1988-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (2) gFy
of 4alem' 'Massur4use##s
° p s Puxrb of tApteztl
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL JUNE 15 , 1988
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, June 15
1988 at 7 : 00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the
hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June
1, 8 , 1988 . Abutters and other interested persons were notified
by mail.
Members present: Richard Bencal, James Fleming, Edward Luzinski
John Nutting, Peter Strout, Arthur Labracque.
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman, James Fleming.
Minutes of the May 18, 1988 were accepted as recorded.
Vice Chairman, James Fleming thanked Lorraine Devoe and Elizabeth
Foley for helping out while Brenda Sumrall, the regular secretary
is seriously ill, and also welcomed John Nutting the newest member
to the Board of Appeal.
ORGANIZATION MEETING; The name of JAMES FLEMING was placed in
nomination for the office of CHAIRMAN by Richard Bencal and
seconded by Edward Luzinski . There being no further nominations
r JAMES FLEMING was unanimously ELECTED CHAIRMAN. The name of RICHARD
BENCAL was placed in nomination for the office of VICE-CHAIRMAN
by Edward Luzinski and seconded by Peter Strout. There being no
further nominations , RICHARD BENCAL was unanimously ELECTED to the
office of VICE-CHAIRMAN. Discussion prior to the election of
Secretary, Mr . Nutting asked if Mr. Bencal could read the applications
so he could get a handle on how the Board carried out its affairs .
Mr. Bencal agreed to do so up until the time he had to leave. The
name of JOHN NUTTING was placed in nomination for the office of SECRETARY
by Peter Strout and seconded by Edward Luzinski . There being no
further nominations JOHN NUTTING was unanimously ELECTED to the
office of SECRETARY.
2 GOODHUE STREET - JAMES H. WIENER
Continued Petition of James H. wiener, Mr. Bencal read the
application, voting on this Petition would be Bencal, Fleming
Luzinski, Strout and Labracque.
Mr . Wiener, the Petitioner has hired an attorney and is asking the
Board Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice so he can submit new
plans and address the many problems . Mr . Bencal will vote in the
negative, because Mr . Wiener has had sufficient time in which to
prepare new plans . Mr. Strout made the motion to allow Mr . Wiener
Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr . Luzinski seconded, the
vote was 4-1 .
•' GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
J +
289-293 ESSEX STREET - ESSEX HOUSE ASSOCIATED, INC.
Remanded back to the Board for reconsideration. Mr . Nutting would
vote on this petition. Attorney Lindaur represented the petitioner,
MINUTES 6/15/88 Continued
Page 2
�r..� 289-293 Essex Street
presented the Board with pictures of the building, wants to increase
�. -.! units from 41 to 45, original plans included Commercial space, as a
result of many meetings it was decided that there would be no
commercial space and also the financial arrangement does not allow
for mixed use. We were denied by this Board and we appealed and
thus it was remanded back to the Board for reconsideration. Mr .
Bencal asked if the City of Salem was represented by Solicitor
Michael O'Brien. The answer was yes . The building is going up on
schedule. We seek the Variance again there is a problem, there will
be 31 parking spaces underneath the building,municipal parking in
the evening hours . Without the commercial use it will decrease the
in and out of parking ordinarily involved. The plans presented have
43 units revised from 45 . What we are seeking is putting in 3
additional units instead of four . Councillor Oleary spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Luzinski asked to review the parking.
Elaine Finbury adressed the question, 31 underground spaces , entrance
at rear of Crombie St. Parking lot. The project has a grant from
Office of Economic & Community Development (CDAG) . $400 , 000 to be
used to improve the Crombie St. Parking lot. The new units are 2
bedrooms . First time home buyers program the State has conceived
allows with 58 deposit to qualify for first time home morgaging
financing rate 2 - 2118 lower than the banks longer term 30 years .
13-15 units are set aside for this , one bedroom 110 , 000 - 115 , 000,
129 , 000 for 2 bedrooms . Top prices are the 5 units , Penthouse,
175 , 000 . Housing Authority could purchase some of the units . Mr .
• Nutting asked about the easement. Mr. Kavanaugh, Planning Dept.
answered, they have the easement from the City of Salem, right of
way through the Crombie Street lot. Mr. Bencal; should the Board
be looking at developers for the funding of these second tiers . Mr.
Kavanaugh explained the elimination of these funds for parking, the
Council did make it clear that the funds were necessary for these
projects and was encouraged to come back to the Council in the fall
when the cash might be available. Mr . Lindaurspoke on price as
affordable to what people were paying now for rent. Mr. Bencal make
the motion to Grant the petition subject to the following conditions .
1 . That the mode of vehicular access be approved by the City
Planner. 2 . That thirty-one parking spaces be maintained on site.
3 . That the number of affordable living units remain in conformity
with the terms of the Applicable Community Development Action Grant.
4 . That a Certificate of Occupancy :::be obtained prior to occupancy.
5 . That automatic smoke detectors be installed throughout the
newly constructed building. 6 . That proper numbering be obtained
from the City Assessor ' s Office. 7 . That all applicable requirements
of the Salem Fire Department, relative to fire safety, be adhered to.
8 . That all construction be done as per the plans submitted to
the Board of Appeals . 9 . That the petitioners cooperate with the
City on the improvement of off-street parking facilities in the
area, including the potential tiering of the Sewall Street Lot .
10 . That the petitioners dismiss its lawsuit filed as a result
of the Boards original decision, in a form approved by the City
` . Solicitor. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted 4-1 in favor,
Mr. Nutting voting in the negative.
PETITION GRANTED
MINUTES - 6/15/88 Continued
Page 3
r
• 50 GALLOWS HILL ROAD - STEPHEN & PAULA TASSINARI
Petitioners are requesting a Variance from side setback requirements
to allow construction of a deck. Mr. Bencal read the application
and one piece of correspondence from the Fire Marshall, no objection.
Petitioner, owner, Stephen Tassinari explained the plans , if he
had to do over kitchen and put door in back it would be very costly.
Door is now on side. Councillor O'Leary spoke in favor. No one
spoke in opposition. Mr . Luzinski: the door that comes out of
kitchen are there stairs? Mr . Tassinari: there were stairs, were
rotten, I removed them. The deck will be same width as was there.
Mr. Bencal : what prohibits you from putting a door in back? Mr .
Tassinari : Refridgerator and electrical would be costly and also
plumbing. Mr. Bencal made the motion with the following conditions:
1 . As per plans submitted. 2 . As per dimensions of plans submitted
be adhered to. 3 . Apply for all legal permits . Mr . Nutting seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
Mr. Fleming: Mr. Bencal is now excused, I appoint Mr. Arthur Labrecque
as a voting member.
32 MARCH STREET - MARK PETIT/JEFF MORRIS
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot size, frontage and
setbacks to allow division into two lots . Mr. Nutting read
application, letter from Fire Marshall, no objection. Mr. Richard
Mailhoit, Engineer, representing the petioners , need a variance for
i an access to lot one, proposed right of way. Lot two coming in from
March Street. The lot areas are less than what the present zoning
requires , the plans shows that the lots in the area are smaller
some are 5000 sq. ft. some even less , ours are 11, 00 , 12 , 000 sq. ft. ,
we feel its an attractive location for 2 single family homes with a
water view, a good use of the land. Mr . Nutting: whats the location,
is this the last house on the street. Mr . Mailhoit: its a vacant
lot, the State does not own this parcel, it is near the two houses
that are to .remain, driveways are 16 . 4 and the other is 10 feet.
James Santo, abutter to an• abutter has no objection, feels it would
be nice to have something in that field finally. No one spoke in
opposition. Mr . Luzinski: How large are the single family units?
Mr. Mailhoit: 14,00 sq. ft. Mr. Fleming: 2 levels 2800 livable
area, access deeded will have to go to Planning Board, the intention
of the petitioners to live in houses is commendable. Mr. Nutting:
Do you presently own the land? Mr . Petit/Jeff Morris : Yes we do.
Mr. Nutting: Each lot will be at least 10 , 000 sq. ft. , good size
lot. Mr . Mailhoit: Yes . Mr . Strout made the motion to Grant the
Petition with the following conditions : 1 . To obtain Building
Permits . 2 . Comply with State & Local Fire Ordinances . 3 . Acquire
proper numbering from the City Assessors . 4 . To be built as per
plans submitted with deeded rights of way. 5 . A Certificate of
Occupancy be obtained. Mr . Luzinski seconded.
J UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
�1•11 Mr. Fleming called a 5 minute recess .
MINUTES - 6/15/88 Continued
Page 4
'r. 191-211 WASHINGTON STREET/29 DERBY STREET - MINOAN REALTY TRUST
• '� Petitioner is requesting a Variance from Section VI , Table III of
the Zoning Ordinance and from parking to allow construction of
a three story building. Mr . Nutting read the application and a letter
from the Fire Marshall , no objection.
Attorney William F. Quinn representing the petitioner, owner of
parcel of land adjacent to adjacent to the Eatons Drug building
which we will refer to this evening. Mr . & Mrs . Nondas Lagonakis ,
Robin Wonderlick of Scagliotti Architectural firm are here and will
be able to answer any of your questions . Presented plans , Minoan
Realty trust owns this property and a vacant parking lot on the other
side of Dodge St. In 1985 a trust consisting of Mr . Lagonakis and
other prominent members of the community including myself and Bill
Tinti, purchase the property from Margaret Chisholm which had been
built after the Salem Fire. The building is 2 structures although
it looks like one. The 2 story structure has always been used
commercially. Aproximately .15 years later this structure which has
been incorporated is presently located at Eatons Drug Store. When Minoan
Realty Trust acquired the building in 1985 it was 50% occupied. The
Building has deteriorated._._ extensively both inside and out, adjacent
to the building was an abrandoned grocery store most recently known
as Mr. Grocer. This building which were proposing is smaller than
the grocery store. This is actually 2 recorded lots, one lot the
Hathorne Building and alley betweenthe buildings , the other lot is
where the grocery store stood. Minoan Realty Trust acquired the
S: . MetCom Building aproximately 2 months ago, a first class renovated
office building fully occupied. To complicate matters a little more,
this is on a lot that has on site parking, the vacant lot is a
separately recorded lot which has always gone with Folsom' s which
is now closed. Mr. Lagonakis acquired this property from the
bankruptcy court and this parking lot. The need for a loan and
through the help of the:City ' s Redevelopment commission, and also
the need for occupancy, an interior renovation of the building and
the systems was undertaken .in 1986 . There are two vestabules along
Washington Street that provide access to store fronts , and second
floor, new elevators were installed. Exterior renovation of the
entire building is needed. The building has now 85% occupancy, and
some leases have been extended. The second floor is fully tenant.
The project were presenting now and have presented to other Boards ,
were appearing before the Planning Board tomorow evening. We have
met with the Site Review Board and more meetings will be forth
coming. It is a key location in Salem and keeping in mind its zone
of B-5 , business use has been encouraged. It is appropriate for the
site, the City has strongly urged us to keep the commercial use.
The proposal that we have put together is basically dictated by a
tenant, Carlson Realty has worked closely with us for 2 years .
Walgreens , Inc. is a National Midwestern Corp, who maintain aprox-
imately 500 retail drug stores . This general location is what they
wanted. An additional loan was given to the developer for the
demolition and grading of the lot corporating the planning to blend
-'• with the area. Walgreens signed lease for 20 years with a 20 years
extention and it had to be 11, 300 sq. ft ' , we negotiated on how
long and how wide and also one site parking. It is a retail drug
store with additional shoping service, some food; milk, eggs , etc.
MINUTES - 6/15/88 Continued
Page 5
191-211 Washington St./29 New Derby St.
• A project like this cannot work, and cannot be financed without
tenents . In December of 1987 signed a lease with Walgreens on the
condition that all the approving bodies of the City of Salem approve
the plan. The structure that we are propossing is a 3 story building
about 4 ft. taller than the ballisters at Eatons Drug Store,
Walgreens will be on first flooraccess from the Market Area, on site
parking. The second and third floor are marketed for office space.
This is a very high class commercial project. Were thinking of enclosing
roof structure .between the two buildings with entrance to both
buildings, atrium. To address Parking, we need for both buildings
although no on site parking in a B-5 .zoning is required. Mr . Fleming:
Have you considered Section 7 , page 50 . Attorney Auinn: I repeat
no parking required in a Commercial B-5 district, we have worked
with Walgreens and have provided 14 parking spaces and 4 for
employees . This plan has incorporated 16 parking spaces, bearing
in mind the City' s plan to cut through Riley plaza will increase
parking, and on street metered parking will serve very well for
people visiting the structure. Under the parking regulations it is
not allowed, without a vote of the Board of Appeal, to have parking
any closer than the lot line, backing out in a public way. We
tried to negotiate with Walgreens to accept parallel parking we
changed the plans to squeeze it in. We needed 50% of lot coverage
it is 908 lot coverage to get 12 , 000 sq. ft . that Walgreens insisted
on haveing. On site parking meets the needs of Walgreens, The only
• alternative to comply would be to eliminate the walkway of which the
Community Development people thought it extremely important. The
Variance were asking for is to.. build right to the lot line and
to allow roofing from building to building and parking relief . To
have parking that extends to lot line and back out onto a public way.
The loading platform: things are delivered to the store by semi-
tractor trailer one or twice a month, trying to accomodate Walgreens
and not block a public way. The truck would come in and back up
and fit itself in this location. No basement, the building will go
on a slab, because of the South River Canal . The timing is very
important, we have to give Walgreens a date of September 1989 , and
this can be done in phases . The intention is to build it all with
financing. The City has been given $850 , 00 grant to do landscape
around this building, sidewalk at Dodge Street and runs all the
way down to Picekering Wharf : We want to make this whole project
a showplace, in the next decade, and have great hopes for future
developments . Mr. Nutting: How many employees? Mr. Quinn: a
significant number... Complete exterior renovation of the Hawthorne
Building, to what it originally looked liked, and entire signage
program. It is our belief within 2 years we have 2 buildings in
complete service. Mr . Nutting: Still the parking question. Mr.
Fleming: What I would .like to hear is a trade off, what we have
here is a developer with land that could provide parking. I would
like to talk more about parking in a B-5 district. The part of
the Ordinance that hangs me up her is "new construction" . Attorney
-• Quinn: The Prince Building also had an adjacent lot and that was
not part of the permitting requirements . Mr. Fleming: You are also
lucky to have an adjacent lot and we don' t hear anything about the
dedication of that lot for this project. Parking is still a problem,
MINUTES - 6/15/88 Continued
Page 6
191-211 Washington Street/29 New Derby Street
_• youve heard petitions tonight and there are stacks that we have been
criticized about. Mr . Quinn: None are required at all, were looking
at a building that the use is allowed , that purpose legally requires
no parking. That decision was made and included into policy in terms
of public purposes, commercial development down twon, provision
of public parking, its dlose to a highway-Highland Ave. and provided
on the site. Reasons : this project will be built without any
provisions of the other lots because it restricts our plans of
development of the entire area. The whoe two blocks is the same
entity, its to early to know what the entire plan will be, we need a
little flexibility so we don't have to come to the Board to have
something revoked later on. .This needs to be done, were trying to
respond as best we can at this time. Mr . Fleming: does the loading
set up here meet the requirements? Attorney Quinn: yes were
providing loading as required. Mr . Fleming: what happens to Eatons?
