. Tompkins Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing warehouse into three dwelling units in this R-2 district. Mr. Fleming read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney Robert McCann, Danvers, represented the petitioners. He displayed pictures of the property. Mr. Fleming: for the record, I am a resident of the area but that will not affect my decision. • I will sit on this case. Mr. Hacker: are you sure this the correct address. Mr. Fleming: I am concerned about the address, Chapter 40A is very specific regarding notification of abutters. The address the City has on the abutters list is not the same as what was advertised. Mr. McCann, that is the address we always went by, however, if there is a problem I would request leave to withdraw without prejudice, in order to correct this problem. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to allow petitioner leave to withdraw, Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN 79 Marlborough Rd. - Arthur & Deborah Alexander Petitioners are requesting variances from density and setbacks to allow existing single family in this R-1 district. Mr. Fleming read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , not objection. Mr. Alexander represented himself, he expained he had applied for refinancing and the bank said it did not meet the setback requirements. We have not changed this, it is the way it was when we bought it. Speaking in favor: Councillor O'Leary, these people bought this a couple of years ago and nothing was found wrong with it until they went to refinance. Most people in that area are having similar problems. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: I have no problem with this, the hardship is obvious. I therefore move to grant the petition as requested. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1986 page six • 1221 Boston St. - Gateway II Realty Trust Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming front setback to allow construction of an egress and to allow an existing five family dwelling in this B-2 district. Petitioners also request a variance from the minimum parking requirement. Mr. Fleming read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating they had no objection. Mr. Hacker asked the petition to step forward and present his case. There was no response, petitioner was not present and no representative for the petitioner was present. Mr. Hacker: the petitioner is not here, we have no plans, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition as requested. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board of Appeal unanimously voted against the motion UNANIMOUSLY DENIED 260 Lafayette St. - Greystone Realty Trust Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit and Variance to convert a single family dwelling into a three unit condominium. Property is located in an R-3 district. Mr. Fleming read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating they had no objection. Mr. Fleming then read a letter from the City of Salem Planning Board in favor of this project. Attached to the letter is a consent form from the Planning Board signed by eight (8) members giving consent to recon- sideration by the Board of Appeal. The property was denied a special permit and variance to convert to a four unit on July 17 , 1985• Attorney John Serafini Sr. represented the petitioners. As you recall, this was before you in 1985 and was • denied, that was for four units. This is basically the same project, this is for three units. This is all part of the Ives Greenhouse project, the green house was demolished and the carriage house was moved. We have changed our request from 4 units to 3 units. Also, there has been a change in ownership. The neighbors seem very pleased with the work the new owners are doing, when this is finished it will be a unique part of Lafayette st. This is a large house situated in an R-3 district and to best utilize it would be to have more than two families there. The front will be preserved, this will preserve a great deal of historical architecture. There is more than adequate parking. It is a project worthy of your vote. David Jaquith, Architect: we went through the house with the Historic Commission, they are concerned that we would destroy any of historic features inside the building. We will not change the integrity of the structure. On the first floor there will be one unit, the second floor there will be two, going into the third floor. Speaking in favor. William Tracey, 1 Laurel St. , originally I was opposed, as time went on changes were made, I looked at it with the view that we were going to get the best we could, to be able to preserve the character of the neighborhood as much as we can is the best we can. The house in question is a beautiful home and can not be maintained as a single family. The plans are the best under the circumstances. I have visited the site and they are doing very fine work. I feel comfortable with the situation. Leo Cretian, 9 Linden St. , I have been in the neighborhood for 38 years, I like the neighborhood and I like the structures that are going up now. Big improvement. Lionel Duprey, 9 Linden St. , satified with whats going on. Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner, we have all spent about two years on this project and I think the work that is going to be done will add to whats taking place now. