Loading...
1990-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (2) . (11itu of �,5ttlem, Jfflttssarllusetts • -; ,,�}�� nttrD of ettl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - APRIL 18, 1990 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, April 18, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of-One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on April 4th and April 11th of 1990. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail . Present at hearing were Members, Bencal , Fleming, Stirgwolt; Associ.ate Members Dore and Labrecque; David Harris, Assistant Building Inspector, Brenda Sumrall , Clerk of the Board. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by the Chairman James Fleming. Mr: Dore and. Mr. . Labrecque were appointed voting members. Mr. Fleming introduced Mary Jane Stirgwolt, 17 Andrew St. and` ivelcomed her as the newest member of the Board. She has been appointed to fill the unexpired term of John Nutting who resigned after he became a City Councillor. Mr. Fleming, who is leaving the Board of Appeal and going to the Licensing Board, thanked everyone for their courtesy and assistance over the years, he will miss the Board of Appeal but at the same time is looking forwarded to his new position. Mr. Bencal , on behalf of the Board Members presented Mr. Fleming with a placque and expressed the gratitude of the Board for a job well done, and wishing him the • best. Mr. Fleming read a letter from John Serafini Jr. requesting Leave to Withdraw the petition of SUN REFINING AND MARKETING CO. for Variances and Special Permit at 101 NORTH ST. TB1Tto allow the construction of a food and self-service gasoline facility. Mr. Bencal made the to allow petition to be withdrawn, it was duly seconded by Mr. Labrecque. The Board voted unanimously to allow saiddpeti.iton to be WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Fleming addressing the Board, the first item on the adenda is a continued matter on 9 BELLEAU .RD. which was heard in executive session. Mr. Bencal : Mr. Daly, the City Solicitor is unable to be here tonight, he left a message with Mrs. Sumrall , should we adjourn to executive session. Mr. Fleming: Why don 't we put this off until the last item on the agenda, seeing as Mr. Daly is not here, then we won't have to have these people waiting. The Members all agreed. 4 Winter Island Road - Margaret A. Rizzotti Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting a Variance from rear setback requirements to allow an existing deck to remain. Mr. Dore, Acting Secretary, read the application, a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the property has current compliance relative to smoke detectors, th6-Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of the variance. A letter from the Plummer Home for Boys, William L. Mahoney Jr. , Chairman, in favor of the granting of the Variance. Attached to the letter from Mr. Mahoney was a copy of a motion made • and seconded authorizing the Chairman to write to the Board to express their wi'shes. i:.Mr' . Rizzotti, represented herself. The deck was built in 1988 by a contractor. It is exactly the same as the porch that was there. The porch had been repaired so many times, it could not be-fixed any more, we replaced it just MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1990 page two • 4 Winter Island Rd. - Continued as it was. Did not know we needed a permit, where it was replacing what was there. I am all alone, don 't know if I might move back there or not, but want this cleared up. Mr. Fleming: the contractor should have known. Did this come up because of some financing. Mrs. Rizzotti : trying to sell . She showed the Board the receipt for the work done. Ms. Stirgwolt asked if the house was built with the deck. Mrs. Rizzotti : yes, been there since 1969. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the variance requested to-allow an existing deck in the rear subject to the following conditions: 1 . Petitioner must conform with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. 2. Dimen' i.00s be,-.as 'per ,p9`ah' submitted. 3. A legal building permit be obtained. Mr. Labrecque seconded. The Board of Appeal voted unanimously in favor. VARIANCE GRANTED 1- 3 Ocean Terrace - Robert & Ronald Marsilia Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Variance from use and parking to allow a three family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Dore read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property has :.. current compliance relative to smoke detectors. Attorney Gary Sackrider; 19 r North St. , represented the petitioners. basically, to give-brief background, this is located on Ocean Terrace, whiidh has only about four (4) houses on it. Was used as a four (4) family years ago. Came to the Board in 1981 and asked for approval for three family, one of the conditions was to get a building • permit. He did not do that and the Special Permit has lapsed. The Marsilias bought it and have used it as three family, they did not realize it had lapsed. They bought it in 1983. It is an R-1 zone but the immediate area is multi- family. This would not change the character of the neighborhood. Would be no alterations. There is only room for three cars. Just recently brought to our attention that we needed a building permit. Mr. Fleming: asked where the parking was. Mr. Sackrider pointed out the area on the plot plan. He stated he had gone to the property and saw three cars parked there and they did not hang over the side walk. As far as hardship, if this were to be only a two family the cost would be prohibitive. Mr. Bencal : on of the conditions of the 1981 decision was it remain owner occupied. Are the Marsilia's living there? Mr. Sackrider: Ron Marsilia lives there when he is in town. Mr. Dore: just a question, wfiat does the:.otd decisioh-say?`. Mr:`Sackr.id' r: was a four family, based on what I;-.read 'id-the'old�dbcision. No one appeared in favor. Appearing in opposition=- Rollande Grant, 4 Cliff St. , no parking. Each have two cars and park in-'front of my house. I have lived there 26 years and it has always been a two family. Rented to college students. I can never find a place to park in front of my home. Betty Ash, 15 Cliff St. , the house has been up for sale for at least a year. He also owns the house at 7 Ocean Terrace and he go a permit for that house as long as it is owner occupied, it has never been owner occupied. Parking is`.terrible, there are Nd7Parki.ng Signs,'-.There are four (4) cars at that house now. In Rebuttal : Attorney Sackrider: we are not seeking any changes.:: Ocean Terrace is a small block and there aren 't any single family homes there, there are many multi-family in the area. Street parking is part of liGi!ngr.and- i.n� that'-neighborhood it is a fact of life. Property has been used • as a three family, not trying to increase any burdon on the neighborhood. Mr. MINUTES - AP.RIL 18, 1990 page three 1-3 Ocean Terrace - Continued • Bencal : when you asked for a Variance from parking did that include density? Mr. Fleming: he asked for density. Mr. Sackrider: it could be argued for density. Mr. Fleming: I don 't think he needs it, the footprint is not changing. Variance from parking would include the size. Mr. Dore: the 1981 decision was a Special Permit to convert four (4) to a three (3) , also conditioned on it being owner occupied. Mr. Fleming: yes, it was granted and they did not get building permit so the permit was made null and void. They relief on it being a three family when they bought it. Now, there has been some financial activity and this was brought up. Mr. Dore: If this is denied, does it go back to being a four family? Mr. F.16ming: if he could prove it was a four (4) family, then he could go back to four (4) Ms. Stirgwolt: as he came for permit, it looks like he can't prove it was a four (4) . Mr. Fleming: we have evidence that it was a two family. Ms. Stirgwolt: Even by statute; the time would have lapsed when the Marsilia's bought it. Mr. Dore: that is why I 'd'-:l:ike::'toi:ask what it was-'designed for. Mr. Bencal : asked M•r.s Ash. Mrs. Ash : My family lived 'in that'-house and it was two family, don 't ever remember it being legally a four. Mr. Bencal : on or about 1965 what was it used as. Mrs. Ash: I think it was a two family. Mr. Sackrider: owner occupancy,, .- , Mr. Ron Marsilia-has been the tenant on the third floor and when he comes back he stays there even now. It is up for sale and yes, the bank wants this cleared up. Mr. Bencal : the property next door is owned by your client and it is supposed to be owner occupied, is it? Mr. Sackrider: no it is not. Mr. Bencal : seems lear that is their history. Mr. Sackrider: that is not the case, they li4ed there at one time. Mr. Bencal : the Board cannot':take' action on any other decision unless the abutters notify the Building Department of the alleged violation. Mr. Bencal • made a motion to grant the petition to allow three family dwelling and variance from parking subject to the following conditions: 1 . petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety 2. Property remain a three family as long as it remains owner occupied 3. Parking as shown on plans submitted be-,maintained on site 4. Dimensions be as per plans submitted 5. A legal building permit be obtained. if required Mr. Labrecque seconded Mr. Bencal , Mr. Fleming and Mr. LabrecquerVoted in favor of the motion. Ms. Stirgwolt and Mr. Dore voted in opposition. The motion to grant, having failed to gain the required four affirmative voted needed to pass, is defeated,'. The Petition for a Variance from use and parking to allow a three family dwelling is denied. DENIED 140 Boston St. - Raymond Lavoie Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow an existing two family dwelling to be converted to a three family-'dwelling. Property is located in a split B-2/R-2 district. Mr.' Dore read,the application-and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the property has no current compliance with Massachusetts General Laws relative to installation of smoke detectors . Mr. Lavoie repres- ented himself. He explained they would like to convert to a three family, there would be two egresses inside and would be making no exterior changes. There are six (6) on site parking spaces, the entire area is paved. His brother in law would like to live in the proposed apartment. No one appeared • in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. The Board 1•ooked the plans over. Ms. Stirgwolt questioned'.the split zoning, felt if it were all B-2 they would be able to do this with a special permit. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant on condition petitioners meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department, MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1990 page four 140 Boston St. - Continued that five (5) legal parking spaces be maintained on site, a Certificate of Occupancy for the third unit be obtained, all dimensions be as per plans submitted, the properyt may remain a three family as long as subject property remain owner occupied and all construction be done as per all existing City and State building codes. Mr. Labrecque seconded. Unanimously in favor. VARIANCE GRANTED 6 Ward St. - Luis Perez (petitioner) Rosario Berube The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow property to be used as a restaurant and a variance from parking. Property is located in an R-3 zone. Mr. Dore read the application and a letter from the Salem Fire Marshal staging the Fire Dept. had not objections to the granting of the petitioners request subject to three conditions (on file) Attorney Charles Robson, Lynn represented the petitioners. He submitted a petition in favor signed by seventy five (75) abutters and neighbor's: He introduced his clients and explained they wanted to use the premises as a Spanish Restaurant. This building has been used as a paint store until recently. Would comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department and the Health Department. The business would maihly be a take out business, only asking for six (6) seats. He went over the plans with the Board. There will be two employees. There is no parking, would need four spaces. Speaking in favor was Luis Perez the petitioner. Speaking in opposition. Mildred Bergeron, 8 Ward St. , submitted a petition in opposition signed by eight (8) Ward St. residents. Thinks it is a wonderful idea- but this is not the proper place for it, parking and traffic problem, very congested area. • ` Sally Ouellette, 12 Ward St. , I can 't even park in front of my own house. When the paint store was there it was bad. Lonnie Thibodeau, 3 Ward St. Parking is problem. I have a problem with delivery, it was bad when Berube ran the paint shop. Very difficult situation, parking is awful . In rebuttal : Attorney Robson, would not have late hours, only asking for 7:00 am to 7:00 pip The Perez ' s walked all through the area and every one was in favor. Ms. Stirg- wolt question it being allowed by Special Permit. Asked where in the Ordinance it was. Mr. Robson could not immediately locate the section. Mr. Dore suggested putting this off till later in the evening to give him a chance to find it. Mr. Bencal suggested the Board take a five minute recess. The Board recessed at 8':15 .m. , called back to order at 8:39 Mr. Robson,called the Boards attention to page 37 of the Ordinance, nonconforming use, to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use can be accomplished by special permit. The paint store was never an abandoned use. Mr. Dore questioned the necessity of such early hours. Mr. Robson said they could be flexible on that point, they just wanted to get' in' there early to get set up, not to start serving. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special Permit'.and 'Variance requested subject to the following conditions; the petition comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. , a Certificate of Occupancy for this type of business be. obtained, renovations and construction be done in accordance with all City and State building codes and the hours of operation':be 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. only. Mr. Labrecque seconded. Under discussion. Mr. Bencal : I agree that a non- conforming use can be changed from one to another but it you look further, look in Section v 'B 10, it`.also -states-that such'change 'shall not be substantially • more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use, and I think that is the crux of the matter, I think this would be more detrimental , there is a safety issue and a serious parking problem, I will not vote in favor of this. MINUTES - APRIL'.18, 1990 page five • 6 Ward St. - Continued The Board then voted 2-3 against the granting of the requested special permit and variance. Mr. Dore & Mr. Labrecque voted in favor, Mr. Bencal , Mr. Fleming and Ms. Stirgwolt voted in opposition. The motion having failed to garner the required four (4) affirmatives to pass is therefore denied. DENIED 79 Bridge St. - Raymond Young Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting variances from parking and density and a special permit to convert an existing store and three apartments into five residential apartments. The property is located in a B-1 district. Mr. Dore read the application which along with the petitioner' s request for relief stated that a stop work order was issued by the Assistant Building Inspector because there was no permit on record and this was not a permitted use under the Zoning. He also read a letter from the Salem Fire Marshal stating the property has compliances relative to installation of smoke and fire detectors (on file) Mr. Fleming informed the Board and the petitioner that about 1982 or 83 he purchased a building from the petitioner, 60 Pleasant St. , he also stated he had no financial interest in the present petition and did not feel there was any conflict of interest, he would however step down if anyone felt him biased. Petitioner had no'.objection, Mr. Fleming will sit on this case. Neil Tobin, Esq. , 19 North St. , represented the petitioner, he explained they had been working with the Building Department to get this property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. He submitted a copy of a • Variance granted to this property in 1986 allowing an existing store and three apartments-and a variance from parking. The owner of the property at that time was William G. Rowe. Basically, we would like to convert the store to a residential unit and convert the attic to a residential for a total of five (5) apartments.': There are multi-family homes all up and down Bridge St.along with Commercial . This will not be detrimental and will.�eliminate a business of the first floor. Speaking in favor, Mr. Young, owner and petitioner. Speaking in opposition. Gerald Levesque, 77 Bridge St. , this is a case of nothing but greed. He can 't sell it. It is an illegal five family right`now. He is flaunting it right here tonight. Flaunting the law. Mr. Fleming: he has a permit for three apartments and the store. Mr. Levesque: he has five there now and the store is gone, I was at the property this morning and there are five mailboxes. Margaret Fitzgerald, 2 Beacon S. , I have no objection to the apartments there, but they are not kept clean, there is trash everywhere, if he kept it clean I would have no problem, the tenants don 't bother me. Mr. Fleming advised her the best recourse would be the Health dept. In Rebuttal : Mr. Tobin, not five apartments, one is not being used, if anything there are four units as opposed to three and a store. We are trying to make it legal . Mr. Fleming: when Mr. Young bought this from Mr. Rowe he was aware there were three apartments and a store. How many apartments are there now? Mr. Young: there are five, one is vacant. Mr. Tobin: The decision was on record, the store was not being used and he thought he could use it as residence. Mr. Fleming: if this were to be granted, one of the conditions would be to enclose the rubbish. Mr. Levesque: what about parking? Mr. Fleming: he has asked for a variance from the parking requirements. The previous decision says they must maintain three spaces. The • use they request requires eight spaces, they have asked for variance from those requirements. Mr. Tobin: there is a driveway between 79 Bridge and 81 Bridge MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1990 page six • 79 Bridge St. - Continued Streets. We cobld park'one more there. There is very little parking in that area. . Mr. Bencal : How long has Mr. Young owned the property? Mr. Tobin: since late 1986. Mr. Bencal : when did the renovations start? At the same time. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant to Variance and Special Permit requested on condition the petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. , that a Certificate of Occupancy for the new units be obtained, three legal size parking spaces be maintained on site, all construction be 'as`per�-city and state building codes, rubbish be enclosed and the property may be used as five family only as long as it remain owner occupied. Mr. Labreque seconded. Ms. Stirgwolt: you said owner occupied, I believe this is an investment property. Mr. Fleming: he specifically wanted it to be owner occupied. The Board voted two in favor (Mr. Fleming & Mr. Labrecque) three opposed (Mr. Bencal , Ms. Stirgwolt and Mr. Dore) . The motion having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, is defeated and the application is denied. DENIED 23 Arbella St. - George & Karen Tanch Petitioners, owners of the property are requesting a Variance to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this-R-2 district. Mr. Dore read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property was in compliance with the provisions 6f Chapter 138 relative to the installation of smoke detectors (on file) Attorney George Vallis, Church St. , Salem represented the petitioners. Would like to clarify one point. Was here before the Board on • May 31 , 1989, a four member board .and-it:.was denied. Ordinarily I would go to the Planning Board torshow substantial change, to go there I must have a decision, but in this case no decision was filed. As it now stands we.-are in limbo. My position is,'since the decision was never filed, and when I go the Planning I have to show them a decision, then there is no decision and we have standing with the Board. Mr. Fleming: I will rule at this time that you are properly before the Board and you may proceed. Mr. Vallis: there was a problem with the parking when we were here before, that is the reason the Board had a problem, you:~had;a problem with the fifth parking space, our plan.-now show that problem has been corrected. There is plenty of room to turn around. This property was purchased by the Bowman ''s back in 1977, at that time it was owned by an elderly woman, there was some reservation at the time, it was stipulated she live on the first floor free of charge for her life. Bowman came to the Board fora-three fami?yJ11iis daughter intended to live there, it was granted, at that time it was a special permit . Hessubmitted plans showing the proposed renovations. They started these plans back in 1986. Apparently, what happened was, Mr. Bowman started work When he realized he never pulled a building permit, they did have the special permit, but as I said, never pulled a permit and never took advantage of the special permit and it lapsed. The Tanch ' s bought the property and they knew it had lapsed. Mr. Bencal : when the Special Permit wasigranted, wasn 't there an erroneous plot plan submitted and wasn ':t the Special Permit granting based on that plot plan? Mr. Vallis : yes, I believe that was the case. This is the plan we are submitting now, I was not privy to the first plan. He displayed pictures of the house taken at the time the Tanch_'s bought it. He pointed out trees that were`-there and were damaging the house, that section of the house had • started falling apart.':'The T.anch 's have done a lot of work and have improved the property, his father and a lot of the children are very capable carpenters and they can do a'. lot of the work themselves. The hardship is the property itself. The rear of the property on the first floor was never used, was always cold in MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1990 page seven 23 Arbella St. - Continued • there. There will have to be a substantial amount of work done, it would cause substantial hardship to'.have to use this as a two family. The first unit would be the front first floor, the second would be the front second floor and the third will be in the rear up and down, that is where my clients would live. This will enhance the property. The footprint of the building will not change. This is a young family, lifetime residents of Salem, will improve the neighbor- hood. These are the type people we need and want in Salem. Ms. Stirgwolt: will the renovations be undertaken right away? Yes. Speaking in favor were Kathleen and Margaret Callahan, 7 Warner St. and Bob Wallace, resident of the down stairs apartment at 23 Arbella st. who stated the Tanch's had taken a real 'problem and made it better. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Variances requested on condition all conditions of the Salem Fire Department relative to smike and fire safety are strictly adhered to; A certificate of occupancy for the third unit be obtained from the Building Inspector, all construction and renvoations are to be done in strict accordance with existing City and State building codes and as per the plans submitted, fiVe (5) legal parking spaces be maintained on site; this shall remain three family only as long as it is owner occupied, existing trees and shrubs are to be maintained as shown on plans, all dimensions shall be as per the plans submitted. Mr. Labrecque-seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 13 Maple Avenue - Peter Johnson This:•petition was continued from the March 28, 1990 meeting, said petition was • continued as petitioner was not present at the March 28, 1990 meeting and the Board voted to continue to allow the petitioner to explain his absence. The petitioners are requesting a Variance from rear yard setbacks to allow construction of an addition. Mr. Dore read the application, he then read a letter from Judy Johnson explaining their absence. According tb the Johnsons, notice of the meeting had never been received. Mr. Fleming asked if they had signed a waiver of time and they had. Also, they submitted the receipts from the Certified notices they had sent to all abutters, all but two have been received. Peter Johnson represented himself, he reiterated the fact that they had not received notice. Mr. Bencal asked the Clerk if the notice had been returned to the office by the Post Office. She responded it had not. Mr. Johnson: explained what they wanted, need addition room for a washer and dryer as their kitchen is very small . Mr. Fleming: will ''the new addition be 21 ' x 8' ? Mr. Johnson: yes. It will be too close to the rear lot line. It will give us more room. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Ms. Stirgwolt: did any of the neighbors not respond? Mr. Johnson: we did not hear from those two, but we did talk to the all of the neighbors. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Variance requested to allow an addition in the rear as requested on condition all conditions of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are adhered to, a certificate of occupancy for the addition is obtained, exterior of the proposed addition be in harmony with the existing structure, all construction be in accordance with all existing City and State building codes and as per dimensions shown on plans submitted. Mr. Labrecque seconded. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1990 page eight The Board M adjourned.%theiregularimeeting at 9:35 p.m. and went into Executive Session to discuss litigation relative to 9 Belleau Rd. The Board reconvened regular session at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Bencal made a motion to approve the minutes of March 28, 1990 as taped, Mr. Dore seconded. Approved 4-0, Ms. Stirgwolt abstained. Mr. Bencal made a motion to approve the minutes as transcribed for the Executive Session, 2/21/90 - the meeting of 2/22/89; and 37 -.Walter St. , 1/17/90. Mr. Dore seconded, minutes approved 4-0, Ms. Stirgwolt abstained. The Board of Appeal adjourned at 9:50 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held May 16, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Cle'..k of the Board 1 1 (Qit of �$Aem, 'Mttsoadjusetts Paura of �kppeal BOARD.�OF-APPEAL MINUTES - MAY 16, 1990 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, May 16, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. on, the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other interested parties by mail and notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on May 2 and May 9, 1990. Present at the hearing were: Richard Bencal , Joseph Correnti , Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Mary Jane Stirgwolt, Associate Member Arthur LaBrecque, Assistant Building Inspector James Santo and Clerk of the Board Brenda Sumrall . The Meeting was called to order by the,Acting Chairman, Richard Bencal . Mr. Bencal introduced Mr. Joseph :Correnti and welcomed him to the Board. He also welcomed Ms. Stir.gwolt again to the Board. The first item on the adenda was the reorganization of the Board of Appeal . Mr. Luzinski nominated Mr. Bencal as Chairman of the Board, Ms. Stirgwolt seconded. Mr. Bencal was unanimously elected Chairman of the Board of Appeal . Mr. Febonio nominated Mr. Luzinski for Vice Chairman, Mr. Correnti seconded. Mr. Luzinski unanimously elected Vice Chairman of the Board of Appeal . • Mr. Luzinski nominated Mr. Correnti for Secretary, Mr. Febonio seconded. Mr. Correnti unanimously elected Secretary of the Board of Appeal . The next item on the agenda is the approval of the Board of Appeal By=Laws. The consensus of the Board was that it would be best to approve them forlar imited time to give the new members time to become acclimated and more able to suggest- possible changes. Mr. Bencal mentioned a new rule the Board had adopted but had not yet put into the By-laws, that was the ruling that any person who has submitted a letter can either have that ;letter read into the record or they can speak, but not both, only one bite of the apple. Another suggestion, or food for thought that Mr. Bencal mentioned was it an officer does not finish a term, the Board can vote a new officer right away. He suggested Board members write any suggestions they might have and submit them to the Clerk to keep on file and perhaps at a meeting in August they could go over all the suggestions. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to approve the By-laws as they are now for a period of 90 days. Mr. Correnti seconded. Unanimously approved for 90 days. 81 Highland Ave. - Salem Hospital The petitioners, Salem Hospital , are requesting a Special Permit to extend non- conforming use and structure by allowing the construction of an additibn ,to the existing structure and expanding the surgicenter, also a Variance from parking. Property is located in an R-1 zone. Mr. Bencal will not be sitting on this petition. Mr. Labrecque was appointed a voting member. Mr. Luiinski was the Acting Chairman. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire • Dept. stating they had no objection to the granting of this Special Permit and Variance. Attorney John Serafinin Jr. represented the petitioners, he stated, the hospital intends to add a relatively small addition. ; We want to build and extend the current surgicenter. 