Attorney Quinn: The Blodgett family who are well known owned Eatons
for 40 years, in 1985 a family by the name DuRochelle from Framingham
purchased the Eatons storesy even before we made plans they needed
a firm committment, they had only 2 years left on the old lease and we
agreed to sign a lease for a'• 5 year term, and we would guarantee
them a spot. I- was told that I misunderstood and they would not
renegotiate the lease, they would pay no additional rent, that
we would talk again .in 3 years . Now the 3 years are up, when Walgreens
approached us and. would not sign a lease if there was another drugstore
• under same ownership. We notified Eatons , allowing their lease to
expire without offering them a new lease. These people want to stay
in downtown Salem and we are presently negotiating with them on the
Dexter Block. We will completely renovate the Dexter Block for
there future needs . Replacing Eatons will be Bay Bank who has shown
and interest in locating -in Salem. Market rate is between 12 and
15 dollars a sq. ft. These are representations fo our basic plan. We
have designed a brick structure that mimics the structure of downtown
Salem. That plan has been reviewed by the Design Review Board, the
common area between the buildings is an issue not resolved at this
time. Robin Wonderlick spoke on height, building would line up
slight decline towards the Eatons Building, building would connect
but has not been designed yet. The following spoke in favor: Councillor
Nowak, Chairman of Redevopment Joan Boudreau, 407 Lafayette St. ,
Joan Gormalley, 236 Lafayette St. Chamber of Commerce, and Councillor
O'Leary. No one spoke in opposition. Mr . Luzinski agrees about
the parking problem, bu the but feels the developer will eventually
will have to use that space for parking. Mr. Nutting: the difference
of opinion on the Ordinance. for parking in a B-5 . Mr. Kavanaugh:
addressing the Ordinance-non residential uses in a B-5 regarding
off-street parking the community will accept the responsibility for
off street parking in this district. Mr. Strout: whats unique about
this development is there is all the other land which will have to be
addressed up to by the developer . Mr . Nutting: I think its a very
good planto have it commercial instead of residential, Mr. Kavanaugh
• has done his homework. Mr. Kavanaugh: We can all look back 20 yrs .
from now and know there had to be a balance, we have all tried to
encourage and promote some decent retail space, encourage the
approval of this plan. Mr . Lagonakis : All of you know how I feel
about Salem, I came here 25 years ago , I love Salem it has been
very good to me, I have a lot in my mind to do for Salem, but the
market slides and real estate market. I like to do what I can,
better to do it this way, I want flexibility to do what Ihave to.
MINUTES 6/15/88 Continued
Page 7
191-211 Washington Street/29 New Derby Street
Mr. Fleming gave a stiring speech as to why he would vote for the
petition, with all the problems of parking in Salem, he would
leave it up to Mr. Quinn and Mr. Lagonakis to complete this project
and his decision was based on trust. Mr . Strout made the motion to
grant this petition with the following conditions . 1 . That the
petitioner obtain a Site Plan Permit from the Planning Board, a
building permit and all other required permits: 2 . That the
structure comply with all pertinent fire codes and regulations; 3 .
That a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 4 . That the structure
be built as per the plot plan submitted to the Board of Appeals ;
5. that the petitioner provide sixteen ( 16 ) on site parking spaces
as per the parking plan submitted to the Board of Appeals; 6 .
that proper street numbering for the structure be obtained from the
Assessors office, City of Salem. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
4 ALLEN STREET - DEAN BOUCHER
Petitioner request a Variance from density and setbacks to allow
construction of a 2 family dwelling. Mr. Nutting read the application,
and letter from the Salem Fire Marshall, no objection.
Mr. George Vallis representing the petitioner, Mr. Boucher has a
• purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Fleming: I represented the
Clark Realty, and if anyone has any objection to my moting on this
petition, I will remove myself from the Board. Mr. Vallis : I know
you will look at this petition objectively, No objection. The
developer proposes a 2 family, duplex, on this 3619 sq. ft. lot of
land. Almost every lot of in Salem is non-conforming on this new
zoning ordinance, Allen St. , Webb St. , This is one of the largest
in the area. Ten years ago a two family stood on this lot, they had
a fire, and for all intents and purposes now stands as a vacant
lot. It is an appropriate use for the neighborhood and wont create
a nuisance, we do have the required number of parking spaces .
There is a garage in the back. The hardship runs with the land
that is all there is . Mr. Boucher has done a wonderful job of
cleaning and maintaining the lot and has been awarded a commendation
from the Historical Commission. Mr . Boucher and his father have
done a lot of buildings in the City of Salem and would like to
continue to do so. Councillor Nowak and Beverly Harrison of 5
Allen St. both spoke in favor. Beverly Harrison also spoke in
opposition her only reservation is the parking otherwise in in favor.
Mr. Luzinski: Elavation of the house is taller than other houses,
questioning the height off the ground, is there living space in
basement. Mr. Boucher: maybe .a family room. Mr . Strout: where is
the other exit? Mr . Fleming: You've got to have something that shows
the means of egress , you ' l be encroaching sosmewhere. Mr. Strout:
we need to see something more specific. Mr . Vallis : Could I ask the
• Board to continue till the next meeting and bring in more detailed
plans . Mr. tuzinski moved to continue the petition till the June
29 , 1988 meeting. Mr. Labrecque seconded. Mr. Nutting voted in the
negative. 4-1 TO CONTINUE
Unanimously voted to adjourne, Meeting closed at 10 : 55 .
Resspectively submitted, Lorraine R. Devoe, Secret/a-r`ryy�protem
fitof Salem, �Ittssttchusetts
4
/min
PuxrD of 4veu1
r.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL JULY 29 , 1988
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held July 29 , 1988 at
7 : 00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing
have been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 15 ,
22, 1988 . Abutters and other interested persons were notified
by mail.
Members Present: James Fleming, Chairman, Richard Bencal, Vice
Chairman, John Nutting, Secretary, Edward
Luzinski , Arthur Labracque.
Meeting was called to order by Chairman, James Fleming, at which
time he appointed Arthur Labrecque a voting member .
Mr. Bencal: A motion to accept the July 15 , 1988 Minutes of the
meeting as recorded. Mr. Labracque seconded.
4 ALLEN STREET - DEAN BOUCHER
CONTINUED Petition of Dean Boucher for Variance from density and
setbacks to allow construction of a two family dwelling. Where
Mr. Bencal did not sit on this matter, since it is a continued
petition, it will be a four member board and you must have a four
affirmative vote in order to prevail .Attorney Vallis : I would like
to request to continue this matter till next meeting, July 20, 1988 .
Mr. Luzinski moved to continue the petition. Mr . Labracque
seconded, the vote was 4-0 .
UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO CONTINUE.
40 DERBY STREET - GLENN E. & SANDRA J. SOUCY
Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit from
set back requirements and lot coverage to allow construction of
a deck and swimming pool. Mr. Nutting read the application. Letters
in opposition from Councillor George Nowak, Letter from the Salem
Historical Commission stating violation. Letter from the Fire
Marshall stating no objection. Letter from Catherine M. Trayers ,
3 Allen St. , in opposition. Petition. from abutters on Allen St.
in opposition, Petition from abutters on Derby St . in approval .
Mr. & Mrs . Soucy, petitioner, owners : the pool has been up for
about a year and a half, no one has ever complained to us . Mr.
Bencal: Has any permits been taken out to construct this deck and
pool? Mrs . Soucy: No, we did not know. Mr. Fleming: 'May of "88"
you bought the house? Mrs . Soucy: Yes , I have lived there for
5 years , I was renting. Mr. Fleming: Can you tell us something
about the back yard? Mrs . Soucy: We have submitted drawings , the
back yard is small, the deck and the pool were put up by my husband
and brother-in-law, we made it so there would be access around
the pool in case of emergency, the stairs are locked when there ' s
no one there or we leave. On the side there is a cloths line and
rabbits _ for 4H, picnic table and grill, and a little garden. In
the back there is a 6 ft. fence . Leah Martin is on our left, and
MINUTES 6/29/88 Continued
Page 2
• 40 DERBY STREET - GLENN E. & SANDRA J. SOUCY
Mr . Eisen on the right. We are willing to lower the deck if that
is the offending part, and we would put it to ground level . Leah
Martin, 44 Derby St. , spoke in favor . Mr . Eisen 36 Derby St. even
though he does not live there, he has had no complaints from his
tenants , spoke in favor . Theresa O'Brien, 40 Derby St. 2nd floor tenants
spoke in favor. In opposition, Beverly Harrison, 5 Allen St. , spoke
in opposition, feels her privacy is being invaded, has very strong
feelings, submitted pictures. of how close to their bedroom window
and being observed is very disconcerting. The pool is so close
that we get splashed in our yard. Mrs . Soucy, in rebuttal: I lived
at 40 Derby St. for 5 yrs , there was a swimming pool in there yard
the entire time I have lived there, there was no 6 ft. fence there
it was a chain link fence, the pool was removed when they bought the
property. Mr. Bencal : Any comment on the letter from the Historical
Commission, Have you met with them? Mr . Soucy: Talked with a guy
named Sam, he said if we move the stairs to the other side of the
deck that it wont be visible from the street. Mr . Nutting: Was the
work . done by you and also the electrical. Mr . Soucy: Yes , and it
just plugs in to deck outlet. Mr . Luzinski : Is the pool up all
year long, and has been constant for 2 yrs . , surprised at the small
amount of space for the deck, locate pool to another site but
opposed to deck. Mr . Fleming: Also opposed to the deck, could be
dropped to ground level. Mr . Luzinski : When you talked about ground
• level 2 to 6 ins : off the ground. Mr . Bencal: I will vote in the
negative because of it being done without permits and area much to
small for a deck and pool, I do not see the hardship. Mr . Fleming:
This is a very hard decision for the Board, objection of
neighbors causes a lot of hard feelings , and we have a young family
who have bought in Salem and are trying to bring enjoyment to the
children, it is a dilemma, where the lot is small, the splash
guard could work and possibly bring harmony back in the neighborhood
and also lowering the deck to ground level. Mr . Bencal : Whats
the hardship? Mr. Fleming: People do build without permits what
I object to the most is developers who take the law in their own
hands , this is a young couple who are not receiving profit trying
to right this , this case, mercy is called for. Mr. Nutting: moved
that a temporary Special Permit be granted with the following
conditions : that the deck be lowered to the ground not to exceed
10 in. , also a splash guard be put in place to protect the adjacent
property, that the event of the sale of the house the Special
Permit cease, obtain Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Historical Commission, building permits and electrical permit, be
obtained as per plans submitted. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Mr .
Bencal and Mr. Luzinski opposed, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Nutting, Mr.
Labracque in favor, the vote 3-2 . The motion passes 3-2 but in order
to prevail in a Zonning matter you have to have 4 affirmative votes,
you have 3 therefore, the Petition is denied.
DENIED
• CHAMPLAIN ROAD - JOHN & CYNTHIA BUONFIGLIO
Petitioners are requesting a Variance to divide existing lot into
MINUTES 6/29/88 CONTINUED
PAGE THREE
• CHAMPLAIN ROAD - JOHN & CYNTHIA BUONFIGLIO
two lots, lot A & B, Variance from lot area, width, front and
side setback to allow construction of a single family dwelling
on Lot B. Mr. Nutting read the application, a direct appeal, A letter
from Councillor O ' Learyin favor, Councillor Furfaro both in favor.
Letter from the Fire Marshall no objection. Mr. Fleming ruled at
this time that the question must be divided, the first thing we will
hear is how the plan is substantially diferent from the plans that
were voted on in December 1987 that was defeated by a vote of 3-2 .
Mr. John Serafini Sn. representing the petitioners , the diference
in the plans presented this time, we have divided lot B into original
parcel. Parcel C is going to be transfered by deed to Stephen P.
Lovely, in addition to giving up our rights -to a portion of Champlain
Rd. , which is a paper Street principally so the Street would not
continue on in the future, we submitted this to the Planning Board
and they did agree that there was a difference, have written a letter
to that effect. Mr. Bencal made the motion to hear the Petition.
Mr . Nutting seconded, unanimously voted 5-0 that there was a
substantial change.
Mr. Serafini: we sat down with Mr . Lovely who expressed concern
about the impact of this particular dwelling and his concerns
relative to maintain some sort of control over the end of Champlain
Rd. , over where he lived, written agreement with the Lovelys ,
• Buonfiglios and his Dad, the result they were pleased and there was
no question in Stevens mind how the single family house would sit
on the lot and preserve the privacy and both petitioners did what
they had to do. It is an opportunity for these young people to
build a house on the property owned by his mother, its 24 , 000 sq. ft.
an oversized lot in that area R-2 zone. In all of the ingredients
for a single family dwelling are there. It seems to me that the
proximity of the wetlands the lot is a funny shape, at the same
time it has wetlands in the back and the house has to be located
just where it is . There is a hardship, although we do meet density
requirements . I do ask the Board to Grant this petition, also I
have a letter from Councillor-at-large, Donald Bates in favor. Mrs .
Buonfiglio 18 Cherry Hill Ave. , in favor. No one spoke in
opposition. Mr . Bencal: The question of close wetlands? Mr.
Serafini : The Buonfiglios have gone before the Conservation
Commission and they suggested the building of a .concrete retaining
wall. Mr. Fleming: What about the third lot? Mr . Serafini: We
will have a Form A approval by the Planning Board, this lot will be
attached to the adjoining land. Mr. Bencal moved to Grant the
petition subject to the following conditions : 1 . All construction
be done as per all existing city and state building codes . 2 . All
requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety be adhered to. 3 . Proper street numbering be obtained
from the city Assessors office. 4 . All setbacks and lot sizes be
as per the plans. submitted. 5 . All conditions of the Salem
Conservation Commission regarding this petition shall be included
• as part. of this decision. 6 . Relief is granted subject to form A
approval from the Salem Planning Board as to the parcel. 7 . All
terms of the agreement submitted between petitioner and abutters
be adhered to. Mr. Nutting: seconded. The vote 5-0 .
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED.
MINUTES 6/29/88 CONTINUED
PAGE FOUR
• LOT-214 CHERRY HILL AVE. - PAUL & MARIE BUONFIGLIO
Petitioners request a Variance to add Parcel A to lot 2 and from
rear setback to allow construction of a deck. Mr. Nutting read
the application, and a letter from Councillor O ' Leary who is in
favor, and the Fire Marshall who has no objection.
Mr. John Serafini , representing the petitioner-owners , the Board
has approved the division of these two lots, couldconstruct on
lot two, the lot size is 9000 sq. ft. it was a reasonable request
and were granted the petition back in July 1987 . The property sits
on a plateau and the property below is owned by Naumkeag Realty.
He would like to extend the dwelling by building a deck aproximately
12x24 ft. We are giving this .parcel, (pointing to plans on table ) ,
to make it a little bit larger, the reason for giving this parcel it
happens to be a down grade towards that land and be under control
of lot two. No one spoke in favor or opposition. Mr. Bencal made
the motion to Grant the petition under the following conditions :
1 . All conditions of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and
fire safety be adhered to. 2 . Proper street numbering for lot
214 be obtained from the Salem City Assessors . 3 . All construction
be done as per the plans submitted• and as per all existing City and
State Codes . 4 . All setbacks be as per the plans submitted. Mr.