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: it appears the developer is doing first rate job. I would now be in favor of the three units. • Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the special permit and variance to allow three unit condominium on condition on condition building comply with State Building Code, adhere to regulations of the Fire Dept. , a building permit be obtained, meeting any conditions of the Planning Board and the Historic Commission and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit. Mr. LaBrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1986 page seven 7 St. Paul St. - Paul Connolly • Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance to allow a single family dwelling to rent five rooms and a variance from parking in this B-4 district. Mr. Fleming read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating the property was not in compliance with laws relative to smoke detectors. Mr. Fleming then read a petition of opposition signed by fifteen (15) neighbors and abutters. (on file) Mr. Connolly represented himself. This is a single family home on a street that has only four family homes on it. They all park in front of my house. I am retired and on disability, social security. I bought this about eight (8) years ago. I have foster kids, people think it's great to take in foster kids as long as it's not in their neighborhood. Unfortunately some of these kids were from DSS and there were some problems. I then had some foreign students. I feel I have contributed by being a foster parent and by having foreign students, I know some of the people didn' t like it. Now I need the additional income or else I will have to sell my home, which is what I am sure they want me to do. I will agree to any conditions the Board wants. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Jeannette Godder, 4 Roslyn St. , for three years we went through hell with these foster kids. Right now he has three men in the house plus three students. There is only one stairway. We have had numerous arguments with him regarding the parking. Edward Bernier, 18 St. Paul St. , I have 150 feet in front of my house and have problem parking. He says he can park six (6) cars but I don' t think he could fit four (4) there. Mr. Hacker: if we grant this and he did not have the required parking, he could not occupy it. Mr. Bernier: this is a very narrow, very congested street. Lionel Godder, 2 Roslyn Ct. , I have lived there all my life, there is a parking problem. We have had this problem for years and it is getting worse. In rebuttal: Mr. • Connolly, there is a parking problem but it is not caused by me. If the Board says not to rent to anyone with a car then none of my boarders will be allowed to have a car. This is a hardship because of the increase in taxes. Mr. Fleming: the neighbors claim you presently have six (6) people living there now. Are you asking us to add to that, if not, you would have to get rid of one of the tenants. Mr. Hacker: if you were using this as foster home, which is commendable, and you have been doing it for years, why are you here tonight? Mr. Connolly: I received a letter complaining. Mr. Hacker: are you sure you have six parking spaces? yes. Mr. Hacker: I ahve a copy of an ad that was given to me. (he read the ad, on file) It clearly says no parking, where does the parking come from? Mr. Connollyy: I just did not want anyone with cars. Mr. Hacker: this is a small neighborhood and there is a conflict. I have a problem with this. Mr. Strout: you have five bedrooms and six plus living there, where are they staying? Mr. Connolly: I have four bedrooms on the second floor and one on the first floor and someone is staying in the finished basement. Mr. Strout: did you get a permit for the room in the basement? No. Mr. Fleming: if we limited this to under five and no on street parking, would that cure your concerns? Mr. Godder: you can make promises, but who makes sure they are kept? Mr. Hacker: I have a problem granting this when they have been doing something illegal, we would be setting a precedent, we would be saying, go ahead and do what you want, if you get caught come to the Board of Appeal and they will make it legal. Mr. Fleming: I agree with you, but what if he were to marry a woman with a car and she had children that had cars, we would be faced with the same parking problem but it would be legal. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant a Special Permit to allow requested use and a Variance from parking on condition, four off street parking spaces be maintained, meet all requirements of the Salem • Fire Prevention Bureau, obtain all necessary licenses and permits, obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Labrecque seconded. Messrs. , Fleming, Luzinski and Labrecque voted in favor of the motion, Messrs. , Hacker and Strout voted in opposition. Failing to carry required four votes, petition is denied. DENIED MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1986 page eight • 6 Nichols/12 Hansen Sts. - Delta Design Buildings, Inc. Petitioners are requesting Variances and Special Permits from all density and setbacks to allow construction of twenty two residential units within the foot- print of the existing factory buildings in this R-2 district. Mr. Fleming read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating they had ,no objection to the granting of this application. Attorney John Serafini Sr. represented the petitioners. He displayed parking plans to the Board and the Assemblage. This is presently a machine shop and leather shop; these will be eliminated and replaced with 22 new residential units with plenty of parking. This will update the entire area. He submitted a petition in favor, signed by 46 neighbors and abutters. These will be affordable units, the property will be landscaped. He displayed pictures of the existing property. We will keep much of the footprint, as much as we can. Both the current uses are nonconforming, they are grandfathered in. Speaking in favor: Councillor O'Leary, Mr. Milo and Attorney Serafini approached me about this project and I think they have gone about it the right way, they went