'Day Care facilities presently are inadequate MINUTES - MAY 16, 1990 page two 81 Highland Ave. - Salem Hospital (Continued) • for the needs now and for the future. As we have indicated, we have taken a lot of patients from Lynn and we need more space to handle the -load. While Salem residents will benefit from this , it will also be a regional facility. The plan we have submitted shows the proposed addition. Mr. Serafini displayed the plans to the Board and to the assemblage. The structure will be built at level five which is actually one level down from the main part of the hospital which is in fact level six. There is a low building which sits in front of the main building. All the lower buildings will taken out, the new addition will be joined with the existing domestic building, there will be a continuity between the old and the new. There is a clear need for this additional space, will benefit the public good. Ms. Stirgwolt: how many parking spaces will you be losing. Mr. Serafini : don 't have the exact figures, temporarily it will be 30-40 space but we-Will be adding parking eventually. At this point there will be a little loss, employees will have to park in the lower lot. We require a Special Permit at the Hospital is nonconforming in structures and use . The buildings are too close to each other. One side of the building, because of the grade, will be levels 3, then 4, and 5, it will not go to 6. Davenport is 10 stories, it is deceiving because it is built into the hill . Mr. Geraghy addressed the Board and the assemblage, giving a brief description of the hospital , both its structures and uses. Mr. Bob Peterson, Architect, explained they tried to design this so as to blend in With the existing building which is predominently brick. Will be a flat roof, will be a penthouse and the roof top equipment will be hidden. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Linda Vaughn, Salem: First of all , the employees do not park in this lot, neither do the doctors. This is very congested area, very narrow driveway, it is not a big lot. Need security • there all the time. I am concerned that that patient parking will be eliminated. Mr. Geraghy: There are patient' spaces. The employee spaces will be moved to the new lot, they will not have any parking in the front. We will be making spaces much closer for the neediest patients. Mrs. Vaughn: I 'm not concerned with the employees or the doctors, I am concerned with the patients that use that lot, a lot of them are handicapped. Mr. Luzinski : is there going to be an area for patients who will be dropped off, say for the day? Mr. Geraghy: yes, there will be a limited drop off area. We will be picking up spaces with the new lot. Hearing was closed, no rebuttal . Mr. Febonio made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to; exteriod finishes of the new addition be in harmony with the existing structure and appropriate landscaping be done; a drop-off area for handicapped patients be maintained; plans be reviewed by the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building permit and all construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted and in accordance with City and State building codes. Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 190 North St. - Anatoly & Larisa Katsman (petitioner) Panagoula An Young (owner) Mr. Bencal resumed the Chair, Mr. Labrecque is not sitting on this petition, the five regular members will hear this petition. Mr. Correnti read the application, a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they had no objection to the granting of this petition, a letter from the Chairman of • the Planning Board informing the Board of Appeal that by a vote of 7-0 the Planning Board found that specific and material changes had been made. MINUTES - May 16, 1990 page three 190 North St. - Continued • Attorney George Vallis, represented both the petitioners and the owner. Mr. Bencal : The Board has heard from the Planning Board as to substantial change, could you tell us how this differs from the previous petition which was denied. Mr. Vallis: in the last petition, which was denied last September, the request was for the sale of hardward, plumbing, electrical supplies, lawn decorations, etc. , also; they intended to demolish a good portion of the front of the building so as to provided 8-10 parking spaces. The Board denied this request, in their findings of fact, they found that back out on to North St. would exacerbate an already dangerous condition, they also found the use would not be conducive to this area. Our request this evening is for the repair of appliances and the retail sale of parts and accessories. This is a relatively quiet business, it is mainly drop-off so it will not generate any great need for parking. He will either fix the appliances or sell the needed parts. Repairs will be on small household appliances. Mr. Luzinski : I believe there is a substantial change, I know the new members don 't have all the back ground on this particular property but I have no':problem with it and I make a motion that there is a substantial change and the Board can hear this petition. Ms. Stirgwolt seconded. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Attorney Vallis addressed the Board: I know you are all very familiar with this piece of property but for the benefit of the::new members I will give a brief history of it. This building was a drugstore, was a coffee manufacturing business. Building was purchased by the present owners in 1939, her husband manufactured coffee and distributed it. He passed away quite young. In 1981 or so, I came to the Board to use the property for ceramics,•:this was granted, ceramics were made and classes held on • the premises. At the time of that decision, the Board of Appeal determined the building was only good for commercial use, it was constructed for commercial u_ se. The ceramics left, the drugstore went out of business. Those businesses probably generated more traffic than this one will . I think you will all agree with me that neighborhood drugstores are a thing of the past. We have tried to get people interested in another drugstore but to no avail , Katsman runs a service center, basically, people buy their products, small " appliances, if they have any problems with these appliances they call the company and the company will suggest they bring them to this particular store: He also repairs and sells parts to lamps. The retail is limited to parts. Hours of operation are 9-5 Monday through Friday, 10-2 on Saturday, there are no Sunday hours. Mr. Bencal : would you comfortable with that being a condition? Mr. Vallis: not at all . He operates a place in Lynn, on'-Lewis St. which is a similar to North St. This is not the type of operation where you would stay and lounge around. Will not create a parking problem. Speaking in favor. Carroll Dickenson, 3 Connors Rd. , I have been at his place of business in Lynn, never a problem. Speaking in opposition. Karen Konsinasi , 180 North st. , is that all he is going to sell , will "he: beselling small appliances. Mr. Vallis: has to stock some things, shades, lamps. Barbara Kluge; 187 North st. , I am concerned with the signs. Mr. Bencal : he will have to meet requirements of the sign ordinance. Dorothy Laborde, 188 North St. , what about fire, will they be sprinkled? Mr. Bencal : they will need the approval of the Fire Dept. , if the Fire Dept. requires them to have sprinklers, then they will have to have sprinklers. Mr. Ryan, 189 North St. , I am also concerned about signs, there is an appliance store down the street and the signs are an eyesore. Mr. Bencal : they will have to meet the requirements of the sign ordinance. Mr. Luzinski : we could limit the lighting. • of any signs. Mr. Ryan: another concern I have, how is this different from a general store, which is what they wanted the last time, what is the definition MINUTES -- MAY 16, 1990= page four 190 North St. - Continued • small appliance. Mr. Bencal : I understand what your saying, I had a problem the last time because of the scope of types .of retail requested. The General Store use was open to interpretation. Barbara Kluge: will there be a curb cut? no. Mr. Bencal : they would need the permission of the State for a curb cut there. In Rebuttal : George Vallis, people appear to be concerned with the controlling of the use. They should hotify the Building Inspector if they feel there are any violations. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : will they be using the whole building? Yes Mr. Correnti : will there be any exterior changes? Vallis: nothing major, there is a large glass area, the building is in dis- repair but most of the work will be interior. Mr. Luzinski : what about signs? Vallis: don't know, but any signs will have to comply with the requirements of the Salem Sign Ordinance, there will not be any blinking sighs: Ms. Stirgwolt: I would hope the signage would be done tastefully and that the window area be kept clean. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition for Variance from use and parking to allow an appliance repair shop and retail sale of lamps, parts and accessories on condition petitioner install an appropriate alarm system and meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. , petitioner comply with all all state and city building codes, property be used for appliance repair, sale of lamps, parts and accessories only, any and all signage comply with the Sign Ordinance of the City of Salem, the hours of operation be 9 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday; 10 am. to 2 pm on Saturday, no hours on Sunday and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • 463 Loring Ave. - Richard Hogan & Diane Mackey Petitioners are requesting Variances from rear and side setbacks to allow construction of a deck in this R-1 zone. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the property was in compliance and the Fire Dept. has no objection to this request being granted. Mr. Hogan repesented himself and Ms. Mackey, all we want is to put a deck, 12 ' x 14' in the rear, sd we would have a place to sit out and to have cookouts. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal : is there anyplace else you could put a deck? Mr. Hogan: no, there is not enough room on one side, the other side is my drivway, could not put it in the front. It is only 8" off the ground. Ms. Stirwolt made a motion to grant the Variances requested on the condition all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to fire safety be strictly adhered to, all construction be done as per city and state building codes, all dimensions be as per the plans submitted, material used be in' harmony with the materials of the existing structure and a legal building permit be obtained. Mr. Febonio seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED One Salem Green/corner of Washington & Church/corner of Church & One Salem Green. Department of Employment Training (petitioners) The petitioners are requesting Variances from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance to allow two off premise, post mounted signs, one to be located at the corner of Washington and Church sts. , the other to be located at the corner of One . Salem Green and Church St.': the property is located in a B-5 district. MINUTES - MAY 16, 1990 page five ONE SALEM GREEN - Continued • Mr. Correnti read the application%and a letter of support from;.-Mayor Neil Harrington. Mr. Luzinski : I don't have the correct map. Mr. Correnti : the map she submitted is incorrect, but we have a second one that is correct. Monica Synnott representing the petitioners submitted letters of support. Mr. Bencal read the letters into the record, first was from Marjorie Stein, Branch Director of Health Care Services, next from Joan Gormalley, Executive Director of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, also a petition in support signed by ten (10) owners and directors of businesses^in the general area. (on file) Mr. Paul O'Donnell was present with Ms. Synnott to answer any questions the Board might have relative tb�the signs themselves, he is a bidder for the job of erecting them. Ms. Synott: When I went to the different businessess to get signatures they all said it was a good idearbecause people were always stopping and asking directions: The sign on Washington st. will go on the existing post which used to say One Salem Green, the second will go right by the Lyceum. She displayed renderings of the signs. Ms. Stirgwolt: how high? about 8 feet to the bottom. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : Z would want to be directed i'n:the right,direction, I think it is very important. Ms. Stirgwolt: have you spoken with the people in the Planning Dept. ? Ms. Synnott: yes, they are aware of this, they were the ones who informed us we had to apply to the Board of Appeal . Mr. Bencal : have you been to any other Boards? Ms. Synnott: yes, we went to Design Review; we wanted four signs, but we have since changed our minds. Mr. Bencal : I am a little concerned about granting variance to allow signs onCCity property, what would prevent other businessess from requesting same. I am reluctant to vote on this without approval of the City Council . Ms. Synnott: I went to all the other basinessess, not • one of them had a problem with this. We are here in Salem, it is critical that people know where we are located and how to get'-.here. It is essential to have signage. Mr. Luzinski : is this a bonafide State agency? Yes. These are only directional signs. Mr. Bencal : the hardship would be the fact that clients are not able to locate the premises easily, this puts a hardship not only on your clients but on the businessess in the area. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition approval of the City Council or any other City Board or Commission that has jurisdiction, included, but not limited to, the Planning Board and the Design Review Board. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 19 East Collins St. - Chester Konopka Jr. Petitioner, is requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating the property was not in compliance with MGL 's relative to smoke detectors. The Fire Dept. would not object to this being grantednsubject to certain conditions (on file) Mr. Konopka represented himself, he displayed plans to the board. Will remove the existing porch. This will be a family room, we need the addition space. Mr. Febonio: this will not be an additional unit. No, it will only be one story high. Mr. Febonio: this will be in harmony with the existing structure. Yes, it will be gabled on,'thb end and will be lower than the existing roof line. Speaking in favor, Mr. & Mrs. Konopka Sr. , would like the extra room and the junky porch should be taken down. No one appeared in opposition. Mrs. Strigwolt moved to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with Fire dept. require- ments, obtain a building permit, conform to city and state building codes, obtain a certificate of occupancy, addition be in harmony with existing structure, all construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - MAY 16, 1990 page six • 6 Oak St. - Richard Bergeron Petitioner is requesting variances from density, setbacks and lot coverage to-allow a pool , deck and two existing sheds on the property which is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property had no compliance relative to the installation of smoke detectors. (on file) Mr. Bergeron represented himself. The shed was a garage and when I came down for a problem.with the pool and deck I was advised there was papers filed that the garage had been torn down, that wasn 't the case. I guess the shed had been built inside the garage. As far as the pool and deck, I have had a pool and deck there for 18 years. The pool was failing, I tore it down and put in a bigger pool and deck. Mr. Bencal : when did you do that? May, 1989. Vdid not know I needed a permit. One of my neighbors complained about it, I came and spoke to the building inspector, they are the ones that told me what I had todo and I 've been doing what they told me. Submitted petition in favor signed by 15 neighbors and abutters, I know there is one neighbor here who is opposed. Displayed pictures of the property. I know one of the-neighbors is not happy, I have tried to talk with her. I have made concessions, she took me to court, went through mediation, sat with them, I agreed to cut the deck back one foot from the fence and to build any kind of structure above the deck. Her concern was someone-would fall off the deck into her yard and she would be liable. I assured heryI had plenty of insurance but I would build any kind of retaining wall or fence, anything she wanted me to do. I ' ll do any thing she wants within reason to keep the deck. Part of it isn 't really a deck, if you look at it, its a catwalk along the edge to make it easier to clean. I know I was supposed to get a permit, I didn 't get one, nothing I can do about that now. • I want to rectify the problem. I would like to solve the problem with the neighbor; I just can 't seem to be able to do anything. I want to keep the deck, I want to keep the pool , we enjoy our yard, keep it nice. Mr. Bencal : you' received a letter dated July 31'; 1989 from Mr. Santo, Assistant Building Inspector, I stress the date, we are looking at 10 months, why the delay? Mr. Bergeron: first of all I was getting my land surveyed, took a long time to get,--that done. I was in contact'.with Mr. Santo, kept him informed of what I was doing. I have bent over backward. This is an above ground pool but I have dug it about six inches into the ground, not really four feet above ground. Aluminum sides. Mr! Correnti : on the right side of the pool , as we are looking at the diagram, is that a lawn area? Yes. Mr. Correnti : on the left side, where the deck is, is right up against the fence? Mr. Bergeron: the deck is about 3 inches from the fence, like I said, she is concerned that someone would fall off the deck onto her property. I told her I would build something from the deck up, lattice work, fence, anything to make her happy. Mr. Luzinski : when did you put this pool up? Mr. Bergeron: that particular pool I put up in May, June 1989. The pool I had before was 18 foot with deck... Mr. Luzinski : I am curious to know why.you didn- t'.put'.it here (referring to right side where the lawn-area is) Mr. Bergeron: because there is a big tree, the tree shades the pool _:,Mr4.- -iva Luzinski : .wheh y6u..had the opportunity to put it in a better location, I can 't see why you didn't. Mr. Bergeron: it is not a better location. The tree is right here, we would have to cut the tree down. Mr. Luzinski : why? Mr. Bergeron: the tree would shade the pool . I think the law says I can have the pool 6 feet from the line. we're talking a few feet. What have a pool that is in the shade. Mr. Bencal : that was more of a concern that trying to work with your neighbors. • Mr. Bergeron: I had a pool here for years. I had no problem. Ms. Stirgwolt: I understand your frustration, but your neighbors are only asking to have the law enforced. Mr. Febonio: you said you talked to her and nothing would satisfy her? Mr. Bergeron: She said things would satisfy her and she changed MINUTES C MAY 16, 1990 page seven • 6 Oak St. - Coninued her mind. Mr. L'uzinski : unable to read the mediation agreement. Mr. Bencal : I have a copy of it right here, for the Board I will read it. (On file) Th:ecquestion now is, Mr. Correnti , how does this agreement impact the Board. Mr. Correnti : It is my feeling that the Board is not obliged to follow this. It is nonbinding. The mediation is entered into volunarily, it does however show good faith among the parties. Mr. Bergeron: she had no objections to the pool at this meeting. There is some question as to the height of fences, she has a two foot wall that has a six foot fence on it, we have not said anything. Mr. Bencal : stay with issue before us. As far as the agreement, while not binding, have you done anything about this. Mr. Bergeron: her p,robliem with the deck was she was afraid someone would fall ontonher property, I said fine, I will build a fence on top of the deck, anything to please her, she said fine. The mediation people drew up this piece of paper, we all signed it, she was supposed to get in touch with her insurance company, get back to me and tell me what she wanted built. Gall the mediation people, they called her, she said she was waiting for word from the Building Inspector. Thenl0basaid she changed her mind, she didn'---t want that. This is why it has taken so long, listen, I would like to keep the thing if at all possible, it will be a real hardship to have to take it down. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition: Doris Obremski, 10 Oak st. , I 'm the neighbor he's talking about. We went along with the mediation just to have a peaceful neighbor, have been there 40 years and I didn 't build the retaining wall , the fence is six feet on his side, which is legal , the building inspector at the time said it was all right. My property is two feet lower than his. Never objected to the first pool . The shed was built`.aacouple of years after he bought • it. It was a garage and it was way in the corner, he moved in down and when he did he cracked the retaining wall , I saidrnothing. He brought it down to the corner of my house, very close;, I said nothing, wanted no trouble. As far as the mediation, I took Mr. Bergeron to court for harrassment and he abused my, I couldn 't work in my yard, he gave me a hard time. I don 't go out in my yard when his wife is not home, he has harrassed me, has sent stuff to me in the mail , I have had calls, he threatened me, he harrassed me so much, thought we would have to move, that's why I went to court. I lost an apple tree, lost a strawberry patch because he dumped oil on it, I don 't want to go into it, but this man:7h'as done so much, he has such a selfish way. Mr. Bencal : we can 't get into person- alities. Mrs. Obremski : I have gone back on my word with the mediation board because I want him as far away as I can getthim, he 's not a good neighbor. Have no problem with garage or thbzother shed. Had the property surveyed and someone pulled out the stake, hadcit redone. I can 't keep spending money to keep this man off my back, I was going to go along with the fencing of the deck , but it 's four feet up and when someone stands on it they are up to their knees, this is an invasion of privacy. Don 't object to the other stuff, but I do objeettto the deck. Casimir Obremski , 1110 Oak',St. , the fence in question is a cedar fence, onlyz inch thick, you caA't lean against it, it ' s six feet tall , the decking is half way up the fence and the deck is right up to the fence, if someone were to lean on it, they will fall and the distance would be eight feet, it is an eight foot drop, someone is going to getthurt. As far as that mediation. My wife initiated that, he did not initiate it. The garage used to be in the back of lot, it was moved to accomodate pool , the tree in question is way in the other corner. The first pool did not have decking on it. In Rebuttal : Mr. Bergeron • displayed a picture of the property,and the location of the tree. I will do anything they want, move the deck back a foot, make fence higher so they will have their privacy. The Board and the petitioner discussed possible ways of placing the pool & deck. Public hearing porti.on of the meeting closed. MINUTES - MAY 16, 1990 page eight 6 Oak St. - Continued • Mr. Febonio: pool and deckrall done without a permit, when did this start?. Mr. Bergeron: June 1989. Mr. Bencal : whats your line of occupation. Mr. Bergeron: I am an electrician. Mr. Luzinski : I can 'twhy the pool can't be moved to location where it would comply with setbacks, I think there is enough room. They would still get full advantage of the pool , it would not be shaded until late afternoon: 's Ms. Stirgwolt: I would have a hard time granting this with the deck. Mr. Bencal : if you would feel comfortable, we could deal with the sheds and the pool & deck separately. Ms. Stirgwolt: yes, I think that would be the best. Mr. Febonio: You can 't just build pool and deck and ignorer your neighbors rights, the laws are there to protect them, seems to me the petitioner wants is one hundred percent his way. Mr. Correnti.: would ask the Board for a little guidance. The petitioner must show an undue hardship with his lot and why his lot is unique and why denying a variance would cause a hardship on him and I 'm not sure I heard any, unless it was the tree. Mr. Bencal : that would be open to interpretation, it is my opinion that the hardship with the pool is self created. There was an alterior location to put this pool , and to put it there and to further exacerbate the hardship on the abutters was to put a deck or walkway around it. There is evidence that the sheds have been there since before the petitioners bought the property. I think it would be proper'-to separate the sheds as one request and the pool and deck as another. Mr. Correnti : can this pool be moved without being destroyed. Mr. Santo: yes it can, it will be costly. Mr. Febonio: will this take two: motions? Mr. Bencal : yes it will . Mr. Luzinski : I would move at this time to separate the question into two portions, the first being to allow the pool and deck and the second to allow the two existing sheds. Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board voted unanimously in favor of splitting • the question. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the two existing sheds be allow to remain at 6 Oak',.St. on condition a building permit be obtained, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to fire safety be adhered to.anMr. Eebonio .seconded': The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion, Variance to allow two existing sheds is granted. Mr. Stirgwolt made a motiong to grant the variances requested to allow existing pool and deck. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted unanimously against-the motion to grant, havi.ng failed to obtained the four affirmative votes necessary to pass, the motion fails and the Variance requested is denied. VARIANCE TO ALLOW SHEDS- UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW POOL AND DECKS IS DENIED - UNANIMOUSLY. 12 Looney Ave. - Raymond & Mary Shea Petitioners are requesting -a Special Permit to allow an existing shed in this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application, a letter from Councillor O'Leary in favor and a letter from the fire marshal stating the property was not in current compliance with laws relative to the installation of automatic smoke detectors. Attorney William Lundregan represented the petitioners. They have lived in Salem all their lives, the house was built with a building permit, a few years later they had a contractor put shed up, they thought the permits were pulled„they had a plot plan done and it was discovered the shed did not conform with requirements of zoning. He displayed pictures of the property to the Board. There were no permits pulled and we would like to correct that, it has been there since 1963. He submitted a letter from Mr. James Brennan, former Fire Chief and • direct abutter supporting the petition. no one appeared in favor or in opposition. hearing closed. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant on condition all requirements of fire department be adhered to and all dimensions be as per plans submitted. Mr. Correnti seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - MAY 16, 1990 page::?nine • Minutes of the April 18, 1990 meeting were unanimously approved. Mr. Bencal : there was a problem with decisions that had not been done, but thanks to Mr. Luzinski , we are all caught up to date. A letter to that effect will be sent to the Mayor and the City Solicitor. Would like to suggest to all the members of the Board that as a matter of course all decisions be written and given to Ms. Sumrall in a timely fashion. Should be recorded at the City Clerks office within fourteen.'days of the meeting. Would like to thank the Board of efforts and would ask the Board to continue the do the same fine job: Mr. Luzinski : we have talked about this over the years, limiting the amount of time to make their presentation. Think at one time we had a 15 minute limit. Think it is still in the by-laws. Mr. Bencal : that is one of the reason we want to go over the by-laws. We should ask- the petitioners to be brief, we don 't want to get'-the reputation that we are limiting them. Mr. Luzinski : we could leave that to the discretion of the Chairman. Mr. Febonio made a motion to adjourn, Mr. Luzinski seconded. Unanimously adjourned at 9:49 p.m. , next scheduled meeting to be held May 30, 1990, 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, • Brenda M. Sumrall .. Clerk of the Board • 0 ( ,.,,�b� Ctu of "Salem, 'Mttssadjusetts ,,� i F ourb of eal BOARD OF APPEAL MINUTES - MY 30, 1990 A meeting-of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, May 16, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. on , the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was sent' to abutters and other interested parties by mail and notices of the hearing were duly published in the Salem Evening News on May 16 and May 23, 1990. Present at the hearing were: Richard Bencal , Richard Febonio, Edward Luzinski , Mary Jane Stirgwolt, Members of the Board of Appeal . Also present was James Santo, Assistant Building Inspector and Clerk of the Board Brenda Sumrall . The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Richard Bencal , Chairman. Mr. Bencal addressed the assemblage. He explained the there was only four members of the Board present this evening, for a-petition to be granted it would take an unanimous vote of the Board 'and he would at this time entertain a request to withdraw or continue applications till a later date. No requests were made. Ms.Stirgwolt was appointed Acting Secretary. Mr. Bencal ,paid tribute to Mr. Soloman Markarian, the night custodian, who is retiring. Thanked him for all his help over the years and wished him the best. • 407 Essex St./40 Warren St./403-405 Essex St. - Miroslaw Kantorosinski Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow parcels to be divided. The parcels are located in a B-1 zone. Ms. .Stirgwolt read the application. Mr. Kantorosinski represented himself. He displayed the plot plans showing the proposed division to the Board of Appeal . He explained he had purchased some land from both 40 Warren St. (2,892 + sq. ft. ) and some land from 403-405 Essex St. (523 sq:ft. ) . Went to the Planning Board and got their approval . Went to the Historical Commission and go permission to put a fence. Will be doing some landscaping. We are improving the area. The fence was chosen by the neighbors. Everything is pretty much in place. The land was getting to be too much for Mrs. Leonard (40 Warren St. ) to take care of so I bought some of it. This will be strictly for parking. Will be no construction on it. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : this is just a matter of housekeeping. Mr. Febonio: this will just be a parking lot? Yes, everything is approved by the Planning Board and the Historical Commission. There will be about eight spaces for my staff and myself. Mr. Febonio: do you have a parking plan? No, did not think I needed one. Mr. Bencal : should be conditioned on the approval of the Fire Dept. and as per the plans submitted, if the Board were to vote on this. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to grant the Variances requested to allow parcels to be divided as per the plans submitted and on condition petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 • MINUTES - MAY 30, 1990 page two 56 Valley St. - Paul & Shirley Gallo • Petitioners are requesting a Variance from frontage to allow construction of a single family in this R-1 zone. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application. Mr. Gallo repesented himself. I have given this land to my daughter and would like to build a house for her, it is a pre-fab Westchester (showed plans) We have plenty of land, over eighteen thousand square feet but there is only 90 feet of frontage. If we gave them the full hundred feet of frontage, my lot would only have 90. Mr. Luzinski : what you are basically asking for is 10 feet. Mr. Gallo: that's right. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : this will certainly not be detrimental , even after being split the new lot has over 18,000 leaving over 21 ,000 sq. ft. on Mr. Gallo' s lot, it will be over or equal to any lot there. Mr. Febonio made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition all construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted, a legal building permit be obtained, comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. , obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, proper number be obtained from the Assessor for the new dwelling. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 4 Ames St. - Patricia Carson-Higgins Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow construction of deck & shed in this R-2 district. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application. Ms. Carson-Higgins represented herself. Displayed pictures of the property. Ames St. is the last street in Salem before you go over the Bridge. We need the shed to store lawn mower and • miscellaneous small things. Just to neaten up the yard. There is a plastic bubble on top of the shed. The deck will be 6 ' x 23' and we will be doing shingling, , pressure treated cedar: - Mrs Bencal : if the Board were to look on this favorably, there would probably be a condition that the exterior finishes conform with the existing structure. Mr. ,Lbzinski : how old is that house? Ms. Higgins: I think it's about a hundred years old. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : I would have no problem with this. Mr. Bencal : I think it should be treated as a variance, there is a hardship, there is no other place to put the deck and shed.on the lot. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept.be strictly adhered to, a legal building permit be obtained, construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted, construction comply with existing city and state building codes and all exterior finishes of the proposed deck and shed be compatible with the existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 132 Boston St. - Joseph Karagezian Petitioner is requesting a Variance ' from lot coverage to allow an existing deck and a Variance from minimum width of driveway to allow the driveway to be eleven (11 ) feet instead of the required twelve (12) in this B-2 district. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application. There was no other correspondence. Mr. Karagezian represented himself. I have owned this property for thirty one (31) • MINUTES - MAY 30, 1990 page three 132 Boston St. - Continued • years. I have done some work there, the deck and some painting. Mr. Febonio: when did you build the deck? Mr. Karagezian: It was in January or February. I did not know I needed a permit. Mr. Bencal : you don 't live there? Mr. Karagezian: no, I do have the upholstery business there. Mr. Santo: he came in for a permit when he found he needed one and we told him he had to come to the Board. Ms. Stirgwolt: was this a parking space. Mr. Santo: it was part of the driveway. Ms. Stir:gwolt: how many parking spaces are there? Three. The Board went over the plans with Mr. Santo^and the petitioner. Mr. Bencal : would you be able to locate the deck in any other place on the lot? Mr. Karagezian: no, this is the only place. Mr. Bencal : what is in the back yard. Grass. Mr. Febonio: it amazes me, people come here and they don 't know they need permits. The person who did the work, he' s a contractor and he didn't know he needed a permit. Mr. Karagezian: he is portugese and he does not speak english. Mr. Bencal : is this the only means of egress? Yes. Ms. Stirgwolt: this is just to provide egress, is that why you built it? yes. Mr. Bencal _: what was there before? nothing, there was no egress. Speaking in favor: Scott Galber; 134 Boston St. , it is the only place to put this deck because there is no room on the other side or in the front. He has really been cleaning the place up. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal : I think it is appropriate to look at this as a Variance. Because it is a means of egress it there is a safety factor, would be different if there was another egress. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the peti.ti6n on coddi.tion all construction be done as per city and state building codes, a legal building permit be obtained, all construction be done as per plans and • dimensions submitted and all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 101 North st. - Sun Refining & Marketing Co. The petitioner, through is Counsel , John Serafini Jr. requested the Board grant a continuance until the next meeting so they could be heard by a five man Board. Mr. Bencal explained to the assemblage that if the Board were to grant the continuance, this petition would be heard first on the agenda. While it has been the practice to the Board to put continuances on last, due to the number of abutters here=it will be put on first. I would also want a condit,i6n that all abutters be notified by certified mail , by the petitioner, and the Board be give proof of said notification and also, that the petitioner waive time rights. Would you have a problem with that? No. Mr. Yamakopoulos, 1093North st. , informed the Board he had received no notice of this meeting. His name and address were taken by the Clerk of the Board and the Attorney for the petitioner and he was assured he would be notified of the next meeting.Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to continue this petition until the June 6, 1990 meeting.on condition petitioner sign a waiver of the time require- ments and that the petition agree to notify, at his expense, all abutters and interested parties by certified mail of the date and the time of the meeting. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED 4-0 89 Congress - Orille L 'Heureux • Petitioner, through* his Counsel , John Serafini Sr. , is requesting the Board allow petition to be continued until the next meeting. Mr. Bencal : should the Board grant this request? this would be placed last on the agenda, I don 't see any abutters present. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to continue till June 6, on condition petitioner waive time requirements and agree to notify abutters by Certified mail . Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED 4-0 MINUTES - MAY 30, 1990 page four • Mr. Bencal : We should prepare our suggestions regarding any proposed changes to the Board of Appeal rules and regulations so we can discuss them at a meeting in August. If possible we will try and take July off. One of the suggestions was to place alternates on a rotating basis so that the same alternate is not being called all the time. Ms. Sumrall is preparing a file, if you would send her any suggestions for changes, additions etc. , she will keep the file and will send all the members copies so they will have time to look them over and we will take them up at the August meeting. Minutes of. the May 16th meeting were unanimously approved as taped. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be held June 6, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumral , Clerk of the Board • • (0) (1itu of 'S' alem', �ttssadjusetts Paurb of �ppeal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JUNE 6, 1990 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, June 6, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was duly published in the Salem Evening News on May 23 and May 30, 1990. Abutters an other interested parties were notified by mail . Present at the hearing were-members Bencal , Correnti , Febonio, Luzinski and Stirgwolt, Assistant Building Inspector James Santo and Clerk of the Board Brenda Sumrall Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. , by the Chairman Richard Bencal . New City Manuals and Directories were given to the Board Members. Mr. Bencal : we will take 22 Beach Ave. out of order. We have a letter from Mr. John Lewinski , owner & petitioner, requesting Leave To Withdraw Without Prejudice (on file) I would entertain a motion on this request. Ms. Stirgwolt move to allow withdrawal , Mr. Luzinski seconded. 22 BEACH AVE. ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW by unanimous vote 101 North St. - Sun Refining& Marketing Co. a/k/a Sun Oil Co. • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and Variances to allow construction of a food market building and self serve gasoline dispensing operation. The property is located in a B-1 district. This petition was continued from the May 30, 1990 meeting of the Board due to there only being four members present. The meeting was never opened, no presentation made. -Mr: Correnti read the application, a letter from Capt. Herlihy, Traffic Division of the Salem Police Dept. , which has no objection to the proposal , only a suggestion that the Board consider modifying the design to close the existing second access from Mason St. , the one closest to the intersection and perhaps make the one furthest from the intersection on..Mason St. larger. A letter from Councillor Sarah M. Hayes, Ward Six with nine (9) conditions suggested; a letter from Robert Turner, the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. had no objection subject to four (4) conditions, a letter from David Pelletier, 12 Crombie St. , opposed. In addition to the nine (9) suggested conditions in the letter from Mrs. Hayes, she also questions the licensing of the project engineer, he is an engineer registered in Penn- sylvania and she questioned the appropriateness of this. All correspondence is on file. Mr. John Serafini Jr. , represented the petitioner. He submitted a petition in favor signed by twenty one persons and a letter- in favor from Salem Television & Radio Service Inc. , 107 North St. He also submitted the green receipts from the Certified Notices sent to abutters giving them notification of the date of the hearing. Mr. Bencal : I spoke with Mrs. Pierce, the direct abutter on Mason St. and she informed me she did not receive any notice. Mr. Serafini showed Mr. Bencal the receipt for the notice, Certified Number P 038 763 361 dated 5/31/90. Mr. Serafini addressed the Board and the assemblage. This was before the Board once before and it was withdrawn. We have met with • the neighbors to try and out their concerns. If the lot were larger we could do more to satisfy them. We have worked out a number of changes. We will give up the license to sell used cars. We are here tonight with the final plans. MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1990 page two 101 North St. - Continued • There-are those who would like to see no gas station there at all , that is not going to happen. There has been a gas station there since 1967. The Sunoco people want to discontinue car repair service, also give up the used car license and they will give up the car repair, the trade off is they want to open a convenience store. The will spend a great deal of money upgrading the site. We are here for a Special Permit to change the use, the district is B-1 , the food service is allowed but gas station is not. We feel the combined uses will not be detrimental': We also need certain density relief to allow building to be built as shown on the plans. The hours of operations will be 6:00 a.m. to midnight, I know the neighbors were concerned about being opened 24 hours. We couldgpossibly give up that last hour, if necessary. These are hours we could live with. The Board and the petitioner and his representative had a discussion regarding the entrances and the suggest]6nsrr from the Police Dept. Plans were displayed to the Board and the Assemblage. There was concern about one of the entrances on Mason St. . Mr. Serafini : we are not opposed to some change in the curb arrangement, but the people on Mason St. should have entrance so they don 't have to go out onto North St. to access the facility. Mr. Bencal : I spoke with Mrs. Hayes, she would like to see some balance there so that Mrs. :P'ierce will not be affected so