Nutting seconded. The Vote 5-0 .
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
• Mr . Fleming declared a five minute recess .
31 SUMMIT AVENUE - FLORENCE GRETO
Petitioner requests a Special Permit to extend nonconforming
side setback to allow construction of a single story addition. Mr.
Nutting read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshall
no objection.
Petitioner, owner, Ms . . Greto representing herself, wants to add a
room for her tenant who is expecting a baby. Mr . Fleming: What
this would do is add one room to first floor and not increase the
number of units . Ms . Greto: No increase in units , just add a
room. Mr . Nutting: . How long have you lived there? Ms . Greto:
50 years . Mrs .. Sheridan, 66 Broad St. and Mr. Timothy Van Wey,
30 Ocean Ave. spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. Mr.
Bencal made the motion to grant the petition with the following
conditions : 1 . All construction to be done as per plans submitted
in compliance with the State and City Building Codes . 2 . A
Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. 3 . Legal Building Permit
for the addition be obtained. 4 . That the addition be on the First
Floor only. 5 . All exterior . finishes of the proposed addition
blend with the existing finishes . Mr . Steve Santry, Building
Inspector, reminded the Board that the original siding is asbestos
and cannot be used on the addition, result of a 6th condition.
• 6 . All Ordinance and State Laws relative to asbestos removal be
adhered to. Mr . Labracque seconded. The vote 5-0
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
MINUTES 6/29/88 CONTINUED
PAGE FIVE
. 20 CIRCLE HILL ROAD - MARK BURGESS
Petitioner request a Variance from rear setback to allow construction
of a one story addition. Mr. Nutting read the application, also a
letter from Councillor O'Leary who is in favor, and the Fire
Marshall who had no objection.
Representing the owner, John Douroudis , is the builder Mark Burgess,
Mr . Douroudis wants to add a room for the children. A 16x26
addition, eliminating the deck, he has only 27 ft. instead of the
30 ft. that is required. Mr. Gerald Carpinella, 1 Rockdale Ave.
and Mr. Burgess spoke in favor . No one spoke in opposition. Mr .
Luzinski : Is the addition larger than the deck? Mr. Burgess :
Larger, width of the deck is under 15h from the house, the trusses
are being made by an engineering firm. Mr . Labracque: What is the
soil condition? Mr . Burgess : No ledge. Mr. Labracque: The
foundation is 24" that is not deep enough. Mr . Burgess : Must go
4 ft. Mr . Labracque: You must have a minimum of 36" below grade,
otherwise you will have trouble with frost, will go as far as ledge.
Mr. Bencal moved to grant the petition subject to the following
conditions : 1 . That the exterior finishes of the addition be in
harmony with the exterior finishes of the existing building. 2 .
That all construction conform to the requirements of the Massachusetts
Building Code, and that the petitioner obtain the necessary building
permits . 3 . That all construction be done as per the plans submitted
• to the Board of Appeals . 4 . That a Certificate of Occupancy be
obtained prior to Occupancy of the addition. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
12 CEDARCREST AVE. - JEAN POIRIER
Petitioner is requesting to amend a Variance granted for rear setback
requirement to allow construction of a one story addition. Mr .
Nutting read the application, and a letter from the Fire Marshall
who has no objection. _ .
Representing the owner, William G. DiMento: What happened is we
had a small error in -engineering, when the lot was staked for the
foundation. We were here thirteen months ago and requested a
Variance from rear setbacks , in fact as it was staked and the
foundation poured at 14 . 4 , and we ask_ the Board to amend that
Variance to reflect that variation to 14 . 4 It gives us an additional
2 . 07 ft. setback. Mr . Poirier, owner spoke in favor . No one spoke
in opposition. Mr. Bencal : Mr . DiMento, who did the actual staking
out? Mr. DiMento: An engineering firm. Mr. Bencal: Is Mr.
Poirier connected with them in any way? Mr. Dimento: No. Mr. Nutting:
Who found the shortage? Mr. Dimento: Mr . Townsend, when they went
for the certified foundation, he in fact found it himself , as a result
there is additional frontage. Mr. Nutting: the impact to the owner
is less back yard space. Mr . Fleming: Does he own the additional
land? Mr. Dimento: His mother-in-law. Mr . Bencal made the motion
• to grant the petition under the same conditions of the May 27, 1987
decision. Mr. Nutting seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
MINUTES 6/29/88 CONTINUED
PAGE SIX
• NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Bencal: At our last meeting we elected new member, unfortunately
we were negligent in ratifying the Board ' s By-Laws . Mr. Fleming:
Would someone do so at. this time. Mr . Bencal: I move to ratify
the the Board' s By-Laws as they have been. Mr . Luzinski seconded.
Under discussion, Mr. Fleming would like to go over these, I
think theres some area we could do some things .-
Unanimously voted to adjourn. Time 9 : 30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Lorraine Devoe, Clerk
e��.coxur
of "Sttlem, ttssttcl#use##s
'•� :, •�J•�+,u�xx�°'9 PnxrD of '4v4zl
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL JULY 20 , 1988
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, July 20 ,
1988 at 7 : 00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the
hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on
July 6 , 13 , 1988 . Abutters and other interested persons were
notified by mail .
Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs . , Bencal, Luzinski ,
Nutting, and Strout.
Meeting called to order by Chairman, James Fleming.
18 PORTER STREET - JOHN SMITH
Mr . Nutting read a letter received from George Vallis asking Leave
To Withdraw the petition of John Smith, 18 Porter St . for a Special
Permit/Variance without prejudice, due to the plans he had requested
for the hearing are not yet prepared. Mr. Bencal made the motion,
and seconded by Mr . Strout. Unanimously voted Leave to Withdraw
without prejudice.
WITHDRAWN
a• 27-29 CEDAR STREET - LEON JALBERT
Mr. Nutting read the letter from Mr . Leon Jalbert requesting a six
month extension. Mr. Fleming ruled that, the letter was sufficient
for the Board to consider this extension.
Mr . Jalbert explained because of illness they were unable to do the
work, and can now proceed. Mr . Bencal : made the motion to grant the
request to extend the original decision for six ( 6 ) months . Mr.
Strout seconded. Unanimously voted for the 6 months extension .
GRANTED
4 ALLEN STREET - DEAN BOUCHER
Mr .Nutting rea .d the continued petition of Dean Boucher for a
Variance from density and setbacks . to allow construction of a two
family dwelling at 4 Allen St. Mr . Luzinski: Before you begin Mr .
Vallis , I had a chance to look at the new plans , and they are
substantially different from the original ones . The plans we saw
at the first hearing and what bothers me is with so many changes,
should it be open to the public again. The house has been lowered,
it has been moved forward, a new door has been added, these were not
indicated on the original petition. I 'M wondering if it would affect
the petition originally. Mr . Vallis : My client agrees and he would
like to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Fleming: That solves the
problem. There is a request from Mr. Boucher to withdraw without
prejudice, the petition of 4 Allen St. Mr. Nutting: May I ask why?
Mr. Vallis : I 'came up with the same understanding as Mr . Luzinski ,
I did not feel comfortable with that and also I did want a chance for
any other members of the neighborhood to show up at the continued
MINUTES 7/20/88 CONTINUED
PAGE TWO
hearing. I had a question about that at the last meeting and also I
• would like a five member board. Mr. Fleming: I think you could
" aJ probably deliver that tonight, if thats your only concern. Mr. Strout:
T made the motion to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
Motion caries 4-0 of the members who heard that petition and we
will anticipate you re-application.
GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
39-41 NORTHEY STREET - ROBERT & PATRICIA GONYEA
Mr. Nutting read the application of Robert & Patricia Gonyea for a
Variance from density, set backs and use to allow construction of a
two family dwelling on each of the lots at rear 39-41 Northey St.
Aletter from the Fire Marshall, no objection.
Representing the petitioners , William McDonough, 55 Abbott St. , Beverly,
The use of the sight now, Mr . Gonyea is a mason and he stores his
vehicles and masonry supplies . He would like to retire and provide
housing on this site instead of just storage. There is definitely a
need in the City of Salem for affordable housing. I 'm not quite
sure of the proceedure . Mr . Fleming: Justify to us why we must act
favorably on your request of a very important Variance. A Variance
from density, setbacks and use. What are the setbacks , what are the
plans , what is the hardship that the land is going to suffer. Those
are all you burdens sir, thats why I asked you who you were, your
representing Mr . Gonyea, your not an attorney are you sir? Mr.
• McDonough: No I 'm not. Mr . Fleming: We are not here to make it
f hard for you. Mr . McDonough: I must admit I 'm a little bit nervous .
Mr. Fleming: Please dont be nervous, but there are several things
that you must show in order to convince us . Mr . McDonough: What I
understand from zoning, that the entire property is only buildable
for a 2 family dwelling. Economically that cannot be built at this
time of day, if at all . So the landstands almost worthless , if you
would allow this zoning. The neighborhood exists 2 to 8 family
dwellings there are some single family abutting. Bassically the land
designed to handle more than 2 family-multi family nature. Considering
the parking spaces everything else, this is fairly desirable for this
particular piece of land. Mr. Fleming: Do you have plans for the
type of building you would like to put there. McMcDonough: No we
dont we just have a footprint so to say. Mr . Strout: Do you have
anything as far as elevations? Mr. McDonough: No we dont, we were not
that we had to have them. Mr. Fleming: Again its not our responsibility
or the people that work for us to tell you what you have to have, you
have to carry the burden to convince us why we should grant the
Variance according to the existing Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Mcdonough:
It would conform to existing elevations . Mr. Fleming: What would?
We dont have anything in front of us . who drew this sir? Mr.
McDonough: surveyingOfficer Sayer . Mr . Fleming: Was it done by a
professional? Mr. McDonough: Yes' it is . Mr . Fleming: Do you have
anything further you would like to say at this time . Mr. McDonough:
Not really.
�,• No one spoke in favor. In opposition: John Cempellin, 8 Woodbury Ct.
spoke of a concern, about the level of the rear of Mr . Gonyeas land.
There is a steep hill and hes afraid of a water problem if the house
was built too close. Its already a densely populated area. Steve
MINUTES V20/88 CONTINUED
PAGE THREE
Barbrick, 10 Woodbury Ct. I have the same concern as Jack, our property
is even 10 ft. lower, also the parking. I can see a 2 family but no
more. Mr. McIntoch, 12 Woodbury Ct. , this is the second time this
year that abutters have been approached with some type of plans
to develop. Previous ones did not come to the Board. We have seen
no plans . My concern is not only the water problems, as well as the
impact on my property. He will be constructing very close to my
property line. Mr. Fleming: He shows about 30 ft . from you property
and I believe thats within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. McIntosh, and again parking is a problem. Attorney Attaya,
representing Joseph Zelano, 35 Northey St. Serious concerns about
the proposal, the plans shows access to rear lot, thats a right of
way, and is --n my clients property. , increases our concern in using
the rear J , %nason shop and dwelling. We have the same concerns as
other nei, ibc! ; such as parking congestion. As the Board is aware
the applic..,,by statues has to meet primary statue requirements as
to obtain a variance one being that here are special conditions
affecting these lotsnot generally affecting the zoning district.
Secondly the applicant has to show a hardship which will result from
a literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance allows
a 2 family in this district, I dont think in todays market is of no
value. And finally he has to show that it would not be detrimental
to the public good. The trafic congestion situation. We ask the Board
not to Grant the variance because the applicant has not met the
requirements .
• Rebuttal : Mr. McDonough: Basically Woodbury Ct. to my understanding
their problems are created because of the way it is set up. Any
drainage problem because of the construction of any new buildings
would not affect the drainage, it would be diverted away from
Woodbury Ct. In terms of the parking---Mr. Fleming: How would you
divert the drainage.• Mr. McDonough: There is drainage at the end
of Northey St. , and run off water that would be from the parking area
and drainage pipes woul be diverted into a drainage system would lead
of to Northey St. , the lower end of Northey St . Mr. Fleming: You
dont have a plan for that draining system. Mr. McDonough: No we dont.
The parking we 've provided is off street parking. Mr. Fleming: The
parking your saying meets the requirements of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance. Mr: McDonough: No I 'm not saying that, the engineer who
gave us the plan said this met the requirements . Additional parking
can be provided on that piece of land. Mr . Fleming: Those spaces
dont measure in terms of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. McDonough: Well I 'm not an engineer sounds like I should have an
attorney and engineer, better speaker than I . Mr. Fleming: I 'm
impressed with your ability, but I 'm talking about the merits of the
case, wether you had 10 lawyers or 10 engineers you have a problem
here. Mr. McDonough: The problem here is my performance and your
interpretation of it plus the people that are opposed of it, will
form your decision. Mr. Fleming: Not necessarily so, we dont count
the votes . Mr. McDonough: If you feel I have not provided enough
information or Mr. Gonyea. I would like to withdraw this without
opposition, and do better homework and bring it back to the Board,
or continue the hearing. Mr. Fleming: You made the motion to
Withdraw this without prejudice . There has been a request of the
petitioner that this should be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr.
Bencal: I will make the motion to allow the Petitioner to withdraw
MINUTES -7/20/88 CONTINUED
PAGE FOUR
•� without prejudice . Mr. Luzinski seconded. Mr . Bencal: The petitioner
has had ample opportunity to prepare a plan, and certainly a plan of this
magnitude . I would think the Petitioner would be better prepared,
sight plan, parking plan, engineering specifications, and knowing the
problems that have existed in that area•.,over .the. years. with :water
problems and was voiced again tonight by the abutters . Would be
mostly affected by the plan. I would vote no for allowing the petitioner
to withdraw. Mr. Nutting: I feel by letting them do that would only
probably just prolong the inevitable. The area, the lots are not
conducive to eight additional residen tial units on a dead end street.
I ' d be doing Mr. Gonyea a favor by not letting them withdraw. Motion
to withdraw without prejudice fails bya vote of 0-5 . Continue with
your petition sir . Mr . Fleming: You have addressed drainage, parking,
how about density. Mr . McDonough: Density, Mr . Zelano has an eight
family right there, 2-3-4-family units plus single family units .
Woodbury Ct. seems to be the most affected because it is the narowest
street and parking is a severe problem. We are not doing anything that
affects parking. In fact, any of the parking will be off the street.
Mr. Fleming: What about the fact that your putting eight more families
in that faily close area. Tell me if that helps or hinders the
quality of life in that neighborhood. Mr. McDonough: I dont think so
right now, you have to be careful where you step, its used for a
doggie walk, and its used for masonery supplies . Its not a pleasant
area to look at. There are 2 garages on the property. Just recently
there was an old shoe factory thats being converted to condos . its
• because the area has gone to the point, houses are needed. Yes density
tends to be an issue, usage is a better use and were providing parking off
the street. The land is not being used at all, the impact on the
neighborhood would probably improve, it will be a modern building. Mr.
Fleming: Mr . McIntosh pointed out that you did not have plans . Mr.