all around and spoke with neighbors. This will be a big improvement for the neighborhood. This also has togo to the Planning Board. I have had no calls from anyone opposed to this, I am in favor. Len Jodoin, Hansen St. , I am in favor but I am concerned with the chemicals. I have contacted the Health dept. Mr. Hacker explained the process of Site Plan Review. I believe that problem will be taken care of. What we are doing is preliminary, they have a long way to go. Also speaking in favor: Robert Gravel, 19 Hansen St. ; Catherin Gravel, 19 Hansen St. ; Mr. Spicker, 23 Albion St. ; Mr. Hennessy, Putnam St. ; Mr. Butler, 32 Albion St. , Yvonne Jodoin, 8 Hansen St. ; Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming: do you have any renderings? Yes, displayed them to the Board. Mr. Fleming; why 22? That is the minimum we could have and still make it economically feasible, these will be condominiums. The area in the center of the buildings will be an atrium. Mr. Fleming: will there be public access. Mr. Serafini: That would be difficult to this project. Mr. Fleming: what is the average size of the units? Mr. Serafini: mostly one bedroom, some twos and some studios, they will be about 139 thousand dollars and up. Mr. Hacker: I think what we have done before when it involves property that had been used for some public use is to have it remain public. Mr. Fleming: I appreciate the work that has gone into this, it will be good for the neighborhood and the City as a whole, I would be in favor. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition all construction conform to State Building Code, Salem Fire Prevention Code, all plans be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to issuance of the building permit, work be in accordance with plans on file, a building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained for each unit. Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Hearing adjourned at 10:45 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday, October 29, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, `// 00, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk 4�,,ON a 01i#u of galem, 'Mttssar4usetts PnxrD of 4ettl ll1,M6� BOARD OF APPEAL MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 1986 A hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, October 29, 1989 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 October 15, 22, 1986. Present at the hearing were: Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming, Hacker, Luzinski and Strout. Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. , by the Chairman, James Hacker. 158-162 Derby St. - C. Anderson Inge This petition was continued from the August 27, 1986 hearing. Attorney John Serafini Sr. , representing the petitioner requested Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant this request, Mr. Strout seconded. The Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition to be withdrawn. WITHDRAWN 31 Union/18 Herbert Sts. - Paul Carr -• \ A communication from Attorney John Serafini Sr. , representing the petitioner was received and read into the record, requesting permission to withdraw Mr. Carr's petition. As the request was made prior to the hearing being opened, there was no vote taken, petition was withdrawn. Mr. Hacker advised the assemblage of the withdrawal and informed them that should Mr. Carr re-apply, it would be advertised again and abutters would be notified. WITHDRAWN CHAMPLAIN RD. - John & Cynthia Buonfiglio Petitioners are requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit to divide existing lot into two lots (A & B ) and to construct a single family on lot B and to allow increase in nonconformity of the existing Building on lot B. Property is located and an RC/R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Department which stated the existing building has no current compliance with MGL relative to smoke detectors. The Fire Department had no objections to the granting of the petition if certain conditions were adhered to. (on file) Attorney Robert Ledoux, 49 Federal St. , represented the petitioners. The property is owned by Lucy Belfiore, the petitioners are the daughter and Bon- in-law. The parcel contains a total of 35,250+ Sq. Ft. The Assessors has the parcel as 26 Read St. which is where the existing building is, but the proposed dwelling will be on the end of Read St. on a paper Street known as Champlain Rd. Under the current zoning, because of the Residential Conservation Zone, this does not meet the requirements. Lot B will contain 25000 sq.ft. , lot A will have 10,000 sq.ft. As you know, the Planning Board held an information meeting regarding proposed changes in the By-Laws, under the proposed changes, the new lot will not • 'i be in an RC zone, but will be in an R-1 zone and it would comply, we would then come for the existing home and as you can see, this is a nonconforming structure. MINUTES - OCTOBER 29, 1986 page two Champlain Rd. - Continued • Under the proposal, this will be divided and there will be no further development in the area. This has gone to the Planning Board on a Plan B and they have approved it. ' -The wetlands'were'created by..the .City. of.Salem when-they stopped up a stream or a brook. Under the plan, we would have two lots, one lot would continue to be nonconforming. Due to the topography of the land, we could not put the house any further back. The family has owned this land since 1948. The hardship is the wetlands which were created by the City, the topography which does not allow and different placement of the dwelling. This would not be detrimental and would not derogate from the intent of the ;Ordinance. If this is granted tonight, we still have to go to the Planning Board for a Plan C, and we would have to go to the Conservation Commission. Speaking in favor: Albert Tremblay, Salem, Mrs. Belfiore was my land lady for years, nice lady. Shirley Dennis, 4 Champlain Rd. , in favor. Mr. Ledoux submitted petition in favor signed by six neighbors. Speaking in opposition. Stephen Lovely, 14 Story St. , 90% of this lot is in RC district. He submitted a map showing the current zoning. The entire lot has been a wetland for many years, was not created by the City. If the line is divided the way it is proposed, more than .half the existing would be in the RC zone, it does not meet any of the requirements of the RC district or the R-1 district. There is swamp encroachment. Joan Lovely, 14 Story Street, also opposed. In rebuttal. Attorney Ledoux: We have had discussions with the City Planner and this lot will become an R-1 district. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Lovely, what would be offensive if a house were to be built on this land? Mr. Lovely: I have flooding in my basement, this lot was set aside to prevent this area from being built on. I don' t want to see a house there. Mr. Fleming: I seem to remember that all living space must be above 4 feet of the 100 years flood plain. This is level. Mr. Hacker: if we did grant • this and it did not conform, they couldn' t get a permit. Mr. Lovely: these areas have been areas that flood. Mr. Fleming: I don' t find this in the Zoning Ordinance, I don' t think it is a zoning issue, the Planning would deal with it. Mr. Fleming: what if they came back after the adoption of the new zoning? He would then be asking for a lot less relief, would your position be the same? Mr. Lovely: probably not. Mr. Hacker: we have to deal with the law as it is now. Hearing is closed. Mr. Fleming: to me, the City action would be the hardship and I think I could defend the hardship in this case, but, I am not sure if the purchase of the land was before of after the City action. That is one fact we are missing tonight and I would like to know. Attorney Ledoux: are you suggesting we continue this? Mr. Fleming: yes I am. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Kavanaugh if he had anything in his file he could get quickly. He did not. Mr. Fleming: we should have this knowledge before we vote on this. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Ledoux, would you have any problem with our continuing this, would you sign a waiver regarding the time requirements. Mr.Ledoux: no problem. Mr. Bencal made a motion to continue this until the November 12, 1986 meeting. Mr. Fleming seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL NOVEMBER 12, 1986. • MINUTES - OCTOBER 29, 1986 page three • 23 Dunlap St. - Kenneth Andrews The petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and the communication from the Fire Prevention Bureau which state the existing structure has no compliance with laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Andrews represented himself, he submitted plot plan to the Board. Explained that he felt the R-1 zone in that area was strange, it is only in his section that it is R-1 . Felt he had adequate parking. Will be no changes to the exterior of the building. The entire area is made up of two and three family dwellings. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Ed Bennet, 21 Dunlap St. , I don' t think he has adequate parking. My house is deteriorating, I have broken windows and I think it is caused by the traffic, the vibrations from the driveway. I he took the pool out he might have room, just might. Betsey Bennett, 21 Dunlap St. , also opposed, same reasons. There was no rebuttal. Hearing closed. Mr. Fleming asked the Bennetts what type house they had. Mr. Bennett: three family, the other side of me is a three family, 1 don' t have any parking at my house. I have no driveway. Mr. Fleming: what is the hardship Mr. Andrews? Mr. Andrews: I don' t know, I don' t really understand the question. Mr. Fleming: are you planning on selling in the near future? Mr. Andrews: I have thought about it, but I was already in the process of this appeal before I thought of it. I am now in the process of selling and I am in to a Purchase and Sale Agreement with these people and it is contingent upon this being granted. Mr. Luzinski: is this hottopped? Mr. Andrews: it is slab cement until the back, then it is hottopped. Mr. Luzinski: it doesn' t look like there is room for a car. Mr. Fleming: I have a suggestion, I appreciate your • coming here tonight, but I think it would be more appropriate for the new owners to come to us and I think a withdrawal would be in order. Mr. Andrews: I'm not sure where I stand legally, I signed a P & S and I don' t want to violate the contract I have made with them. Mr. Fleming: would you like to call your lawyer? Mr. Strout: tell the people we told you withdraw and have them come back. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant petitioner leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN 30 Walter St. - Alberta & Ashley Hall Petitioners are requesting s Special Permit to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling and a Variance from parking requirements in this R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and the communication from the Fire Prevention Bureau stating the property was not in compliance with Laws relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Hall represented himself, would like to use the third floor for daughters, we can provide them with an apartment at a reasonable cost and help us all financially. Would be a family venture. No one appeared in favor. In opposition: Lawrence Bringle, 33 Walter St. , I have not seen the plans and I am concerned about the parking. He looked over the plans. My main concern is the congestion on this street. Mr. Hacker: would you be opposed if