McDonough: As this is the first time I 've been before a Board, I did
not realize you had to come in with big guns . I read off the plans
what I read from the appeals . If I had known I would of thought about
investing monies and engineers , lawyers and other people do not come
cheap. Mr. Fleming: Not when your trying to create an eritity that
will have some market value even though there rentals . A million dollar
project cries out for a little better preparation. Could you address
Attorney Attaya ' s on your meeting the three legal requirements for
granting of a Variance. Mr . McDonough: We were told by the Building
Inspector that the lots were considered one lot, 14 , 000 ft. He was
conserned about the fact that there were 2 buildings , garages separately
taxed. Mr. Fleming: Makes no difference Sir, there in common
ownership, Mr. Gonyea ownes lot 1, lot 2 , there one lot. I dont
understand how that relates to Attorney Attayas objection that you
haven ' t met the legal requirements . Will this land suffer hardship
if not used to build 2-4 family homes . In other words what your
saying is the only use of this land is for this type of use. Mr .
McDonough: If you were to turn around and just say, I 'm sure someone
here has so me financial knowledge of what a two family would
generate in terms of income, it would not support the mortgage . Mr.
Fleming: We consider at times financial hardship but, its hardship
to the land and not solely on financial hardship. How about the
other two, does this plan or does it not derrogate from the intent of
the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McDonough: Derrogate from it? Mr . Fleming:
You want to say anything relative to those three requirements . Mr.
McDonough: I 'm not sure I totally understand. Mr. Fleming: I dont
MINUTES 7/20/88 CONTINUED
PAGE FIVE
- mss
• think you do, we :•,have to stop, you want to say anything else. Mr.
� - McDonough: I think if we had known that there were a lot of other
requirements , we would of come more prepared. Mr . Luzinski : I would say
this , it is a congested area, to impact eight more units plus the
water problems , I dont think it would be a very good project in that
area. A single or two family house it would be a different story.
In the future I would like to see the plans , at this point I would
have to vote no on this particular plan. Mr . Nutting: As far as I 'm
concerned Mr. Chairman, I feel its to dense in that area, thinking
of children, the elderly, Mothers and fathers , increasing the density
is certainly going to affect the quality of life. Some are not
bringing the proper information to the Board and hope they might get
a go ahead. Also, Mr. Chairman, they claim in their petition they
could build 2 family houses , you seem to think it might not be
necessarily so as it stands today. Mr. Fleming: I would disagree
with their interpretation that lot is now one, under current zoning
ordinance it would be one family home. Mr. Bencal : Made the motion
to Grant the petition as filed without conditions . Mr. Luzinski
seconded. Vote 0-5, Mr. Gonyea your petition fails for lack of
four ( 4 ) affirmative votes .
DENIED
51-53 WASHINGTON SQ. NO.
Mr. Nutting read the application of Arvinder S. Bahal requesting a
Variance to convert' a two family into a three family at 51-53
•; Washington Sq. No. Also a letter from the Fire Marshall who had
no objection. Letters of opposition from Michael Pelletier, Councillor
Harvey, and Jan Stirgwolt.
Representing the petitioner, Philip Strome, 73 Washington St. , Salem,
owner Arvinder S . Bahal, has signed an agreement to sell the property
to a Mr. Ronald Fleming, no relation to the Board Member . The
question raised by Councillor Harvey on parking, it is adequate from
the plans submitted for about ten cars . That caiit conceivably be a
problem. So far as an absentee landlord is concerned, I agree with
the councillor, there should be someone living in that house who owns
it. Mr. R. Fleming has entered into an agreement with Mr. Bahal and
he intends to live in the house. He has made arrangement with the Heritage
Corp. Bank to finance the purchase of the house and the repairs that
are required to bring this house back to a livable condition. Its in
deplorable condition now. .The . people who are involved with the present
owner created an intollerable situation. Theres trash and all sort of
garbage in an around the premises and there going to be removed by
Mr . R. Fleming. Mr. R. Fleming will tell you how he intends to convert the
inside of the dwelling into a 3 family. For those of you who are
familiar with the neighborhood were not talking essentially about
average R-2 situation, all of us know I 've lived in Salem over 60 yrs ,
this area is essentially a multi family, there are very few one or
two family structures in and around this particular dwelling. I can
also tell you of my own information, and with a document I have here.
The premises have been used as a three family structure since
• February 1983 . I know that to be a fact. Its been occupied as a
three family for the past six years , I really believe. We dont come
to you for the first time and do some repairs and stick another
MINUTES 7/20/88 CONTINUED
PAGE SIX
another family in, that isn' t the situation there . Its been occupied
• by three families and the present owner and his predessor, a man
named Small, who has become somewhat of a legend has created a
situation which derogates from the entire appearance of the neighborhood.
What we intend to do, Mr . Fleming (R) has taken an old structure where
he now lives , and completely remodeled, and its a credit to the area.
He has that dwelling for sale and as soon as lie gets ' --Al permission
he will move in to a 3 family structure. To buy the ro, •,rty and
do the work it would be financially impossible unles, rhe ias the
income from two other tenants . He has some indicatioi.__,s to how much
income he can get from them and live there . What he intends to do
doesn' t defect, in my opinion the Zoning district especially due to
the fact of theother multi family in the area. Were asking you a
really moderate clarification of a non-conforming use, asking you
to confirm something thats been in existance for at least six years .
If someone would come to me and say there buying a multi family
dwelling, I would say to them is it a 2 or 3 or 4 , and I would go to the
Assessors and I would look. If you did that you would find that it
is a 3 family dwelling. When you buy a house now you have to have
smoke detectors , you go to the fire dept . , and they did it. They have
the certificate indicating the Fire Dept. thought it was a 3 family.
So what else is the buyer suppose to do, the buyer did what he was suppose(
to do. He looked at the premises and he found a 3 family, the assessors
found it was a 3 family. He went to the Fire Dept. , he did what any
normal, reasonable person would do. Mr. Fleming: He could of also
come to the building inspectors office. Mr . Strome: I agree with
you, so acting reasonably, we have a right to rely on public records .
• Again parking will be no problem, there is a hardship, for those of
you who are familiar with it. I ' ve known the area, that this house
was originally 2 structures and they were joined together many years
ago, either that was one structure and somebody tacked on to it. Two
entrances , it was designed to be a multi family, somebody certainly
before "83" made a three family out of it. Were not changing anything
in what were doing . An effort to try to get around the hardship
provision because this is a unique type of dwelling. If you have a
unique type of dwelling that your trying to maintain, I think this
Historical area around the common is as much historical as Chestnut
St. , and were preserving it for that area. Despite what you hear to
the contrary were not changing the structure at all, were preserving for
that area this dwelling in the manner that it was originally intended
to be. Financial hardship also exist here in this unique structure
Were trying to improve that aspect of the neighborhood, which today
is in deplorable conditions . The relief we ask you can be given, in
my opinion, without a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. I
think it will be to the public good. The R-2 situation as it exist
here, it doesn' t really exist in this particular area. I have a
petition here signed by 10 abutters who are in favor of this ,
immediately adjacent. Mr. Fleming: Let the record reflect that Mr.
Strome has submitted a petition signed by 10 people who are in favor,
and also a map showing where they live in relationship to the locus .
Mr. Luzinski : How is the house now divided, how many rooms in the
whole house? Mr. R. Fleming: 6000 sq. ft. , 16 rooms . Mr. Fleming:
• Would you please indicate for the record that you and I have never
met or are related. , Mr. R. Fleming: We have never met and are not
related. My name is Ronald Fleming I presently live at 4 Carpenter
St. , Salem. When I first thought of changing residence I had the
MINUTES 7/20/88 CONTINUED
PAGE SEVEN
• idea that I wanted something with rental income.Found this house and
found it very appealing. I loved the challenge of complete restoration
and bring it back to what it should be. In the present state the
back area needs to be restored. The gardens need to be restored,
plenty of parking space. Structually the building seems to be very
sound. The apartments are very commodious which calls for very good
rent which will enable me to complete the restoration. And also be
able to live there in one of the apartments .
Ted Richard, 35 Pleasant St. , spoke in favor.
The following spoke in opposition: Russell Slam, 9 Forrester St. ;
Annie Harris, 28 Chestnut St. , Historic Salem, Inc . ; Joan Nestor,
Salem Common Asso. and also an abutter ; David Pelletier, 31 Pleasant
St. ; Debra Lubas , 1 Brooks Court; Jeffery Barrows , 2 Pickmen St.
a letter in opposition.
Rebuttal: M. Strome.: I suggest to you that the people of Historic
Salem are really interested in preserving the character of the City
of Salem should support this petition, because the building in its
present condition is a detriment and an eyesore to the community.
Parking is no problem, theres more than enough. There . can not
possibly be any more traffic then there is now. There are three
family there now and it cannot be increased in any manner. And as
a matter of fact in the present situation, God knows who will become
• tenants , you might end up with 6 or 7 or even 8 cars . This is a
fellow, and he comes to you and he says , I 'M going to buy this property
and occupy it. Mr. Strout: Any changes made to the exterior as far
as egress . Mr . R. Fleming: No, only changes replacing the gardens .
Mr. Strout: Whats the situation with the egress, was that completed?
Mr. R. Fleming: You must mean the back door, that was put on the
second level. Thats all completed with a flight of stairs going out
in the yard. Mr. Strout: In the event that the petition is granted,
would you comply with all the building regulations as far as egresses
are concerned. Mr . R. Fleming: The reason I 'm here tonight is I
want a legal three, If I do buy it of course I will conform with all
Fire laws and any other regulations . Mr. Strout: If you have to
change the structure to comply, that could change the whole Petition
around. Mr . R. Fleming: What I would do before the deal goes
through is I would have it inspected to be sure that it did comply
with the code. Mr. Nutting: Also concerned about egress , is
unsightly, could that be contained inside the structure. Mr. R.
Fleming: I don' t see how it could be done. Mr. Luzinski : Does
it conform with the Historic Commission? Mr. Fleming: I don' t think
it does , I don' t think they got a Certificate of Appropriatness .
Mr . Nutting: They are putting this Board in quite a bind here,
wether the opposition is, do present and prior landlord have done
to that property, gutting and building that staircase outside and
uncovered. I almost wonder what we hear is coming from that. If
there was any leeway for negotiations on changing that from Special
Permit to Variance. There is a fine line there that the additional
• unit on that piece of property, with the inclusion of the parking
might make for a finer peice of property. Maintain that facade and
the grounds, I wonder if that staircase might be annoying the
neighbors.It was a no vote for me. I went to look at the property,
seeing it and trying to understand whats best for the community, its
MINUTES fl/20/88 CONTINUED
PAGE EIGHT
rte' a close vote, right now. And also, I 'm wondering, a Variance can
certainly be tried in Court and our opinion here tonight, wether the
hardship he has shown and its almost like were going to tax our legal
dept. if they want this done properly. I don' t think theres enough
time tonight to put conditions and ask our City Solicitor to defend
the Petition. I think both parties are asking the Board to take
more time to handle this . Another question, is this transaction
about the resale value as far as Mr. Bahal is concerned, has the
price literally jumped up? Mr . Fleming: They have asked for a
condition that if Mr . R. Fleming was to purchase this property as a
three family, .yes , the price goes up. Mr. Nutting: Also we don ' t
know if there is an agreement, we have not seen an agreement. Mr.
Fleming: I take Mr. Strom' s word "that there is a P&S agreement. Mr.
Nutting: If the Petitioners are not granted for a third, would the
property stay in that stage of dis-repair for a length of time where
all aspect of the law and their rights are accounted for. Mr. Fleming:
Its called a delima and we face that many many times . Mr. Luzinski :
I 'm curious , is all the parking in affect now? Mr. Strome: Its all
there. Mr. Luzinski: Who uses all the parking? I think what bothers
me is the entrance or the exit on to Pleasant St. Was any consideration
given to egressing onto Pleasant St. Ave . ? Mr . Strome: We will if you
think its important, .if required we would be glad to do it. The
space is there . Mr . Luzinski : If we are to grant this , I would like
to see the parking changed, where they would not exit onto Pleasant
St. They would have an opportunity to dress up that side with
schrubery and might be more appealing to abutters and neighbors . Mr.
r�• Bencal: The parking i"m very concerned, the pulling out onto
Pleasant St. , particularly in the winter its a very narrow street .
Utilizing Pleasant St. Ave. would be taking traffic off of there.
I would prefer to see six parking spaces . I would be opposed if the
Parking would go out onto Pleasant St. Mr. Fleming: I heard the
sense of your comment and ask the petitioner if he .would like to
continue this for a period of time., and to talk to the Common
Neighborhood Asso.and the Historic Salem, and maybe some of these
differences can be resolved. Mr. Strome: I have no problem with
that. Mr. Fleming: I guarantee you a spot on August 10th, would you
be agreeable to that? Mr. Strome: I accept. I request to continue
this till August 10th and waiver the time rights . Mr. Bencal moved
the request, Seconded by Mr. Luzinski . Unanimously voted to continue
this Petition till August 10th, 1988 .
CONTINUED - AUGUST 10 , 1988
Mr. Fleming called a ten minute recess .
29 BARNES ROAD - ROBERT OCCHIPINTI
Mr. Nutting read the application on the Petition of Robert Occhipinti
for a Variance and or Special Permit from setback requirements to
allow construction of an above ground pool at 29 Barnes Rd. in this
R-1 district.
A.
• Mr. Occhipinti : Bassically when I came in March, it was worded wrong
as to how it went in the paper and to how it was advertised. That
night I was told that we would not be able to straightened out that
night. And I was told to come back and straighten that part out, and
MINUTES 4.7/20/88 CONTINUED
PAGE NINE
also the pool . Where I 'm trying to put the pool is the only level
�w part of the lot. Mr. Fleming: Are you saying sir, that your petition
asked for relief other than the pool? Your saying that your house
and the advertising was not proper. Mr . Occhipinti : Back in March
there was encroachment at the back end of the house. Mr. Fleming:
Did we give you a Variance at that time? Mr. Occhipinti: Yes , you
gave me a Variance for the deck. They said it didn ' t show it for the
side yard the way it was advertised in the paper . Mr. Fleming: N.ow
your asking for relief for the side setback and the pool. Mr . Occhipinti :
Yes , its the only level area of the lot, the rest is all downhill . Mr .
Bencal: Which pool? Mr. Occhipinti : Mr . Santo suggested that I
put it in as one as its only 1 ft. away from the house, it would be
better if I had an alternative. Mr. Fleming: So your petition is in
the alternative. Mr . Occhipinti: Yes . I wanted the 18" round
because of the cost of the other, its longer but narrower. Mr . Fleming:
The alternative is the round pool. Mr. Nutting: How unlevel is the
rest of your property? Mr. Occhipinti : Thers one house back here, his
grounds are so overgrown you really can ' t see the pool/. He' s about
75 ft. away. Its very steep and ledge. I 've had my lot checked
by a surveyor and thats what he came up with. Most of the area is
all ledge. Mr. Nutting: What about fencing? Mr . Occhipinti : I
plan to put a fence 8 ft. high around the pool, correction 6 ft. Mr .
Nutting: How many feet from foundation. Mr . Occhipinti : It depends
on which pool, round pool it would be 1 ft. away. Mr. Nutting:
Whats your foundation made of? Mr. Occhipinti : Concrete. Mr.
Luzinski : How deep is the pool? Mr . Occhipinti : 4 ft. theres
i.,• crushed stone to absorb any water around the foundation. Mr. Nutting:
+ Do you plan on installing the Pool? Mr . Occhipinti : Yes I do .