they provided parking? Mrs. Hall: there are five cars there now, my children live there now in the house. Mr. Hall: There are several three familys in the area. There is a four family in the area. Will be no changes to the outside. Mr. Bencal: do you have a floor plan? Mr. Hall: we have one but not with us. Mr. Fleming asked if they had a dispute with the neighbors, the Moustakis's regarding • the boundary line. Mr. Hacker: Thats irrelevant, the Moustakis's are not here tonight. Mr. Fleming: you say there are five (5) cars in your family, where were they parked last night. Mr. Hall: two in the yard, three in the street. MINUTES - OCTOBER 29, 1986 page four • 30 Walter St. - Alberta & Ashley Hall Mr. Bencal: I have worked out the parking spaces, and what he has presented tonight doesn!;t work at all. Mr. Hacker: the problem I have is not with any dispute he may have with ;the Moustakis's, if they were opposed they would be here. I am concerned with the five spaces shown, they don' t fit the legal requirements of the law. Mr. Fleming: I have a problem with'-this, the area has been impacted and to create another unit would derogate from the intent of that neighborhood. Mr. Bencal: I concur, it is the most dense area in North Salem, it is a (very difficult area. Mr. Strout: I don't think you could get four cars there, but if we could make him put five spaces there he whould be helping the situation. Mr. Luzinski: I think you would have to remove the garage to get five cars there. Mr. Bencal made a motion grant the petition as requested. Mr. Fleming seconded. The Board voted 0-5 against the motion, the motion having failed to garner four affirmative votes is defeated and the request is denied. DENIED UNANIMOUSLY 20 Gakview Ave. - Albert A. Tremblay Petitioner, owner of the property, requests Variances from density and setbacks to allow the property to be divided into two lots and to allow construction of a single family dwelling on the lot identified as B on the plans submitted. The property is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Strout excused himself from sitting on • this petition-as he, 'in':his capacity as a contractor, felt there was a conflict of interest. Mr. Hacker explained to the petitioner he would need a unanimous vote in order to have this granted, he gave him the opportunity to withdraw and come back at a later date. Mr. Tremblay said he would proceed with a four man board. Mr. Trembley, representing himself, submitted revised plans. He explained when purchased there was three lots and he would like to divide them into two lots so he son could build a home. You can vote for this or you can reject it, this is what I am asking for, I don' t know what else to say, would like to divide and do the best I can for my family.- :No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Rene Lamarre, 23 Oakview Ave. Originally this was three lots. When the Assessors notified the abutters, they only notified the abutters to number 20. I would like the Board to delay any action until all the abutters are notified. Mr. Fleming- explained the notification process. We can' t say .this-is deficient notice, we are directed by MGL 40A which does not say we have to notify directly across the street. I don't know if this is a standard rule of the Assessors or not, but it you have a problem with this, or you disagree, you can appeal our decision to the courts. Mr. Lemarre looked over the plans. He stated there had been some liberties taken with regard to backfilling. Mr. Hacker: all we can deal`with tonight is what we have before us, is it a good plan or is it a bad plan. Mr. Lemarre: I would like to have more time to see what is going on there, I would like you to put off a decision till I have a chance to go over everything. Mr.-'.Hacker: if he is enfringing on any requirements of any City Board or Departments, he would be required to seek relief from these Board, we could make it a conditions that he seek the necessary permits from any and all departments, such as the Conservation Commission. Mr. Fleming: if he is within 100 feet of the wetlands he has to get an Order of Conditions from the ConCom. Mr. Hacker: even if we didn'.t make it a condition • when they went for their building permit they would be told to go to the ConCom. MINUTES - OCTOBER 29, 1986 page five • 20 Oakview Ave. - Continued If we put conditions on this petition this evening these are conditions he will have to live up to. Mr. Lemarre: Are we going to put a house there and continue use the the site as a dump. Mr. Hacker; we could make a condition that curbing be put in and the street be finished to the end. Could also require ;the lot be cleaned up prior to a building permit being issued.and that construction be completed within a -,certain length of time. Mr. Fleming: that is a reasonable lot. Mr. Lemarre: he has his friends dumping there and I would like to see that stopped. In rebuttal: Mr. Tremblay: I don' t know what I am going to rebut on, I don' t mean to offend anyone. Mr. Luznski: how long will it take to put the house up? Mr. Bencal: once the permits are issued, how long? Mr. Fleming: can you do it in a year. Mr. Tremblay: I can do it in 9 months, will do landscaping. Mr. Fleming; the problem is the way you have kept the lot so far, it has not helped the neighborhood. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition construction be completed as shown on the plans submitted, construction be completed twelve months from the issuance of a building permit; both lots be landscaped and grassed; all requirements of the Slaem Fire Department relative to fire prevention be complied with; property street numbering be obtained from the City of Salem Assessors Office; curbing, sidewalk and street construction must be accomplished by the petitioner, construction comply with Mass. Building Code; all necessary building permits and Certificates of Occupancy must be obtained; if constructibn:.is not completed in compliance with the terms of this decision, twelve months from the issuance-of the building permit, these variances are to be considered null and void. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Under discussion. Mr. Fleming asked Mr. Lemarre if he would like to see a house • there, he responded he would have not problem, would be in favor. Mr. Fleming: this is a classic case of hardship, I would be in favor with the conditions we discussed. The Board voted unanimously, 4-0, in favor of the motion to grant. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 5 Balcomb St. - Richard & Linda LaTouch Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to convert a two family 'dwelling into a three family dwelling. Property is located in a B-1/R-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Department which stated the property has no current compliance. Mr. LaTouch represented himself, this will be a three room unit. We bought the house three years abot, it is a two family, five rooms on the first, five on the second. It is now occupied by my sister and grandmother. We need to do this to keep the family ,together. My grandmother is getting old and I know my sister cannot keep up five rooms. He submitted a petition in favor signed by seven abutters. Right now in the rear there are three parking spaces, I can put five spaces, would have to make the additional two spaces. Since I submitted the floor plan, I have changed my mind as to the location of the kitchen area, I think it would be better in another location. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: do you repair vehicles in the area. No, one of my abutters does. Mr. Strout: will this be a two bedroom? No, we are just transposing the kitchen and the living room. Mr. Strout: any exterior work? New sky'_lights, no;ddrmers. Mr. Fleming: both egress on the inside? Yes. Mr. Strout: do you have to got through any apartments to get to the third floor? Yes, right now the stairway • goes into the second floor and it will have to be reversed. Mr. Fleming: you will MINUTES - OCTOBER 29, 1986 page six • 5 BalcombSt. - Continued make and maintain five parking spaces. Yes Mr. Fleming: you showed the abutters your plans and the parking? yes. Mr. Hacker: if they were opposed I am sure they would be here. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the request for a Special Permit to convert a two familycdwelling into a three family dwelling on condition a legal building permit be obtained, construction be done as per plans submitted and amended at the meeting reflecting changes made to kitchen/bedroom/living room; five (5) legal size parking spaces be maintained on site; all construction conform to all applicable provisions of the Mass. building code; all provisions of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to; a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Fleming seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 462 Highland Ave,.. ---Paul Sudenfield Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming use and a variance ffom minimum frontyyard setback requirements to allow construction of two additional bays in this B-2 district. Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating they had no objection. . Erling Falck, Architect, represented the petitioner.s In 1984 we were allowed to build Meineke Muffler, we were granted a variance. He displayed plans to the Board members and the assemblagee Business being such, the additional bays are a necessity. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Hacker: the only problem I have is going closer to the lot line. Mr. Sudenfield: • there is nothing behind the building but ledge. Mr. Hacker: just don't like to expand towards the front. Mr. Fleming: I don' t think there will be any real impact into that area with these additional bays. Mr. Hacker: I am still concerned about encroaching on the front, if we allow it there we could be setting a precedent. Me.tEleming: if the City had not taken part of his land for an easement, he would not have to go into the front. Mr. Hacker asked Mr. Sudenfield if one bay would be sufficient. Mr'. Sudenfield said it wouldnnot, he also told the Board that if he could have, he would have located the building differently on the lot. The City's easement limited him. Mr. Fleming: if someone questioned why we allowed this petitioner do encroach on the front we could always explain about the easement. Mr. Strout: could you move the reception area up front and put the bays there? Mr. Falck: not, the bearing walls are there and to remove them would be a problem. To try to build in the rear, we run into a large amount of ledge and we would have to remove the tanks. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit to extend nonconforming use and a Variance from front yard setback requirements to allow construction of two additional bays on condition a legal building permit be obtained, no painting or auto body repair be done on premises, all construction be done as per the plans submitted, plans be provided to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau prior to the issuance of a building permit, all construction bonformito all applicable provisions of the State building code, the Fire prevention code, City ordinances and MGL relative to fire safety. Mr. Fleming sedodded. The voted 4-1 (Mr. Hacker opposed) in favor. GRANTED 4-1 Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held Wednesday, November 12, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. • R.espe fiully submitted, 00, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of:ithe Board