Mr. Nutting: Have you dealt with levelling the ground? Mr. Occhipinti :
I have been doing all the landscaping and stuff like that.
No one spoke in favor, or in opposition.
Mr . Fleming: We can give the pool by Special Permit, he does not
have to prove hardship. This bothers me but were stuck with it. The
Variance, I think the corner of the lot, that visibility exception
page 57 , that requirement there, any structure has to be 25 ft.
measured along street line. Mr. Santry, are you involved with this?
Mr. Santry: No. Mr. Bencal made motion for Special Permit to allow
18 ft. round pool as per plans submitted subject to the following
conditions : All construction be done in conformance with all
existing city and state building codes . All construction be done
as per plans submitted and per all setbacks submitted. Seconded
by Mr. Strout. Unanimously Granted.
Mr. Bencal made the motion to grant the Variance requested. Seconded
by Mr . Luzinski . Unanimously Granted
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED VARIANCE & POOL
13 PRESTON ROAD - GARY & MARLENE SEWALL
• Mr. Nutting read the application of Gary & Marlene Sewall for a
Variance from side set back requirement to allow existing deck to
remain at 13 Preston Road.
A letter from the Fire Marshall who had no objection.
MINUTES 7/20/88 CONTINUED
PAGE TEN
Petitioner/owner wants permission to keep the existing deck that
' there. We added on a room and we needed a way to get to the door.
We also had a 3 ft. wall that goes up to our room. We cou: .d not
get out there so we needed a way to get up there. So he sugested a
small deck to the door and to the back yard. It sounded good to me,
he gave us a price and my husband said go. A building inspector
who was on his way to the Condo' s saw it and asked if we had a
Variance. I said whats a Variance, so here I am. Its been completed.
Mr . Luzinski : Out of curiosity was it a local contractor? Mrs .
Sewall : Yes . Mrs . Sewall presented a letter from one o the
neighbors . Mr. Fleming read the letter to reflect in the records
of Richard and Patricia Sanford, ll Preston Road, in favor. Mr.
Luzinski : It bothers me when a contractor puts the Petitioner in
the middle. that the only concern. Mr . Nutting: I almost think
legislature, something could be done through the City Council , there
should be some penalty to the contractor. Mr. Fleming: When you
find a licensed contractor working without a permit, isn ' t there
a reporting system already. Mr . Santry: The State . Mr. Fleming:
What if it is a City of Salem license, what do we do? Mr. Santry:
I imagine .it can be revoked. We have- to report it to the State .
Mr. Fleming: Anything ever happens when you report it to the State?
Mr. Santry: Not to my knowledge, they can continue to work while
the case is ongoing. Mr. Bencal : I have no objection because they
did not do the actual work they relied on the expertise of others and
they are the victims . Mr. Fleming: The Sewalls would not flaunt
the law in any respect, and they are trying to resolve this and I vote
in favor. Mr. Luzinski moved to grant the petition with the
. ,'. following condition: that a building permit be obtained. Mr .
Nutting seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
30 -32 FOREST AVENUE - MICHAEL J. & DIANE RHATIGAN
Mr . Nutting read the application fo Michael J. & Diane Rhatigan for
a variance from lot area & width to allow construction of a one
family dwelling at 30-32 Forest Ave . in this R-2 district .
A letter from the Fire Marshall who had no objections .
George P. Vallis , Church St . , Salem, represented the petitioner/owner .
The Rhatigans came before the Board of Appeal a little over 2 years
ago, had applied for a variance to build a 2 family house, and at
that time the property was in agreement to another individual. It
was denied. There here now to build a single family. Heres a little
background so we will understand there position. They are both residents
of Salem, and have lived here for about 12h years . Mrs . Rhatigan
was born and raised and educated in Salem. They bought the property
on Forest Ave. back in March 1985 . At the time they bought it they
had 2 children. The house that they presently live in was a 2 family,
the building has 4 rooms on the 1st . floor, 3 rooms on the second
floor, they needed the space. They were hopeful of selling the
`. lot using the money from the sale to enlarge there present house.
The Variance was denied, as a result they occupied the entire house.
They have 3 bedrooms in the house since that timethey were here, they
have had another child, 2 daughters and a son. One of the children
is severly handicapped, a daughter who is 6� years old, deaf , legally
MINUTES 1/20/88 CONTINUED
PAGE ELEVEN
blind, cerebral palsy. Needless to say its a loving child, the cost
� is tremendous , they need another bedroom, there is no space. What
they would like to do to build another house adjacent to the present
house . The lots were layed out in 1894 . That area around Forest
Ave. and Hersey St. there lots of similiar size, 4500 to 5000 sq.
ft. , and there are houses on all those lots . Most are single and
two family, occassional 3 family. Its a peculiar type of neighborhood,
the area was built shortly after the fire. They want to build a
house in Salem. In order to do this they would love to keep the
2 family and collect the. rent. They dont mind a condition that the
2 family be owned by the Rhatigans . Since the time they have bought
it I would like to show you some pictures and this is a view from
Forest Ave. looking north, the empty lot was overgrown with schrubs .
The lot as it exist now has been clea..ned up. Have removed 15 tons
of garbage from that lot, they have improved the appearance. A
house can be built on this lot and enhance the value of the property
in the neighborhood. Mr. Nutting: A question on the foundation
do they plan to build on a slab? Mr. Vallis : A poured foundation.
Edward Carter, 28 Forest Ave . ; John Dumais, 34 Forest Ave. ; Robert
Roderick, 17 Hersey St. spoke in favor.
No opposition.
Mr . Bencal: Should the condition of .owner occupied, how would you propose
that. Mr. Vallis : If you were to grant the Variance with a condition
• that the house to be constructed be owner occupied and that the 2
family house as long as itsowned by the Rhatigan. In the event thats
its conveyed that it be owner occupied. Mr. Strout made the motion
to grant with the following conditions : A building permit be
obtained. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department be adhered
to. That the house to be constructed be owner occupied and that
the 2 family remain a 2 family as long as it is owned by the Rhatigans
if conveyed, it must remain in owner occupied situation. A certificate
of occupancy be obtained. Proper numbering for all buildings be
obtained from the city. assessors office . Seconded by Mr. Nutting.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
NEW BUSINESS: Ward 6 Councillor has encounted a Zoning problem on
School St. She would like an administrative ruling from the Board.
Has submitted a Petition and has asked that we waive all fees
relative to the Petition. Mr. Nutting: moved that the Board waive
all fees relative to this petition. Seconded by Mr. Luzinski .
Vote 5-0 , UNANIMOUSLY. GRANTED.
OLD BUSINESS: Received a copy from the City Solicitor on the Stasinos
matter, he has settled and gives his reasons , conditions and what
the terms of the settlement are . In my opinion the Solicitor acted
in a most appropriate manner . Mr . Bencal moved that a letter be sent
to City Solicitor requesting clarification on changes on Chapter 498
_ amended 4.8 , specifically but not limited to section regarding the
filing of Petitions . Mr. Strout seconded. UNANIMOUSLY VOTED. Mr .
Fleming will draft the letter. Mr . Bencal moved to adjourn. seconded
and so voted.
Submitted: Lorraine Devoe, Clerks �� —�—
e.y,�,wsore�.
Ctu of "itt1em, 'Mttssuchuse##s
JO. Y
Poxrb of �k"eA
•„�'. `a141M6�
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL AUGUST 10 , 1988
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday August
10, 1988 at 7 : 00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the
hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on July 27 ,
August 3 , 1988 . Abutters and otherinterested persons were notified
by mail .
Members Present: James M. Fleming, Chairman; Messrs . , Bencal,
Luzinski , Nutting, and Strout .
The meeting was called to order by Chairman, James Fleming.
Motion to pospone the minutes of the June 15 1988 , because of a
question on the Petition of 4 Allen St. Seconded by Mr. Strout.
Motion carried.
For the record Lorraine Devoe has done a fantastic and outstanding
job in filling in for our regular clerk. I want the record to
reflect that and I hope the citizens of Salem know the capabilities
of our City Employees and the faithfulness and the respect for duty
that is given by several employees , especially by Mrs . Devoe. I 'm
tremendously impressed at this point in time the way she ' s filled
the job.
- Mr. Nutting: I wonder if the Board of Appeal should send a letter
stating those facts to her immediate superior for her records and
also a copy to the mayor. I make the motion, Mr. Chairman. Seconded
by Mr. Luzinski . Unanimously voted. Mr. Fleming: I will personally
draft that letter.
51-53 WASHINGTON SQ. NO. - ARVINDER S . BAHAL
Petitioner requests a Variance to convert a two family into a three
family in this R-2 zone.
This is a continued petition, application having already been read
Mr. Nutting read additional correspondence from Mr. Russell Slam of
9 Forrester St. , in opposition.
Mr. Strome: Presented new plans . At the conclusion of the last
meeting, the members of the board suggested that it might be a good
idea if I conferred with the members of the Historic Society and the
members of the Common Association. I did, I made a date with a
member of the Historic district, unfortunately it got loused up on
a Saturday morning and she could not get into the office, it was
aparently closed. But I did have a long talk with her on the phone,
Nina Cohen. We had a long discussion and unfortunately her suggestion
to me was that her group under any circumstances would do anything.
\ ,•, 'They said that this is the law and there are no exceptions and there
cannot be any change from a 2 to a 3 . I explained to her that these
people were interested in taking an eyesore that exist down there,
and making it into what Mr . R. Fleming is going to do with it. And I
MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE TWO
would think that what they would be looking for .
.� I then had a meeting with a group of people from Salem Common Asso.
The short answer is what do you want us to do. That will help you
have a house in there now, and after all the discussions, They said
nothing doing Phil it cant be changed. Therefore I suggest to you
I made a reasonable effort. Their position is that under no
circumstances is this to be changed from a 2 to a 3 . Despite
the fact that we know its used as a 3 , for 7 or 8 years . After the
meeting with one of the people who spoke in opposition he made some
sugestions about changes in parking. Putting 6 spaces . So what we
have done is point out to you, we have four typical parking spaces
near the building and we will put two or one or three on the other
side, where it says proposed parking. We will do anything within
reason to set the parking up that will please everybody. Theres room
for 8 or 10 cars, but we will limit it to six. What we will do,
the existing pavement will be removed, graded and planted. Soyou
will have a lovely looking corner lot, instead of the eyesore that
exist.
Mr. Pelletier sugested to me that there are some unsightly parts of
the building, the building, and asked if Mr. R. Fleming would change
them. Right over the back door theres a little wooden piece, an
unsightly looking thing. and we will correct those. Mr. Pelletier
seemed content with that sugestion and we will abide. What were
going to do is enhance, not in anyway deteriorate the general area.
• If its left like it is , what you will have is a 2 family house thats
been a three family for close to 10 years . You have a 2 family house
that cant support, that can ' t service the debt, because the income
will not be there. Mr. R. Fleming will be a tenant, you can make it
a condition that he or subsequent tenant in one of the apartments .
The apartments are substantial in size. I request if there is ever
an exception to the rule exist, this is the case. And I respectfully
ask that their Petition be Granted.
Mr . Fleming asked that comments be limited, because of what was heard
at the last meeting, due to the heat of the night and the length
of the agenda.
Carole Gauthier,. 16 Spring St. , spoke in favor.
In opposition: Jan Stirgwolt, 17 Andrews St. , Salem, Also,
Attorney Attaya, Danvers, representing David Pelletier, Mr. Pelletier
looked at the parking plans , Mr. Fleming pointed out that the
sugestions of Mr . Nutting were included in the plans, as per
photograph. Mr. Pelletier would not oppose if everyone is in
agreement and conditions adhered to. Continued in opposition: Joan
Nestor 2 Forrester St. , Salem Common Asso. read a letter and
presented 5 pages of signatures on a petition, 51 names all but one
are owners . tittorney Robert LeDuc, Councel for Historic Salem Inc .
neither in favor or opposed, and would like opportunity to sit down
with Mr. Fleming and discuss the proposal , so we can arrive at a
• settlement.
Rebuttal : Mr. Strome: Conditions that effect a hardship effecting the
locus . are diverse. No one fact determines the question of what is
a practical difficulty or unneccessary hardship. But all relevant
MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE THREE
factors when taken together as in this case, indicate that the plight
'a of these premises is unique and they can not be put to a reasonably
•- conforming use . That why were here and according to the Supreme
Court constitute a hardship.
Mr. Fleming: Do you think first of all analyzing your clients needs
that it will be beneficial for you to meet with Historic Salem Inc .
as was sugested by Attorney LeDuc. Mr. Strome: I don' t think it
would serve any purpose. I had a long conversation with Nina Cohen.
Mr. Fleming: I like openess . You might gain an allie, would it be
detrimental time wise with the Purchase and Sale Agreement to your
client. Mr. Strome: The bank wants an answer time is runing out.
Mr . Nutting: Is that property now enclosed or part of the Historic
District. Mr. LeDuc: Jack, this is Historic Salem Inc. and not
the Historic Commission. The property is not in the historic
district. Mr. Nutting: The people Mr . LeDuc is representing is
asking for another 2 weeks delay for discussion. They are not in
favor or opposed but would like some input. Because of the time
Mr. Leduc could of stated some of the considerations that they had,
so that maybe at this meeting it could of been made part of the
motion. Mr . Fleming: I take it as honest representation that they
need that time and I don' t think we can make a judgement out of it .
Mr. Leduc: Mr . Nutting and I are most intimately involved with the
zoning amendment, as much as he was a city councillor and I was a
member of the planning board, when this was passed. Mr. Fleming:
Both parties have passed on it. Mr . LeDuc: The position of Historic
• Salem Inc. , was to oppose the petition. We have met and spoken on
the phone a number of times and basically the position now is maybe
we should sit down and discuss it.
Mr. Luzinski : We are down to 6 parking spaces and exit on Pleasant St.
Ave. side and your talking about greenary on the Pleasant St. side.
Mr . Strome: 6 spaces and landscaping. Mr . Strout: I still have a
problem with the hardship and maybe, Mr. Strome you can explain to
me once again. Mr. Strome: It includes financial hardship too. This
building as it exist now, perfect hardship case, cannot support
itself . The Court supports what a hardship is ,and we would not ask
for anything unreasonable that would be detrimental to the district.
The new use would not increase what its presently used for. Its
presently used for a 3 family. Mr. Fleming: One of the terms that
I 've thought .of as one of hardship is , you have an existing building
you take the buildings and land as it is . Financial is one of them
but its not the only reason. This building contains 6000 sq. ft. of
living space. Now to me 2 units having aproximately 3000 sq. ft. apiece.
Are living units beyond the capabilities of market of anybody today
to either buy or maintain. Todays living does not go to 3000 sq. ft.
of living space, very big units .
Mr. Luzinski : This is in a Historic District, " This shall be known
as Washington Sq. District, all the land around Salem Common,
Monument Sq. , North to Winter St. , and all the land and buildings" .
Mr. Strome: They were given the choice of being included, they are not,
• they are excluded, there is no record. Mr. Fleming: Its not included
in the absolute listing from the Building Inspectors , only exclusion
45 Washington Sq. No. - 46 Washington Sq. South. That list was
developed by the Historic Commission? Mr. Santry: Thats the list
the Building Department goes by. Mr. Fleming: The generic
MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE FOUR
discription of Mr. Luzinski seems to include it, the current listing
•L , of the building inspectors office indicate that its not in the
W
Historic District. The issue is relative to our discussion but not
decisive of it.
Mr. Bencal Made the motion to Grant the Petition with the following
conditions : that the petitioner provide six off street parking
spaces which conform to the requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,
as per the amended parking plan submitted to the Board of Appeal .
That the property is to remain owner occupied at all times . If the
property is not owner occupied the Variance is null and void. That all
renovations of the property is to be done under the terms of a
building permit to be issued by the Building Inspector and be in
conformity with all city and state building codes . That egress from
the parking area on the property be onto Pleasant Street Avenue only.
That appropriate landscaping be placed on all sides of the locus .
That all exterior doorways be in harmony with the historical nature
of the existing neighborhood. That no exterior additions be added
to the property without Board of Appeal approval . That all the
requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to Fire Safety,
be adhered to. That all unnecessary pavement on the locus be removed
and that area be landscaped appropriately. That all present unsightly
areas , including the area over the back door, be rehabilitated. And
that the petitioner agrees not to seek any increase in density at the
locus . Seconded by Mr. Luzinski . Mr . Fleming: Before we vote,
do you or your client feel coerced on that last condition? Mr. Strome:
iK My client feels he has been treated faily and does agree not to
•i, increase density. Voted 4-1 , Mr. Nutting voting in the negative.
Motion passed, Variance Granted.
GRANTED
130'- NORTH STREET - NINA BUBA
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear set back requirements
Eo allow construction of an addition in this B-1 zone.
Mr. Nutting read the application, and also a letter from the
Fire Marshall who had no objection. Letter from Councillor Sarah
M. Hayes of ward 6 , in favor.
Petitioner, owner Mrs . Buba, representing herself wants to make an
addition to her hallway in the back to put her washer and dryer
upstairs . It is presently down the cellar and she can' t climb the
stairs because of bersites . Relocate the back door only on first
story. Her son showed where it would be located out back, a
6x7 extention.
Mr. Fleming: I did rent some property from Mrs . Buba in 1981 , and if
thats a problem I will excuse myself on this petition. No problem
was voiced and Mr . Fleming will vote on this petition.
Tracy Baker, 13 Upham St. , spoke in favor, and no one spoke in
opposition.
Mr. Luzinski : Whats the footing foundation? Mrs . Buba: A contractor
is taking care of that. Mr . Bencal made the motion to grant the
petition, with the following conditions : That all construction be as
MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE FIVE
per the plans submitted to the Board of Appeals . That the petitioner
•" comply with all the requirements of the State Building Code and the
,;.
requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to Fire Safety.
That the exterior of the addition be in harmony with the exterior
of the existing building. Mr. Nutting seconded. Vote 5-0 .
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
2 GOODHUE STREET - JAMES E WEINER
The petitioner is requesting a Variance from density and set back
requirements to construct a single story structure for use as an office
and used car repair facility in this BPD district.
Mr. Nutting read letter from the Fire Marshall who had no objection,
also letter from Beth Debski , conservation Committee no objection.
And letter from Sarah Hayes Councillor of ward 6 , in favor.
Henry Lucas , Jr. 133 Washington St. Salem, presented photographs
to the Board for the proposed use . Marks on assessors map showing
type of use that is existing . All of which indicate a very high degree
of commercial, industrial retail uses and also indicate that a good
number of buildings that are located in. the general area. The
petition puts forward that he certainly has a problem with respect to
others that are located in the district. And I believe its been
verified by the Fire Marshall in his letter to the Board, the tank
is not located on his premesis but a direct abutter. On this
- , property is an old storage tank, at some point this was used as a
Flo- ,
staging and holding area for fuel oil . That tank has caused oil to
seep through the ground and is quite highly concentrated in this
area. Obviously the present density requirements of the zoning
district would require any building within that area and the existance
of that area to put a building over it. Mr. Fleming: Isn' t there
another solution, to clean the spill up. Mr. Lucas : Its being
cleaned up. Mr . Fleming: Isn ' t that a solution, it that weren' t
there, then the building could be built as per the terms of the
Salem Building Ordinance? Mr . Lucas : Some building, and what period
of time to remedy, its something beyond the petitioners control .
Its our understanding that the proper authorities are taking steps to
remedy the situation. Mr. Fleming: Is there a 21E complaint?
Mr. Lucas : Time and expense relative to this particular property
its ultimate value. Mr . Fleming: It has to be built there because
of a 21E problem? Mr. Lucas : No I 'm not saying it has to be built
there, but the fact that it exist there creates the hardship. Its
beyond the petitioners control. When you put that together with the
existing uses, and the structure that exist, not just the immediate
general area together certainly constitute a severe hardship. Its
bassically vacant land. Mr. Fleming: Its all buildable except for
the 21E problem.
Mr. Lucas : The structure in question I 'm sure the Board is aware of
the previous petition, this is a scale down plan. Mr. Strout: The
previous petition was Withdrawn Without Prejudice, any reference
_'_• to that would be inapropriate. Mr. Lucas : One of the questions raised
was the existance of a proportive temporary easement on Bridge St. ,
and the location of the building. There is no possible way given
the proposed plan I requested the side line requirements is presently
MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE SIX
30 ft. , the construction easement could not come beyond that. The
existance of this problem renders the property useless . The basis
• " of the consistancy of the proposed use, the general neighborhood and
the hardship, we request the petition be granted.
Mr. William Weiner, 17 Alden Rd. Marblehead, spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
Mr. Weiner: with a lot thats over 25, 000 sq. ft. , a building that
is less than 208 in size and still have ample parking, and would
not look out of place. I think it would make the area look a lot
nicer, and would not look out of place on a lot thats been let go
for awhile. It would suit my business needs .
Mr. Strout: Mr. Kavanaugh had expressed some concern because of it
being an entrance corridor. After looking at the plans , the size
of the building is alright, its just the outside, I don' t think
you have put enough into the exterior design. Its an important
location as far as Salem Planning is concerned and I think a little
more thought will have to go to something better than a metal building.
Are you going to be building this to the spec ' s given righthere?
Mr. Weiner: Yes . Mr . Strout: Metal walls , metal siding? Mr . Weiner: ]
Yes , its suppose to be one of the most reliable. Mr . Strout: A
metal building like that I feel should be used in a industrial park
situation but not in one of the main entrances to the City. I think
if the design was changed to a masonry on the street side. Mr. Lucas :
Again in that respect of the other properties that are owned and
maintained, its also a corporation which is controlled by my client,
and there are potentially specific things that could be dealt with
this evening. If you notice the siding, and by moving the building
that 30 ft. is the closest. Are you concerned with the Goodhue side.
Mr . Strout: The whole building, the structure has got to dive . I
just don' t think this is the place for it. Mr . Fleming: We don ' t
have the safe guard of the site review planning board. Theres nothing
we could do once the building was up. Mr . Strout: I understand
how the other buildings look in that area, we can ' t be concerned
with that now. There existing, but this is a new proposal, and I
think we have to be concerned with this . Who owns these barrels,
this isn ' t from that Precious Metals Place. Mr . Lucas : John M. &
P. Clayman. Mr . Strout: We should look into that. Mr. Fleming: I
agree with Mr. Strout, this type of building is in the wrong location
I have other concerns., but anybody coming from the Peabody area in our
City one of the major intersection, and its going to be bigger if and
when there an access road there. Mr . Strout: If you were to consult
an arch:itech that would design you a building that would be in
harmony with the area, something more appropriate. Mr. Nutting: Is
he also looking for a use variance, to sell used cars . Are we speaking
of a general used car lot. Do you sell cars off you property across
the street. Mr. Weiner: I sell cars already, I 'M licensed. Mr.
Nutting: You want to continue to sell 30 cars? Mr. Fleming: Did
you ever get a Variance there?Mr. Weiner: There was no need, it was
• industrial land. Mr. Fleming: Its not a permitted use. Mr. Weiner:
I went before the licensing Board. Mr . Fleming: You got a license?
Mr . Nutting: When I first saw you, when you came before the Board
you were doing small restorations , a car here and a car there and
now obviously you have moved on to a little more regular used car
business . I wasn ' t aware that your actually selling used cars . I
MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE SEVEN
think this should be continued.
• Mr. Fleming: Capt. Turner, could you tell us your concerns what your
�r letter meant in terms of location? Capt. Turner: The property
adjacent, there is an abandoned tank adjacent to the left of Goodhue
St. , its been there for a number of years . There in the process now
of removing. Something has leaked on to Mr. Weiners property,
making it impossible for the building to be built at this time.
Mr. Strout: What about the barrels being stored. Capt . Turner :
Those are empty, its part of the proposed cleanup. Mr. Fleming: My
bigest concern is the exterior, and your going to expand your operation
on the other side . And I can see an adverse type of deal here where
your going to be taking over Goodhue St. Mr. Weiner: the two
business ' s your refering too, that problem has been eliminated. The
auto body shop is separate, I own that business , I ran that business
for 10 years . I am a good business man in good standing and thats
why I am hear on this Petition. The auto body across the street I
sold the business last year. There isn ' t going to be interaction
at all. I want that corner to look neat. There will be 5 doors , all
of my operations will be at 2 Goodhue St.
Mr. Fleming: I think we have a small problem I don' t think you have
4 votes here as per the plans submitted. You waive your time
requirements here tonight and you can come back to the Board at the
Sept. 28th Meeting with an appropriate building. Mr . Lucas requested
to continue till Sept. 28, 1988 . Mr. Nutting moved and seconded
by Mr. Strout. The vote 4-1 , Mr. Bencal opposed.
. ,•„1 CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
128 BRIDGE STREET JOANNE TWOMEY
Petitioner requests a Special Permit to allow a change of use from
a lodging house to an eight unit studio apartment and to construct
a deck and stairway access from 2nd. floor in this R-2 zone.
Mr. Nutting read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshall
who had no objection.
Mr. Fleming: What do you rely on and is it Section 8E4 that allows
the conversion of this property be Special Permit from a lodging
house to a 8 unit residential apartment? Mr. Henry Lucas : Section
VB10 . Mr. 'Fleming: Your going for a non-conforming use. Mr . Lucas”
Taken together with 8E4 on page 86 , no structual alterations , is
found on page 4 , definition #2 . The finding is that the proposed
use is appropriate or more appropriate to the district, not then
surounding use but rather the present district nonconforming use of
the structure. What we have here is quite a unique property, a
historical throw back. Its presently licensed as a lodging house.
The reason for that, it has a 10 unit license thats necessary. It
has been used historically as 4 rooms and 6 apartments . The only way
you can get the license because you can ' t use half a building as a
y" lodging house. It was a pre-existance use, non-conforming use prior
�; • to zoning. Soits been carried forward as a licensed boarding house.
But in fact -there is no demand on a day to day basis for a roomer .
When you look at the layout, as it presently exist, the first floor
consists of 3 studio apartments . The second floor likewise. So to
call those 6 rooms is actually a misnomer . The owners and predecessors
MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE EIGHT
had to do that to maintain any use of the property. Technically both
facilities and cooking facilities . The third floor combines those
four rooms into 2 separate studio apartments . Its used for 4
�• separate rooms, they share a common bath. Its been operated as an
apartment building. Its not the transient sort of thing. (photographs
circulated) Property line right down the middle of the building,
they own half of the building. The back, the fence right down the
middle of the back yard. Unique ! The neighborhood in question has
quite the severe parking problem. A more consistant use of the
premises to be able to take the cars from this building off the street.
Which are presently on the street, would certainly make the use of the
building more consistant, then is the present nonconformity. With
respect to density. Mr. Fleming: How many cars now, and where do
they park? Mrs . Twomey: Eight, on the street. I ' ve been to the
neighbors and they were pleased to free those spaces on the street.
Mr. Bencal: Why wasn' t this done before to take the cars off the
street? Mr. Twomey: It was very expensive to get the building back
to order . We have done a lot of work to the building . Mr . Lucas :
The final step will not increase density, the number of tenants that
will occupy one of these units is not going to be any more. The
third floor would- be the same layout as the other two floors . Mr .
Nutting: The petitioners have been supporters of my candidancy in
the past and how does that fit in. Mr.Fleming: Mr. Nutting: has
sugested that the petitioners in the present case have be contributers
to Nuttings campaigns, Mr. Nutting is willing to recuse himself from
the hearing. - If -its a. problem with anybody be opposed. Is there anybody
. might be in favor of this . I rule that there is no conflict and the
• appearance of conflict has been dealt with.
Mr. McKinnon, 116 Lafayette St. and Orille Lehereux, 22 Francis Rd .
both spoke in favor. Father Thomas Morgan, 14 Northey St. , question
on parking. Not pro or con , fire safety problem.
Mr . Lucas : We are not seeking a variance, the present use has no
parking. The present use of the structure is a prior nonconforming use.
Mr . Fleming: Your asking for a special relief from this board, change
the terms of the zoning. We have the lawful right to propose
conditions do the petition. One of the conditions if I was to vote in
favor is that the maintaining of 12 legal parking spaces . That plan
doesn' t cut it. Mr . Lucas : The fact it has a use of 10 living, call
them apartments , but of those 10, 6 are in fact used as the petitioner
is asking and merge the 4 of the separate rooms into 2 units . The
architech is saying not a structual change. Mr. Fleming: to provide
parking for the tenant. Mr . Strout: Currently you can, one or two.
Mr. Fleming: The day you bought it what was it used as? Mrs . Twomey:
6 studio and 4 rooms. Nutting: What is the other side of the coin, if its
not granted and also how come they didn' t request the change up until
this time? Mr. Lucas : In the long run it doesn' t because of the
set up on the third floor . Mr . Fleming: Why does it have to be 8?
Mr. Lucas : That would require structual alterations , the layouts
are already there, the kitchenette are in, the bathrooms are in. It
exists . The economics of taking those things out . Mr. Strout: You
have to think of economics . Mr. Fleming: The proposed extention of
• a nonconforming use with a less than adequate parking plan. Wether or
not if we were to grant the petition to change the present non-
conforming use to use as proposed in the petition that require 12
parking spaces . Mr. Fleming: I move at this time to make a material
finding of fact that the new use proposed in the petition would
MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE NINE
c necessatate conformity to the Salem Ordinance relative to parking.
Mr . Bencal Seconded. A yes vote would say 12 off street parking
spaces . A no vote would say new use did not require parking. The
:. : vote of 5-0 yes vote. 12 off street parking spaces is necessary.
Mr. Lucas requested to Withdraw Without Prejudice. Mr. Bencal made
the motion seconded by Mr. Luzinski . The vote 4-1, Mr. Bencal
opposed.
WITHDRAWN
528 LORING AVENUE - GERARD ALIMENTI
Mr. Bencal : Before we proceed, question as to advertising. It was
advertised as a R-1 , petitioner states on his petition as a B-2 . I
believe there is a discrepancy in the Building Department.
Attorney Harvey Rowe, Lynn, I checked with the building department
and the assessors map has it as a B-2 also the index card.
Mr. Fleming: I rule at this time even if there is a diferentiation
that the R-1 designation, is a much stricter zone which would have
caused much more interest than a B-2 zone. And the difference would
not effect our decision.
Mr. Harvey Rowe: the original petition states that were asking for two
additionalbusiness where in reality were seeking one additional
business . We are asking for a lessor use.
• Mr . Fleming: Again its fine, where your asking for a lessor use .
Mr. Nutting read the application and a letter from Thomas Eagan, Law
office of Harvey Rowe Jr. attorney for Gerard Alimenti , stating the
difference pertaining to the one business not two . Mr . Fleming ruled
insignificant, error in typing.
Mr. Harvey Rowe: As it states in the last sentence, this building
has been there for awhile owned by Mr. Wong of the Chinese Restaurant .
He has fixed it up to its present condition. I applied for Variance
at the direction of the Building Dept. What he is asking is, he is
not changing th type of building, he is increasing the volumn on the
dormers , 1870 sq. ft. that will make the third floor a usable space
925 sq. ft. There is presently in the building 2 business ' s . A ]
realty co. and a wholesale jeweler. Tradionally the wholesale
jeweler is a one man operation, there is one employee. The proposed
use for the third floor is a low key business use, a diet control
business . The problem with the parking, the plans show backing out
onto Loring Ave . , doesn ' t go.
Mr . Strout: Mr . Bencal brought out a good point we do require a stamped
set of drawings . Its clearly on our application, and also a current
Certified Plot Plan.
Mr. Rowe: This is a Certified Plot Plan. Mr. Strout: But you
• should indicate the parking situation on that as well .
Mr . Fleming: You wish to continue to the September 14 , 1988, would
you waive your time rights . Motion made by Mr . Bencal to continue this
matter to Sept. 14th. Seconded by Mr . Nutting. The vote 4-1 , Mr . Bencal
opposed. CONTINUED TO SEPT. 14th MEETING.
MINUTES 8/10/88 CONTINUED PAGE TEN
3 THOMAS CIRCLE - RICHARD & ROBERTA WILLIAMS
The petitioner request a Special Permit from sideline set back and use
extending non-conforming use to construct an addition in this B-2 zone.
�. . Mr. Nutting read the application and also letter from the Fire Marshall
who had no objection. Letters from Gerry Kavanaugh, City Planner
and Leonard O'Leary, councillor of Ward 6 , in favor.
Petitioner, owner Mr. Williams presented to the Board item #1 , to
enlarge my nonconforming use, will put me in conformity with the
proposed change in zoning. Item #2 does need an explanation. My
intent when my existing home was sited on the lot, the former building
inspector noticed the lack of rear yard setback, he visited the site
and moved the north westerly corner house to conform with the 30 ft.
rear setback. Continuing waiting for a zoning change, and an
accidental encroachment on the side line setback. I appeal to you
for this Special Permit. No one spoke in favor or opposition.
Mr. Bencal moved to grant the petition with the following conditions :
that all construction be as per plans submitted. That a building
permit be obtained and occupancy permit for the building inspector .
That the petitioner meet all the requirements of the Salem Fire
Department relative to fire safety. That the new building to be built
in harmony with existing structure . Mr. Nutting seconded. The vote 5-0 .
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
55 HIGHLAND - DONALD GERAGHTY
Mr. Nutting read the application and a Project Summary, and also letter
from the Fire Marshall who had no objection.
Mr . Fleming: Preliminary question, did you advertise for parking.
Mr. Serafini : In January, this time just a change in use . Mr .
Fleming: I don' t think we can hear this petition. Mr. Serafini : We
request to Withdraw. Mr. Bencal moved to Withdraw Without Prejudice .
Seconded by Mr. Strout. The vote 5-0 .
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
NEW BUSINESS Letter from Mr . O ' Brien pertaining to a Variance Granted
to Mr . LaBrecque on Jan. 9 , 1985, 16 Ord Street, is annulled, record
should reflect.
Petition from Councillor O'Leary & Mr . Schroeder fro an administrative
Ruling. Waive all fees for this petition. Mr. Nutting moved and Mr .
Luzinski seconded. Under discussion, Mr. Bencal : I think we may have
opened Pandora ' s Box, this is one councillor who has questioned our
decisions . The Vote 4-1, Mr . Bencal Voted opposed. GRANTED. Mr .
Bencal : Now that the Stasinos matter has been settled, are the minutes
public records .- Mr. Fleming: Once the reason of litigation is over
its all public records . Mr . Bencal made a request that the Board Members
be provided with a copy of the Executive Session Minutes . Mr. Fleming:
If it falls upon Mrs . Devoe to do so that she be paid an additional sum
of money relative to the transcript we wont specify the amount at this
" time. January 27th 1988 meeting, just that portion of the Stasinos
•,' matter . Motion made by Mr . Bencal, and seconded by Mr . Strout .
Unanimously passed.
Meeting adjourned unanimously voted, time 10 : 55 .
Submitted by Lorraine Devoe, clerk �y��wyL(�
1
O��.fAMY?y� /�j
e e 04ty of 2IjPm, tt$$ttc u$E##$
Poxrb of 4yeal
lOI m
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL AUGUST 24 , 1988
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, August 24 ,
1988 at 7 : 00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the
hearing having been duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on
August 10 , 17 , 1988 . Abutters and other interested persons were
notified by mail.
Members Present: James Fleming, Chairman, Messrs . , Dore; Labracque,
Luzinski, and Nutting.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, James Fleming .
Mr. Fleming appointed Peter D'oreand Arthur Labrecque as regular members
for the purpose of this meeting.
MINUTES Mr. Luzinski : We held up the minutes of the June 15th meeting
and I do concur as they were printed. Motion made by Mr . Luzinski to
approve the June 15 , 1988 Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Mr .
Nutting, unanimously voted. MOTION CARRIED. Minutes of June 29 , 1988 ,
as submitted, July 20 , 1988 and August 10, 1988 as recorded. Motion
made by Mr . Nutting these minutes be approved. Seconded by Mr . Dore,
Unanimously Voted . MOTION CARRIED.
16 BARCELONA AVENUE - CHARLES A. SIDERSKI
Mr . Fleming: In order not to inconvenience anybody who might be here
for the Petition of Charles A. Siderski for a Variance from sideline
setback requirements to allow construction of a one story garage at
16 Barcelona Avenue. The petitioner has asked to be Withdrawn Without
Prejudice . Is there. anyone here that is interested in that Petition?
Councillor O ' Leary we are sorry by the petitioner has asked to do so.
Mr. Nutting made the motion to allow the petition . to be withdrawn.
Mr. Labrecque seconded. Unanimously voted.
WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
103 SCHOOL STREET - SARAH M. HAYES
Petitioner request an Administrative Ruling regarding a building permit
issued in this B-1 district.
Mr. Nutting read the application. A letter from William H. Munroe,
Zoning Enforcement Officer, and also enclosure letter to Ms . Hayes
dated May 23 , 1988 .
Mr. Fleming: For the record Ms . Hayes is my sister, I intend to sit on
this Board and vote on this matter, I do not have a financial interest
in the Administrative Ruling .or the property itself . and I don ' t believe
under Chapter 268A any conflict.
� Councillor Hayes , 21. Fairmont St. , Salem, I disagree with the
interpretation of the Building Inspector . He stated the new use is one
not covered by the Zoning Ordinance, therefore, he is empowered to
place that use in a B-1 Zone. I petitioned the Board of Appeal for an
MINUTES 8/24/88 CONTINUED PAGE TWO
Administrative Ruling stating that the intended use "storage warehousing"
is in fact covered by the terms of the Salem Zoning, section 5-6F.
•'� And therefore, by inplication is not a permited use in a B-1 district.
- It is the belief of myself and the neighbors of the area, that the new
use, not equally or more appropriate, and is more incompatable with
the surrouding neighborhood. I would respectfully request that steps
be taken to improve this use. I am requesting the Board of Appeal
order the building inspector to revoke Building Permit 241-88 . I
asked Mr . Romanovitz, who is the owner of 103 School St. , to schedule
a meeting to explain his intended use. He did not respond to my
request.
The following spoke favor of a ruling to revoke building permit at
103 School St. : Russell Thatcher, 12 Grove St. , passed out a 3 page
summary; Richard Cowley, 100 School St. ; John Corning, 4 Devereaux Ave. ;
Joseph Vargas , 102 School St . ; Elizabeth Levesque, 68 Tremont St. ;
Edward Ryan, 66 Tremont St. ; Linda Thatcher, 12 Grove St. ; Muriel
O' Keefe, 8 Grove St. ; Janet Cowley, 100 School St. ; Joseph Marshall,
13 Grove St. ; Judy Davenport, 67 Tremont St. ; Rosemary Ryan, 66 Tremont
St. ; Elaine and Francis Ryan, 66 Tremont St . , Councillor O'Leary.
In opposition: Attorney Drew Romanovitz , owner, presented to the
Board a memorandum of law whether a building permit used for 103 School
St. is legal and valid. Mr . Fleming ruled it be incorporated into
the record. Mr . Romanovitz : First of all there was one phone call
made to my office relative to the issue . we never received any writen
• concerns except. for Ms . Hayes . As to the issue of construction, there
was no construction taking place prior to the permit being issued. Mr.
Harris and I entered the building quite some time before, the permit
was issued, we walked through the building and discussed what was
going to be done. Much discussion with Building Dept. and the Fire
Dept. all parties were made well aware and the plans were reviewed
extensively, redrawn, re-reviewed, and satisfied all the concerns of
the Fire Dept. as well as the Building Inspector .
Mr. Fleming: Did you have a demolition Permit? Mr . Romanovitz : Thats
my general contractor. Mr . Fleming: Did your General Contractor?
Mr. Romanovitz : I can ' t speak for that, I can only speak of my
involvement. Mr . Fleming: Did you do any construction prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit? Mr . Romanovitz : No. Mr . Fleming: Did
you review the application that your contractor submitted? Mr .
Romanovitz : I may have. Mr . Fleming: Are you satisfied that all the
statements made in that application are true to the best of your
knowledge. Mr. Romanovitz : without reviewing it at the present time
I wouldn' t want to comment on that. Mr. Fleming: Councillor Hayes
do you have a copy of the building permit application? Councillor
Hayes : Yes . Mr. Fleming: Mr . Harris, would you get the original
application so Mr. Romanovitz will see its the same, Mr. Romanovitz :
I have reviewed it. Mr . Fleming: Is it your testimony here tonight
that the information included in that application for a building permit
is true to the best of your information. Mr . Romanovitz : With respect
f to the issue of the application was for a mini storage. Mr . Fleming: Whai
' • is the purpose of the. building sir? Mr. Romanovitz : Storage. Mr.
Fleming: Application states - storage warehouse . The estimated cost
of $40, 000 . Mr . Romanovitz : As it turns out its not enough. Mr.
Fleming: That is what the fee was based upon, and that statement was
made under penalty of perjury. Mr. Romanovitz : Warehousing vs . Mini
MINUTES 8/24/88 CONTINUED PAGE THREE
storage, should be addressed. Warehousing dictates large open space,
not secured. Mini storage used by people moving from single
, :? residence to condos , that type of thing. That the quality of storage
were talking about. So far as using the term warehousing, your talking
about large open space . The units range 6x6 to aproximately 10x14 ,
they are all secured and individually locked. As far as losing a
market is concerned, the market was losing aproximately $8 , 000 a
month, that documented. The neighborhood did not support the store,
the cost to run the store was very high, neighborhood could not support.
As far as drop off space is concerned, the parking lot of 60x80 for cars
to park and drop offmaterials to be stored, so theres ample parking.
Mini storage is a new thing, to the common jargon, when you use the
word warehouse its common to make that mistake . Mr . Nutting: You
could rent many cubicles to one person to store numerous things . Mr .
Romanovitz : Yes thats correct, but thats not the concept. This is
valid under B-1 zone. We had lengthy discussions with Mr . Munroe
he spent much time in reviewing the past records since in fact it was
a B-1 zone, theres no .lessor obtrusive use, nor heavy traffic flow.
Mr. Fleming: How do you defend this one same or better in terms of
quality, character in degree of use. Mr. Romanovitz : In those issues
the exterior of the building would reflect no change. Quality is
concerned, there have been problems , kids hanging out and cars taking
off burning rubber. This is not going to take place, there will be a
fence, and secured, opening hours 8 to 8 , re business hours . If it had
been indicated to me that I had to come to the Board I would have done
so, I relied solely on the Building Inspector . I called Councillor
' Hayes and she indicated a letter would be sent. It will be less
intrusive and traffic flow and security. Mr. Nutting: Where is the
access , as far as moving things in and out? Mr . Romanovitz : 5 access
doors , 1 rear, 2 front 1 on side, and 1 lower rear . The building is
self contained, solid brick building. Mr . Nutting: How far along
are you in the construction process? Mr . Romanovitz : 90 to 95% done.
Mr . Nutting: It seems the neighborhood are fearful of what might
be happening there, people are not comfortable of what is going on. Mr .
Romanovitz : If there was any indication from the Fire Dept. or the
Building Dept.that there was any need for your involvement, I would
of been the first one here.
Councillor Hayes in rebuttal: I 'm still not happy. I did send him a
letter and did call him. Presented letter, June 23 , 1988 . Mr.
Fleming: Did you ever talk to Mr . Romanovitz between today and June
23rd. Ms . Hayes : No I haven' t I was waiting for his response. Mr.
Romanovitz : We did send a letter. Mr. Fleming: Mr. Harris , Do you
have a copy of letter, on June 17th thats before Ms . HayesJune 23rd
letter . Mr: Fleming: Did .you receive the June 17 letter? Ms . Hayes :
Yes it was sent to City Hall. Mr . Labracque: When was that permit
issued? Mr. Fleming: Issued 4/26/88 . Mr . Luzinski : Mr . Chairman,
just for clarification what are we going to act now on whether the
Building Inspector was correct on issuing the permit. Mr. Fleming:
That is correct, to align Mr. Nuttings fears, if we were to revoked
the building permit. Mr. Romanovitz would have the ability to file
for a Variance and would come before us and we would hear the merits
• of the case, after public notice to the citizens of Salem. Mr. Dore:
Is this statement accurate does the building inspector have the
authority to do this? Mr. Fleming: Yes , the building inspecter can on
a question, on any question rule whether or not the plans submitted
would be in conformity with the current zoning regulations . Any one
MINUTES 8/24/88 CONTINUED PAGE FOUR
r agrieved by that decision may appeal to us for an Administrative
� z
( > Ruling, that his interpretation is wrong.
•Y� Mr. Nuttingmade the motion in favor of the
petition that the Salem
Board of Appeal order the building inspector to revoke Building Permit
241-88 at 103 School St. forthwith. Mr . Luzinski seconded. Unanimously
voted. Motion Carried.
GRANTED
6 ARTHUR STREET - CARL LENTO, JOHN GIARDI , DONALD MILBAUR
Petitioner request a Special Permit to extend, nonconforming structure
to add an additional dwelling unit to existing building on this
R-2 zone.
Mr. Nutting read application. Mr. Fleming declared that the notice
was enough to put abutters and others on notice for this hearing.
Mr. Serafini: The last time we were here, the concern on parking. A
new cite plan, it indicates 6 parking spaces on the lot on Arthur St .
The barn that exist should really come down, all the parking will
be on site. A 6 ft. fence and planting trees , all the way up on the
border, and 3 large trees screening the proposed building. Suggestion
will be made, by neighbors , on the proposed parking could go in
towards the building, and the line of trees could go all the way up
,r. to provide adequate screening. There is concern to the additional
! unit, these three young men have done a tremendous amount of work to
make this presentable, it affords an opportunity to get rid of an
eyesore. Parking will serve these units, there is no foundation
because of the ledge, little or no blasting. The hy-draulic system, will
eliminate the blasting. In Salem we have a pre-blast survey inspection
of the surrounding area and also we have a rule that before any blasting
can take place that there has to be a member of the Salem Fire Dept .
on site. Its an improvement in the area, its a means of getting rid
of an eyesore .
Mr. John Giardi spoke in favor.
In opposition: Ronald Pelletier, 11 Arthur St . ; Alice Pelletier,
4 Arthur St. ; Pauline Ingemi , 4 Arthur St. ; Mark Zubiel, 3 Arthur St. ;
and Bill Pelletier, 11 Arthur St.
Rebuttal - John Serafini : Parking reversing can be done. Planting
will be done. One of the significant things looking at the pictures ,
this is a condition that has existed for almost 42 years . That
going to be changed permanently, if the plan is approved. You will
have regulated parking, landscaping, fencing and the entire section
will be up-graded -with new construction. Blasting concern, built on
slab, prefered method be hy-draulic . Mr . Dore: Do you have a
response to the Gentlemens concern on the water table? Mr . Serafini:
The barn will be removed, area graded not lower loevel at grade it is now.
there will be no great excavation to make the parking area. Mr.
• ' Fleming: Do you have elevation on the attached building: Mr . Luzinski :
2/3 not more than 24 ft. high. Mr. Fleming: Its obvious , the 2
tenants there now, there a 6 vehicles . Trailor, and boat. How are
you to resolve that? Mr. Serafini : By allocating the parking spaces
to specific units . Mr. Nutting: Elaborate on the need of a Variance .
MINUTES 8/24/88 CONTINUED PAGE FIVE
Mr . Serafini : The topography of that particular lot is very uneven,
the financial, the owners have already spent a great deal of money
+ti,• on the building that is there now. In order to make the property
have a reasonable rate of return the additional unit is required.
Mr. Nutting moved that the petition be granted, Mr . Fleming amended
that motion with the following conditions : that all construction be
as plans submitted. That all construction be in accordance with the
requirements of the Massachusetts Building Code . That all requirements
of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to fire safety be adherred to. That
proper numbering be obtained from the City ' s Assessors Office. That
a building permit be obtained from the Building Inspectors office.
That an occupancy permit be obtained from the building inspector
prior to occupancy. That the parking plan as submitted be amended
to include 6 parking spaces facing the existing 3 family. That
landscaping be provided as per plans submitted and extended to the
rear property line. That 2 of the off street parking spaces per
dwelling to be used solely by tenants of each of the apartment units .
That the petitioners utilize the hy-draulic method of excavation if
possible, if not possible the petitioners conform to Salem pre-blast
ordinance to include survey to abutters and abutters to abutters .
That the construction trailor be removed from the property by December
31 , 1988 . That the off street parking by the petitioner not be used
for trailors or boats . That the new construction not exceed 25 ft. in
height. Mr. Luzinski seconded. (dedication of parking spaces to
be only by occupants . The vote 4-1, Mr. Nutting opposed.
• GRANTED SPECIAL PERMIT & VARIANCE
Mr . Fleming called a 5 minute recess .
217 NORTH STREET - PETER & ANASTASIA SCANGAS
Petitioner request a variance to convert a two family into a three
family in this R-2 district.
Mr . Nutting read application and also letter from the Fire Marshall
who had no objection. May the record reflect a petition signed by
23 people who had no objection.
Mr. Serafini, representing the petitioners , I think the fact that so
many people have signed the petition in favor, speaks for itself .
Mr. Scangas is in the painting business , he has a family and the third
floor is destined for one of their children. There is adequate
parking. Prior to its zoning change this would of been a simple
request for a special permit in a R-2 zone . Where there wasn' t
concern to condo conversion, the Board would have been sumpathetic .
Its a family neighborhood. A family thats been there for a number
of years , will be there as long as they live, and in cases like this
the Board was always sympathetic to this kind of use . It does add
another rental unit to the area, its a benefit from that standpoint.
When that law was changed there was a rash of conversions , the craze
has died down, and this has created a hardship. Please look at the
. situation and listen to the petitioners and ask yourselves if it is
such a deviation.
The following spoke in favor: Nancy Sirois , 4 Oakland St. , Robert
Sirois 4 Oakland St. , Councillor Hayes , Mrs . Scangas , to help the
MINUTES 8/24/88 CONTINUED PAGE SIX
Awa: family.
Y• {
` No one spoke in opposition.
Mr. Luzinski : Question on parking. Mr . Fleming: The parking plan
does not appear sufficient. Mr . Scangas : We have been able to back
out into the street, we have never had a problem. Mr. Fleming: How
many spaces there now. four and can those cars back out. Mrs .
Scangas : Two cars can turn and face out. Mr . Fleming: What about
the other two cars? Mr. Scangas : Usually back out. We 've been
living there for 20 years and have had no problems . Mr. Dore: Any
changes to the exterior of the building? Mrs . Scangas : No. Mr . Fleming:
They don ' t ask for relief from parking, they will have to maintain
five parking spaces . Mr. Serafini , would your clients mind if one
of the conditions were owner occupancy? Mr . Serafini: No. Mr . Dore:
What does that mean owner occupied? Mr. Fleming: If sold owner
would have to live there or it reverts back to original intent . Mr .
Luzinski : I don' t see access from third floor? Mrs . Scangas : They
will not have to go through any apartment, both entrance and exit on
inside. All interior staircase .
Prior to the motion Mr . Nutting made a few comments . Mr . Dore made
the motion to grant the petition with the following conditions :
That the building be owner occupied. That they maintain five legal
parking spaces . That the provisions of the Fire Dept. be met . That
a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. That the building permit
be obtained prior to construction. Mr. Labracque seconded. The
vote 5-0 unanimously granted.
,j GRANTED
73 NORTH STREET - GABRIEL P. ROSSI, JR.
Petitioner is asking for a Special Permit to extend the nonconforming
one story structure to create addition space in this BPD district.
Mr. Nutting read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshall
who had no objection.
Mary Harrington, in replacement of George Atkins from the office at
59 Federal St. , Salem. There was before the Commonwealth took some
land last year, an addition that was torn down because of the taking.
What Mr . Rossi would like to do is essentially replace that portion
of the building and move it to the back of the building. Side
elevations presented to the Board, to be used for storage and one
truck. The window you see with the six panes , thats the North St.
side.
Mr. Fleming: I would like you to address the relationship of this
building to .the By-Pass Road. Mr. Rossi : Theres 23 ft . from my
building to were the By-Pass Road starts , from the left side. Mary
Harrington: Mr. Rossi ' s been to the Conservation Commission, they
• found there no applicability to the wetlands protection act, and
he has applied to the planning board for the flood hazard district.
We were a little confused with the Zoning Ordinance with respect
to parking in this area. This building is in the Business Park
Development district. The best way to handle this is to get a Variance
and to go to the Planning Board as well and what we think is in
MINUTES 8/24/88 CONTINUED PAGE SEVEN
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The space that were adding is
• 300 sq. ft. so it is bigger than what was there. Mr . Dore: You
have owned this business for how long? Mr . Rossi : For eight years .
Mr . Luzinski : How long has the business been there? Mr . Rossi :
Since 1890 .
Councillor Hayes spoke in favor .
No one spoke in opposition.
Mr. Fleming: We have an obligation to the City of Salem where its an
entrance corridor, is there anything that we might require you to do
visually. Landscaping, toning down the building and its addition
from the By-Pass Road. Mr . Rossi : My whole intent is to upgrade
the property, since I purchase it and living in fear of the By-Pass
Road, and I now see a reality of taking land and businesses behind
me are now gone . In the past week have discussed fencing, and the
area is not as pleasing as I would like. The whole are is going to be
upgranded. I have intentions of painting the building, it will be a
lot nicer looking when the dust has settled. Mr . Fleming: Some sort
of landscaping on the boundary line, and would there be a possibility
of at least the By-Pass Road side be a brick or brick veneer. Mr. ,
Rossi : It seems to me to be to the benefit of the City to demand
the State landscape along that By Pass Road. Mr . Fleming: we don ' t
have any ability to make any demands on the State. You come for
relief from us , we would like to grant this , but were talking about
r •~ conditions that will help in the long run with what a visitors first
impression would be of the City of Salem. Mr. Rossi : Where the
glass ends ends on the side of the building, there is brick veneer
all across the face of two sides and then its cement block. Mr.
Fleming: How hard would it be to brick veneer that whole side. Mr .
Rossi : It would not be hard a all except the expense, I dont think
I can afford it. Mr. Luzinski : It all depends what level that road
will be at. Mr. Rossi: Ground level . Mr. Luzinski: The fence
would almost obstruct his building from view, evergreens behind it . All
you would see is the top of the building. Ms . Harrington: I think
what Mr . Rossi is asking is and I don ' t think its too impractical, if
he meets that condition if the By pass Road is put in. If thats
when the landscaping requirements would come into effect, rather than
if they never put the By-Pass Road, then your concern. Mr . Nutting:
If I may Mr. Chairman, I wonder is maybe we should leave the evergreen
planting to the solid screen, to the Planning Board. Mr. Fleming:
They don ' t have to do a site review plan, they have other functions
here, but I don' t want to leave it to them because its beyond there
jurisdiction. Mr. Rossi: Your talking $1 , 000 . dollars and they may
come in with their trucks and those trees would die. Mr . Fleming:
You have recourse here, Mary Harrington: Its just their construction,
its not negligence in any way, just like the dust on Mason & North
Streets , just part of the work. Mr. Nutting made the motion to Grant.
Mr. Luzinski : Question, concrete construction is that going to be
painted? Mr. Fleming: Concrete block to match existing, painted
• beige . Mr . Fleming made the conditions : That all work be as per
plan submitted. That all Construction be in accordance with the
Massachussetts Building Code. That a Building Permit be obtained
from the Building Inspector of the City of Salem. That all the
requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to Fire Safety be
adhered to. That the exterior finishes of the addition be in harmony
MINUTES 8/24/88 CONTINUED PAGE EIGHT
with the existing exterior . That a solid planting be made on the
entire southerly property line of the petitions as approved by the
City Planner . Mr. Luzinski seconded. The vote 5-0 unanimouse.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
6 LANGDON STREET - EDWARD J. SANTOS
Petitioner request a Variance from front set back and density '
requirements to construct a deck and stairs in this R-1 district.
Mr. Nutting read the application, and a letter from the Fire Marshall
who had no objection.
Mr. Santos, Petitioner, owner: Just had my house Vynal Siding and the
Front stairs were rotten, took stairs out and built another set of
stairs . Because my grandson being there all the time, my wife
thought it would be nice to add deck. Deck size is 4x6xl2 . I want
the stairs in the front because of a safety factor, its a dead end
street and cars back up in my driveway to turn around. Mr. Fleming:
Mr. Fleming: Cars have encroached upon his property and he' s fearful
of the occupents of the house exiting other than.
Mr. Freeman 8 Langdon St. spoke in favor
Gwendolyn Melanson 4 Langdon St. spoke in opposition and submitted
pictures .
'(, •. Mr. Nutting moved that the petition be granted with the following
conditions : That the petitioner comply with all of the requirements
relative to Fire Safety. That he obtain a building permit. That he
conform with all the regulations of the Massachusetts Building Code .
That all construction be as per plan submitted. Mr . Dore seconded.
The vote 5-0 .
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
4 ALLEN STREET - DEAN BOUCHER
Petitioner requests a Variance from density, sideyard and rear yard
requirements to allow construction of a two family dwelling in this
R-2 district.
Mr. Nutting read the application, a letter from the Fire Marshall
who had no objection. A letter from Councillor Nowakwho is in
opposition.
Mr. Fleming: I formally represented Clark Realty present owner, I
have no financial interest or otherwise and I don ' t think I 'm in
violation of 268 A, but if you believe that I give that appearance,
than I say to you or anybody in opposition that I will step down from
hearing this petition. Hearing none Mr . Fleming will sit on this
petition.
Mr . Vallis : I have not objection. Mr. George Vallis : This lot and
' `• 90% in the area contain 2 family house. In 1975 this house burned
down giving us this vacant lot with existing 2 car parking garage.
My client used this garage for his business , he ' s in the construction
business . I think this is a classic case of hardship on the land as
MINUTES 8/24/88 CONTINUED PAGE NINE
w. stated in the application. This land is undersize and we do come to
the Board for relief from the Zoning Ordinance to put ourselves
' k•v in conformity. In compliance to what the general character and
appearance of the neighborhood. Everything is a 2 family structure in
the surrounding area. This property is larger, we respecfully submit that
this is an appropriate use in a R-2 area. A 2k story duplex 2 family
dwelling, we do have sufficient parking, and just be a matter of a
couple of feet we could have an additional parking space. We do
request a Variance from front yard setback only for the size of the
building, yet that is also in conformance of the surrounding area . Also
submitted pictures . A petition signed by 17 neighbors that live
imediately adjacent, in favor . The property cannot be used for
anything else, it can ' t meet any of the zoning density regulations of
the city. The property put to its best use, this is an R-2 zone, what
were submitted is an application for 2 family that is in conformity
with the neighborhood. The neighbors have been addressed and are in
favor . Beverly Harrison, 5 Allen St. spoke in favor .
Mr. Dore: Why a two family, whats the hardship. Mr . Vallis : the area
is zoned for a 2 family, the sq. footage for each of the 2 units is
adequate, sufficient parking, its the best use of the property. The
hardship runs with the land, it cannot be used for anything under the
current zoning ordinance. Its on a Purchase & Sale Agreement.
Mr. Dore: Whats the hardship if he doesn ' t own the land. Mr . Vallis :
Its a perfect case of hardship runs with the land . Mr . Luzinski : The
size of the building, you have lowered the foundation and added the
• stairs , how high in comparasion to the other houses in the neighborhood?
Mr . Boucher: is underneath the 35 ft. requirements . Mr. Fleming:
Let the record reflect that Mr. Charles Rehal Sn. has been added to the
list of petitioners in favor. Mr . Luzinski : Who are the present
owners? Mr. Fleming: Clark Realty Corp. in 1970 Arthur & Clair
Chalifour. Mr. Dore made the motion to grant with the following
conditions : That proper street numbers be obtained. That Fire Dept.
regulations be adhered to. That a building permit be obtained prior
to construction. That construction be in accordance with the plans
submitted. That provision of Massachusetts Building Code be adhered
to. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The vote 1-4 , Mr. Fleming voted in favor .
DENIED
Mr. Fleming: Mrs . Devoe has submitted a bill at Mr . Bencals suggestion
for transcribing and typing the minutes of the January 27, 1988
Executive Session. Mr . Nutting made the motion to pay Mrs . Devoe at the
rate of $8 . 00 per hour, total $96 . 00 , out of the Board of Appeal Budget
to confer with auditor . Mr. Labracque seconded. Unanimously voted.
Meeting adjourned at 11 : 30 p.m.
Submitted by Lorraine R. Devoe, Clerk