much. Thought about no left turn onto Mason st. Mr. Serafini : There has to be some entrance, we have met with Planhing and they have seen this design and had no problem with it. We will have them look at it again in view of the letter from the Police. One of the people in the neighborhood had some concerns with lights and screening. We have changed the lighting and screening around. We are committed to screening • this the best we can. Perhaps, again, the Planning will make some suggestions. On of the direct abutters is in favor, Salem TV, we will upgrade the property. We have done what we can to considering the limitations we have to work with. We have a traffic engineer here tonight. We know these are busy streets but we estimate this will generate average 51 cars per hour, that is all . We will not be getting people coming from across town, just in neighborhood and as they drive by. Mr. Febonio: most gas stations you can only go one way, which way will this be? Mr. Serafini : in North and out Mason, in Mason and out Mason for the gas, when using the store cars can go out North St. Mr. Luzinski : have you considered the aesthetics of the City? Mr. Serafini : The design is a design you see everywhere. We feel it will fit in here, it is true you see standard designs everywhere but it is a question of what the company will spend on site. There are also concerns with economics, these are designed to be almost maintenance free, it is not feasible to have another type of high maintenance building. This is a brick facade, standard treatment on the canopy, subdued light, backlit, no glare, will not be bombarded with the fact that it is Sunoco. The canopy is dark purple, letters are yellow. Speaking in favor. Mary Aherne, 4 Buffum St. , I am speaking for my father. and family and most of the neighbors. We should have the store, it will be easier for some of us who can't walk very good. I would be,safer, we could send children to the store, now they have to cross the street. David Smith, Peabody, representing the employees of Sunoco, this will enhance the area and will be good for the neighbors. Sandra Mazzaro, runs the station at the moment, I have had no problem there. Spend a lot of time there, get lot of tourist, we have made up little flyers for them. We know we can do a good job, we have owned it about nine years. Mr. Mazzaro: I have worked hard, made a lot of good friends, this • will help us provide better service. It has been tough with the street closing. This will be good for the neighborhood. George Ahmed, 102 Columbus Ave. , I have insurance company right across the street, have been there many years, MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1990 page three • 101 North St. - Continued things are changing around here. People need a local store to go to, I see no reason to deny these people. Speaking in opposition. Mrs. Joan Pierce, 22 Mason st. , their entrance is right next to me, the tanks are right next to me, very close to my house, right next to my driveway, everything will go right past my front door. I never knew they were licensed to sell used cars. Mr. Bencal : how long have you been licensed to used cars? Petitioner: about five years. Claire Chalifour, owner of Leslie Retreat, 96 North St. , concern about traffic, something should be done about it. Mr. Bencal : the Police did suggest only one egress on to Mason St. Mrs. Hayes suggested no left turn on Mason St. However, all the traffic would go past Mrs. Pierce. Mr. Serafini : have no problem moving the entrance away from her, if we can have one entrance that is large enough for two way traffic. I don't think it is feasible to have no left turn. That is something the Planning Dept. can work out, we would have no problem with Planning approval as condition. Staley McDermit, Dearborn St. , I have a number of concerns. The use is heavy for the area, if they were asking for just one of the uses, the lot is too small , they are proposing two uses. Traffic will be horrendous. There are three parking spaces on the side, if you look at those spaces, they could be blocked in by people getting gas. Traffic flow is a problem, those parking spaces may not be necessary, may be they could be eliminated. I have a problem with'-the design, it is a generic design. It could be made to blend in more with Salem. It should be brought closer to the street. A fence is proposed for the dumpster, but how many dumpsters do`you see after a year or so that the fence is still there. Regarding lighting, there seems to be a problem with graphics of the plan, should reference the notes on • the plans in the decision. Hearing closed. Rebuttal : Mr. Serafini , true, the side is tight, can 't make it any bigger': The use is not really a heavy ase, there was three uses. Consider the liquor store and 7-11 as one lot, even though they have different owners, it is one lot. The gas station sells cars, repairs cars and sells gas, could consider that three business on the site, we are proposing two uses. Parking: there were more parking spaces on the original plan, some were taken out at the suggestion of the planning department. If the entrances were shifted maybe an additional parking space. As far as moving the building to the front, would not be feasible, cut visibility. Regarding the dumpster, the Planning Dept. thought it would be better if we put the dumpster where we have rather than in the back , would be less impact on the residential abutters. Moving the building won't -improve the see scape, you will impede vision at the corner it might be more aesthetic but as far as traffic it would make it worse. Have no problem with it being conditioned on Planning Board of Planning Dept. approval . Mr. Bencal : the plans are stamped by a Pennsylvania Engineer, does he have a Mass. License? Mr. Serafini : we have an application for a temporary Mass. License. Mr. Correnti : if they are acceptable to the Building Department, they should be acceptable to the Board. Mr. Serafini : one of the safety features will be the new tanks, the old ones will be removed. The new ones must meet very strict standards and rest assured they will comply with all requirements. Ms. Stirgwolt: what is the exerior? Mr. Serafini : it is a white material , typical design, could have brick facade. Mr. Correnti : what about hours, are.they limited as to the hours? Mr. Luzinski : what about 7-11 , they-are opened 24 hours or have they changed their hours. Mr. Bencal : they are grandfathered in. Mr. • Luzinski : we are limited to 11 :00 p.m. , if they want more hours they Nave to go to the City Council . A big issue is the egress and entrance. Is this something that can be referred to the Planning Dept? Mr. Bencal : would want MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1990 page four 101 North St. - Continued • their input on it. It is rare we get any input from the Police, would never consider voting on this without those conditions being put on. Mr. Serafini : the reason we suggested it be sent to the Planning Department is to work out these details. Mr. Bencal asked Mrs. Pierce if she worked during the day: When a good time to set up a meeting with her and the Planning Dept. would be. Msr Stirgwolt: City Hall is open on Thursday evenings. Mr. Bencal : I want to make sure Mrs. Pierce is part of any discussion regarding this. Placement of the tanks would be up to the Fire Department, one of the conditions will be as per Fire Dept. This Board does defer to them on item's of. 7this-nature. Mrs. Pierce looked over the proposed layout. Ms. Stirgwolt: (to Mrs. Pierce) do you take any comfort in the fact that new tanks will be put in. Mrs. Pierce: I just don 't like where they are going to be. Ms. Stirgwolt: They have a franchise agreement, if they don 't upgrade now, what are their options? The District Supervisor spoke: the standards set by our company are high, dealers must comply. I'don 't know if he has been offered anything else, I kind of doubt it. Mr. Serafini : on the present site you have a continuous cut along Mason and along"North Sts. I also think this is something the Planning could deal with. As far as no left turn on Mason St. , it makes no sense to have everyong going down Mason and there is no other way to get back on to North St. or the overpass, Planning could work this out with us. Mr. Luzinski : lighting, it won 't be towards the residential properties? Mr. Serafini : no, there will be a canopy and it will be pointedsdown. Mr. Bencal : will there be two way exterior speakers? Mr. Serafini : yes. Mr. Bencal : speakers to be used to talk.to customers only? Mr. Serafini : yes, they are for • emergency only. It will be self Serve, there will be 8 fueling points, 8 cars can be served at one time. There will be two employees, there really needs to be:. Mr. Bencal : will there be any preparation on site? Yes, there will be deli sandwiches. They will be made up early in the day. Mr. Luzinski : There won 't be any music coming through those speakers? No. Mr. Bencal : we can make that a condition. Mr. Correnti : Mrs. Hayes suggested 24' egress. Mr. Serafini : not big enough, again, the Planning Dept. will have the good sense to say if the egresses are big enough or not. Mr. Bencal : the width is covered by the Ordinance, it is a minimum of 20 feet. Mr. Serafini : we are seeking a variance from that section, it says a maximum of 24 feet. Ms. Stirgwolt: I would like a condition to be that the egress, the length of which be determined by the Planning dept. , Mrs. Pierce and the Police. There:..' was,.a 'brief discussion as to the hours of operation. It was suggested 6 a.m. to 10.p.m. week days and 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. Mr. Luzinski : I don 't think one more hour is going to make any difference, the other places are open later, I see-no reason they shouldn 't be open 6 to 11 all week. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion^to grant the relief requested on condition there be entrance only from North street and the entrance/egress on Mason and the width of said entrance/egress on Mason st. be worked out between the City of Salem Police Department, the Planning Dept. and Mrs. Pierce, 22 Mason St. , meetings to be held at Mrs. Pierces convenience, hours of operation to be 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. , steps are to be taken to ensure the building, gas pumps and landscaped areas are maintined properly in perpetuity; 5 foot stockade fence or solid evergreen, to be decided at a meeting with Mrs. Pierce and the Planning Dept. , at her convenience, be provided and maintined in perpetuity; exteeior:and interior lighting be shielded from residential neighborhood, lighting notes-on development • plan, North st. and Mason st. dated January 22, 1990, site lighting notes added March 19, 1990 are to be strictly adhered to, the dumpster must be MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1990 page five 101 North St. - Continued • located as per the plans submitted, the existing license for used automobile sales must be forfeited in perpetuity; all project signage shall be approved by the City Planner and must comply with the City of Salem Sign Ordinance, all requirements of the Salem Fire Department, including but not limited to, placement of gas storage tanks and the removal of the existing tanks, relative to fire safety be strictly ahered to and all conditions set forth in a letter to the Board of Appeal from the Fire Marshal are herewith incorporated in this decision; all construction comply with City and State Building Codes ; all construction and dimensions be in accordance with the plans submitted, with the exception of any changes made by the City of Salem Planning Dept. , plans and drawings are to be stamped by a Massachusetts Engineer; a legal building permit is to be obtained from the Inspector of Buildings, and a Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board voted 4-1 in favor of thelmotion, Ms. Stir.gwolt voted in opposition. The motion carried and the Variances and Special Permits are granted. GRANTED 4-1 2 Orleans Ave. - Robert & Carol Muise Petitioners are requesting Variances from'density and setbacks to allow con- struction of a deck and to allow an existing above ground pool . The property is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application. There was no other correspondence. Mr. Muise represented himself and his wife. He displayed plans to the Board. There was a small deck there when I bought the • house. The pool was there when I bought the house also. The new deck will be attached to the house. When I came for a permit for the deck I was told there was no permit for old deck and I could not get a permit for the new deck, also was told the pool did not comply with setbacks either: He submitted a petition in favor, signed by eleven (11 ) neighbors. I bought this in good faith, one of the reasons I bought this property was because of the pool and deck. Mr. Correnti : not only did he buy this in good faith, the previous owners built in good faith, there is a building permit for the pool . Speaking in favor: Michael Dennedy, 4 Orleans Ave. , if this was going to bother anyone it would be me, I am the direct abutter. I know the pool was okayed by the Building Department, I know because at the time I was with the Electrical Department, I was the one who inspected it at the time. The pool is surrounded by a 6 foot stockade fence. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : I-don't see any problem with this, just replacing deck . Mr. Bencal : this is the only case I can remember where they put a pool up with a permit and still had a problem. Ms . Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the variances requested on condition all construction be as per city and state building codes, all construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted, petitioner obtain a legal building permit, petitioner comply with all require- ments of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety, present landscaping be maintained and all conditions of previous decision for locus be adhered to. Mr. Correnti seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1990 page six 116 Highland Ave. - Stuart & Imy Gould • Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to expand the existing nonconforming building which is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from Allergy Affiliates, Inc. , 114R Highland Ave. , in favor. Robert Farley, Architect, 16 Park St. , Danvers represented the petitioner. The building is near the hospital , it falls within the 1500 feet of the hospital , Dr. Gould is a dentist. This will not increase the number of rooms or the number of patients, will just increase the size of the waiting room and his office. Will extend the shed roof the length of the building, not only functional but will improve the looks of the building. He displayed pictures of the building as it exists now. Mr. Bencal : will the building encroach? Mr. Farley: not really. There is a concrete barrier, will not encroach at all . We have 23 parking spaces which is more than we need. He displayed renderings. Speaking in favor: John Thomas, 2 Cherryhill Ave. , I am not sure if I 'm in favor or not, the petition says five feet to the east, is that on Highland Ave. ? No, he showed Mr. Thomas the plans. Speaking in opposition: Mathew Jenta, 117 Highland Ave. , directly across the street. Concerned with traffic, cars coming in and out. He is not adding five feet to'-.the building just to make it look better. They are going to add more doctors, they can 't fool me. We can 't get out of our driveway. Too much traffic and this should not be allowed, should not keep allowing them to expand. They did not talk to me, I am very confused, it is affecting me. In rebuttal : Dr. Gould: Dr. Hannaway moved to the back and it is his office that is for rent. There will be no more doctors, will not be any increase in traffic. Will be the same amount of people. This has been for rent about a year, there will probably be another professional person as I • said, Dr. HannaWay moved and it is his office that is for rent, we are not increasing number of doctors. Mr. Febonio: seems like a lot of expense for five feet. Dr. Gould: the existing office is very cramped, just increasing the waiting room, the reception area and the file room. Mr. Farley: his office is presently very small , all these rooms are undersized, adding five feet will make all the difference in the world, we are not adding any additional rooms. Hearing closed. After a brief discussion relative to possible conditions, Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Special Permit requesting on condi,ttion, all construction be done as per existing city and state building codes; all construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted; all exterior finishes are to be in harmony with the existing exterior finishes; a legal building permit be obtained; a Certificate of Occupancy for the new addition be obtained; petition comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety; no change in the number of parking spaces on the site shall be made; and, no additional rooms are to be added by this construction. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted 4-1 (Mr. Febonio opposed) in favor of granting this request. GRANTED 4-1 43, 45 & 47 School St. - Peter Elliott The petitioner, through his Counsel , David A. Goodof, 5 Briscoe St. , Beverly, has requested leave to withdraw his petition for Variances to allow parcel to be divided and to move an existing building in this R-2 district. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to allow this request for Withdrawal Without Prejudice. Mr. • Correnti seconded. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1990 page seven • 31 Bridge St. - Arthur Ingemi (petitioner) Nondas Lagonakis (owner) Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow an authentic sports pub which will serve alcholic beverages. Property is located in a B-4 district. Mr. Correnti read the application. There was no correspondence. Mr. Ingemi re- presented himself. I am the petitioner, Mr. Lagonakis owns it. He displayed plans to the Board. The site is presently under construction. It will be a dunkin donuts on one side, right now it is a shell . I would like to lease the other side and make a sports pub. It will be a low use. I am doing it, basic- ally to get parking for my Brideside pub. Mr. Lagonakis moved the building in so I could keep the angle parking. In the back of my present building is a dumpster which is very close to the neighbors, by doing this, I could remove that dumpster and use the other dumpster, this would allow us to pick up a couple of parking spaces there. We had a neighborhood meeting and went over the plans. We have met the neighborhood concerns. I am trying to solidify my existence at the Bridgeside. Ms. Stirgwolt: how is the parking going to impact on the dunkin 'donuts? Mr. Ingemi : 90% of dunkin donuts business is done by noon, most of the people are going to be using the drive-thru. They close at 10 p.m. Ms. Stirgwolt: are the hours for your business governed by the Licensing Board? Mr. Ing6mi : yes, I am trying to get a beer and wine license for this place. Mr. Correnti : how many seats will there be? Mr. Ingemi : the Building Department sets the capacity, there will probably be about 35 seats. Mr. Correnti : how many employees? Mr. Ingemi : about two, there will be coin operated tables, the 6 foot tables. It will be landscaped. Speaking in favor. Dennis Daly, 6 Waite St. , direct abutter, he runs a fine business, has done a good job. We all met • briefly with Kevin Harvey, the Ward Councillor and the neighbors, there were concerns and they were taken care of. Concerned with serving alcohol , type of atmosphere, type of clients, capacity; people were skeptical because of the lack of knowledge. If he manages this as he does his present business it will be good. We have a strong licensing board and that is available to us if there is any problem. The dumpster that is right next to my window will be gone and that will be good. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: Mr. Ingemi has a good reputation with the neighbors. Mr. Bencal : I was concerned this was going to perhaps be another Cheers type business but this is certai6:ly not the case. Ms. Stirgwolt: what about signage? Will be a free .,standing placed under the Dunkin Donuts sign; the maintenance will be done by Dunkin Donuts and me, I have a maintenance staff now. Ms. Stirgolt made a motion to grant the requested variance-on condition all construction be as per city and state building codes, all construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted, a building permit be obtained from the Building Inspector, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, the dumpster presently located behind the Bridgeside Restaurant be moved to the adjacent lot and maintained as per the plans submitted, landscaping is to be maintained as per the plans, signage is to be approved by the City Planner and comply with the City of Salem Sign Ordinance, and, the petitioner must obtain approval of the City of Salem Licensing Board. Mr. Febonio seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1990 page eight 89 Congress St. - Orille L 'Heureux • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to increase the nonconforming use by increasing the number of units and a Variance from parking requirements in this B-1 district. This petition was continued from the May 30, 1990 meeting. It was continued at the request of the petitioner as there was only a four man Board at that meeting. Mr. Correnti read the application, a letter from Mr. George Maguire who own the abutting property at 99 Congress St. , which stated he had 9 parking spaces which would be made available to Mr. L 'Heureux for use as required by his tenants, a` letter from the Fire Marshal stating he had no objections to the request for Special Permit and Variance being granted subject to certain conditions. (on file) Attorney John Serafini Sr. , represented the petitioner. He submitted the receipts for'the Certified notices -the petitioner was required to sent to the abutters informing them of the date of the meeting. Mr. Serafini addressed the Board, we have Mr. Semaski , the Architect present this evening and he will answer questions later. I would like to address two issues separately. The area needs a good deal of upgrading. Spoke with the Ward Councillor and he indicated that any improvement would be welcome. There has been a lot of talk relative to improving the point neighborhood but not much has been done so far. We will comply with all codes, it will be fully sprinkled. Adjacent to the property is a market that was once owned by my client, them by Mr. Hacker, a former Board member and subsequently Mr. Maguire. He is a small scale developer. He adopted a Vietnamese family and they are the people who run the market now. There is permanence to Mr. Maguire in this property. I say this because of the parking. We have talked to the housing , they have sent a letter. He submitted said letter from the Salem Housing Authority, dated • June 6, 1990 and signed by Carol A. MacGown, Assistant Director. Mr. Correnti read the letter into the record. Mr. Serafini : A lot of people cannot afford apartments so there is a need for this type of housing. This is an old building, it occupies most of the lot, placing parking there is limited. We have been fortunate enough to get written permission from Mr. Maguire for 9 spaces, we have 6, that only makes 15 which is still short on what is needed, we are asking for 15 units, we need 11 per dwelling unit, according to the Ordinance Section VII , Off Street Parking. The Ordinance defines as dwelling unit as a building or portion thereof providing complete housekeeping and cooking facilities for one family. This is hold over from older times. Hopefully the Ordinance will be updated and provisions will be made for rooming houses. They should be like Nursing Homes and elderly housing. We had a survey done (copy submitted) of the rooming houses in Salem, would like to point out the number of cars is minimal , most of these don't have cars. There was a brief discussion relative to the plans. Mr. Bencal : the petitioner is here tonight asking for Variance from parking, what aren 't they using the garage for parking now? Mr. L 'Heureux: no need for parking, never had more that three cars. Mr. Serafini : for this building to meet all the codes necessary will mean a substantial amount of financing, he has arranged for fincing with the Eastern Bank. If there is any question about the quality of the work proposed, I think the firm of Jaquith & Siemaski , Inc. is well known. We will of course work with the Planning Dept. Will provide landscaping. Conditions could be placed on owner that 15 spaces be maintained as all times. If they are not maintained the C.O. could be revoked. I think the Board has granted variances for parking that was off site. We have a great deal to gain, my client is committed to doing a good job here. He will put himself in compliance. If the Board denited this petition he can • run it as a three family. If he maintains it as a rooming house, it will be fully sprinkled. Mr. Febonio: the spirit is good, the intent is good, what MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1990 page nine 89 Congress St. - Continued • about handicap? Mr. Santo: under twenty people it is not required. Mr. Febonio: I just don 't want people to say we never gave them a thought. Mr. Bencal : the Architectural Barriers Board says 20 or more. Mr. Serafing: even thought it isn 't required, if there is a way to make one of them handicapped accessible perhaps we could. It would be quite a project. Mr. L 'Heureux: it would be prohibitive for just one room. If there was a practical way to do it we would be willing to look at it. Mr. Serafini : it is a good project, chance to do some good. Mr. Febonio: how secure is the letter from Mr. Maguire? Mr. Serafini : no guarantee but if there is a condition that 15 spaces be maintained then he has to find them somewhere. If the condition said the C.O. would be revoked if he doesn 't find them, that would be a good incentive. I am sure he would make sure he maintained them. Another thing worth mentioning, the parking area at Pickering Wharf has a lease that is running out, I think about 6 years, the previous administration spoke with Mass. Electric about a swap. There was some interest in constructing a garage on that site. I understand this is being pursued again. Mr. Correnti : looking at Section 7c, if parking spaces are on another lot, can be 400 feet of the building of use intended to be served, if the Board determines that it is impractical to provided parking on the same lot with the building. If a separate lot is used for parking, the ownership of the lot must, for all times, be held by the same ownership as the lot on which the building is erected. That language does not leave any lee way, it says shall and will . Mr. Bencal : I think that is why they are here, they can 't provide parking on that lot. Mr. Correnti : they are asking for a variance from parking and then a variance from this section? Mr. Bencal : I don 't think • that's an issue, the Board has to say yes or no, he can or cannot have a variance from parking, the petitioner is then saying he will try and get these other spaces. Ms. Stirgwolt: we get into the area of enforcibility. I think this is a good faith promise. Mr. L 'Heureux: I don't think I will ever need those other nine. Ms. Stirwolt: is it possible the project could work with fewer units? My concern is density. Mr. Serafini : We would like some indication from the Board, I think we could do a fewer number of units. I have spoken with my client and perhaps 18 is somewhat ambitious and he has some flexibility in the numbers. Ms. Stirgwolt: 18 is a very dense use of the property. Mr. Serafini : if the Board felt so inclined 14 would be good. Mr. L 'heureux: 15 would be perfect. Mr. Serafini : I the Board was agreeable I think 14 could be done. Mr. Jaquith, Architect: The units are big now, I think 14 would be minimal . No doubles, only singles. Mr. Luzinski : is the building structured so that it determines the number of room? Mr. Jaquith: yes, it does need a corridor in the middle though. Mr. L 'Heureux: I have an on site manager. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : If you took one unit from each floor it would out good, would be more balance. Ms. Stirgwolt: 15? Mr. Correnti : I agree. Mr. Bencal : It is obvious these people don't have a history of ownership of cars. Mr. Bencal : I think a condition he provide one space per unit, how he gets them is up to him, 15 parking spaces be made available if there was a need, should say they be made available for free and open use of the tenants. The Board got caught once by not using that wording. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Special Permit and Variance on the condition that all construction and renovations be done in accordance with City and State Building Codes; all construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted; a Certificate of Occupancy for each unit be obtained; all requirements of the • Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to; on site parking be maintained as per the plans submitted and if the residents require additional parking the owner provide spaces up to a maximum total of fifteen (15) spaces which are to be made available for free and open use of the tenants, single person occupancy only per room; maximum of fifteen (15) units excluding common areas. Mr. Febonio seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED ----------------FIFTEEN (15) UNITS MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1990 page ten • Mr. Febonio made a motion to approve'-the minutes of May 30, 1990 at taped. Ms. Stirgwolt seconded. The Board voted 4-0 to approve. Mr. Correnti voted present. Mr. Bencal read a communication sent to the City Solicitor relative to an update of outstanding Court Cases. Mr. Bencal also read a communication from the City Solicitor relative to a stipulation of dismissal on the Bertram Home, 29 Washington Sq.No. He gave the new members a brief history of this case. Mr. Febonio • made a motion to adjourn, Mr. Correnti Seconded. Uanimously adjourned at 11 :17 p.m. , next scheduled meeting to be held June 27, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, J Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board • • y (11itu of '$alem, 'fflttssadjusetts F y• PO2ITb Of �kpp¢211 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JUNE 27, 1990 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, June 27, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 13 and June 20, 1990. Present at the hearing were Members Bencal , Correnti , Febonio, Luzinski , Stirgwolt and Associate Member Dore; Assistant Building Inspector Dave Harris and Clerk of the Board Brenda Sumrall . Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Richard Bencal . Mr. Bencal -addressed the Board the assemblage: it has been brought to my attention that the Board will be losing a valuable member, Mr. Peter Dore, I would like to take this opportunity to'-.thank him and wish him luck . He presented him with his name plate a placque. Mr. Dore thanked everyone. Mr. Correnit volunteered to sit out the first case so that Mr. Dore could have the opportunity to sit on one last petition. Mr. Dore was appointed a voting member. 284 R Canal Street - John & Frank Bertini , Trs. Jefferson Trust> Mr. Bencal read a letter from John Bertini ,dated June 27, 1990 requesting Leave to Withdraw this petition. He explained to the assemblage that if the Board allows this to be withdrawn and if the petitioners decided to re-apply at a later date they would again be notified and it would again be advertised. Mr. Eeo'Pelletier, an abutter, said he did not quite understand. Mr. Bencal explained the letter, in the letter Mr. Bertini stated he was going to have the tenants vacate the premises, that would take care of the problem. Mr. Pelletier: what is the time frame for him to vacate? Mr. Bencal : the direct control of this will be with the Inspector of Buildings. One neighbor, no name given, was still unsure of what was happening. Mr. Bencal again explained to her and to the assemblage that the Board had received a letter from Mr. John Bertini in which he stated he wished to withdraw his request for an administrative ruling relative to the a determination of the Building Inspector alleging zoning violations. He also stated in the letter that they have decided to notify the occupant of the property of the Building Inspector 's determination to request him to vacate the premises. If for any reason they decide to come back to the Board you will be notified. Mr. Febonio: will this be withdrawn without prejudice? Yes. Attorney Joseph Colonna, from the l.aw firm of Serafini , Serafini and Darling, representing the petitioners , said it was his opinion that this was the end of the line for this petition. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to allow the petition of John & Frank Bertini for an Administrative Ruling to be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE • MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1990 page two 227 _Highland Ave. - Two Hundred Twenty Seven Highland ave. Partnership Mr. Dore was appointed Acting Secretary. The petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of an Automatic Teller Machine in this B-2 district. Mr. Dore read the application. There was no correspondence. Attorney Robert Ledoux represented the petitioners. We have been before this Baord on previous occasions. Once for the 10 Minute Express Lube. At that time there was some confusion as to lot size. The current proposal from Bay Bank is to build an ATM. We are here because of some confusion on more than one building on a lot. We will be giving up two parking spaces. There are 813 spaces required for the Shopping Mall , we will have 814. Not asking for parking variance, parking is not affected, we are asking for a Special Permit to allow construction of this kiosk. Not a terribly large structure. Can be granted without detriment and without derogating from the'.intent of the district or the Ordinance. Will be walk-up. Mr. Febonio': You will not be cutting through on to Highland Ave? No. The Board went over the plans. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : I am glad to see the fire lane will be widened by the 10 Minute Lube. Mr. Febonio made a motion to granted the Special Permit to allow construction of an Automatic Teller Machine on condition all construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions sub- mitted, all construction comply with all City and State Building Codes, Petitioner obtain a building permit and all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are strictly adhered to. Mr. Dore seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 97 Columbus Ave. - Samuel Allen • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming rear setbacks and density requirements to allow construction of a deck in this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Salem Fire Marshal stating the property is in compliance and the Fire Dept. had no objections to the Special Permit being granted. Mr. Fletcher Hall , 16 Beach Ave. , Contractor, represented the petitioner. This is an existing deck'-that was done without a permit. Went to pass papers at the bank and found out the deck encroached. I have looked at the deck and it is well constructed. We are applying after the fact. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Ms. Stirgwolt: what is the material of the deck? Mr. Hall , stained spruce. The Board looked over the plans. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition the deck be in conformance with City and State building codes and as per plans and dimensions submitted, a legal building permit be obtained for the deck and that all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to fire safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 17 Barton St. - Edward & Jane O'Connell Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow original porch to be replaced and to add a new deck to the third floor in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property is not in compliance relative to smoke detectors and the Fire Department had no' objections to the granting of this Special Permit on condition compliance be • obtained. Mr. O'Connell represented himself. He explained all he wanted to do was to rebuild a deck from the corner of the house towards Barton St. and down the side on Barton St. , will square the building off. It is replacing MINUTES - JUNE 271 1990 page three 17 Barton St. - Continued • the original porch. Would also like to add a deck of the third floor, will be a 6 x 12, it will be within the confines of the dormer. Ms. Stirgwolt: what is the material? Mr. O'Connell : pressured lumber I think , I am not the builder. Mr. Febonio: ohe of the stipulations, if this is granted, will be that it be in harmony with the existing building. Mr. O'Connell : Just had white sidirigo put on but I am going to paint is brown. Ms . Stirgwolt: it will take up most of your lot frontage. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Ms. Stirgwolt made a-motion to grant the petition requested on , 1• condition all construction be in compliance with all city and state building codes, exterior finishes of the proposed construction be compatible with the existing structure, the proposed changes be implemented as per the plans and dimensions submitted, petitioner obtain a leagal building permit prior to construction starting, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 1 Roslyn Street Court - Susan Rutkowski Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow construction of a deck in the front of the property which is located in a B-4 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property was in compliance and the Fire Dept. had no objections to the Variance being granted. Ms. Rutkowski represented herself. Would like to construct a deck in the front as there is no land in the rear. My engineer is here if you have any questions. • Mr. Stanley Bornstein, engineer: the deck will stell be set back constructurally from the street. Will be less than other homes in that area. Ms. Stirgwolt: all hte houses on that street have porches in the front. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : who does the garage belong to? Ms. Rutkowski : the neighbor. Mr. Bencal : your not losing any parking? No, this is the only possible placed this deck could be placed. Ms. Stirgwolt: would like to see it conform with the streetscape. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition the petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety, all construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted, all exterior finishes be built in harmony with existing structure, petitioner obtain a legal building permit, all construction comply with city and state building codes. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 46-48 Orne St. - Randy Emmons Petitioner is requesting a variance to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property has current compliance and the Fire Dept. had no objects to this being granted subject to certain conditions ( letter on file) He also read communications from Councillors Donald Bates, At-large; John Nutting, At-Large; Sarah Hayes, Ward Six; all expressing their opposition. Mr. Emmons represented himself. I purchased this property about a year ago, I had planned to live there myself but I could not afford it at the time. Now I would like to fix the third floor and live there. • I need the rent from the first and second floor. There will not be any MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1990 page four 46-48 Orne St. - Continued • structural changes to the building. Will only be one additional car in the driveway, mine. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Maureen Carr, 10 Manning St. , submitted a petition in opposition signed by twenty (20) abutters and neighbors. Kevin Carr, 10 Manning St. , would like to seet the neighborhood stay at the one or two family residences. I can see a precedent being set. Concerned with increase in traffic. Craig Harrison, 6 Manning St. , Purchased our home about a year ago and would like it to remain one and two family homes in the area. We would not like to see three family, would set a precedent. Also concerned with traffic and congestion. Ruth Kapnis, 52 Orne St. , Purchased home about fourteen (14)years ago and I would like to see it stay one and two family area. Hearing closed. In Rebuttal : Mr. Emmons: I understand the point of view of these people, I am just looking for a place to live. Mr. Luzinski : it has two address. Mr. Bencal : that is typical of that area, two separate entrances under one roof. Mr. Correnti : the proposed third floor, has two bedrooms there now? Yes. Mr. Correnti : how do you get to the third floor? Mr. Emmons: there are two egresses going right to the third floor. Mr. Febonio: how did you come to purchase this home. Mr. Emmons: I sold my condo in New York . I had originally intended to live there but financially was unable to do that. Mr. Luzinski : Are there utilites there? Just electric. Ms. Stirgwolt: I have seen this in my own neighborhood. Three family buildings tend to have fewer owner occupancies. Mr. Bencal : Board has to take each petition on its own face value. Knowing the character of the neighborhood, this would be setting a precedent, given the opposition I would not vote for this. It is totally out of character with the neighborhood. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petitioners request for a variance on condition the petitioner comply with all city and states building codes, a legal building permit be obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained for the third unit, all requirements of the Salem fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted 0-5 against the motion. Having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the Variancev is denied. DENIED 0-5 22 Webb St. - Raymond Page Petitioner is requesting variances from lot size, width, setbacks, use and parking to allow a two family to be converted to a four family in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property has no current compliance. Mr. Bencal : this petition has been here before, what was the Board 's action? It was withdrawn. Mr. Robert Gauthier represented the petitioner. Mr. Page is trying to make a four family out of a two family. The house used to belong to his mother. He has ample parking, he would live in the house next door. Plenty of land on the side, it is owned by the MBTA. The power company has lines that go through so no one could ever build on it. He has knocked off the fifth unit, that ' s what he was requesting before. Mr. Bencal : he shows a parking plan. Mr. Gauthier: would be parking on the lot next door which is owned by hime. Mr. Bencal : If this were granted, would there be a problem tying these lots together? I have a problem varying parking in residential areas, by tying the lots together I would feel more comfortable. Ms. Stirgwolt: are both properties in the same name. Yes Mr. Correnti : at number 24, both he and his mother live there? Mr. • Gauthier: he will move to number 22. It will be affordable housing, between four and five hundred. Mr. Febonio: I agree we need affordable housing but will it be affordable a year from now? Mr. Gauthier: I can 't answer that. MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1990 page five • 22 Webb St. - Continued No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. James Rudolph, 32 Webb St. , there is already a parking problem there. They mentioned the parking by the MBTA, well , the MBTA may say okay to park there now but it is'.not written in blood, they could change there minds. There are plenty of apartments available. I don 't think it will stay affordable, just having a room with nothing, costs a hundred a week. I don 't see a parking lot here. There will be people visiting. Where will they park? I park in my driveway, I only have one car. During snow removal I let my tenant park there. In rebuttal . Mr. Gauthier: We do have parking spaces, eleven that can be put on the lots. I understand your position; you have no parking, Mr. Page has plenty of parking. As far as affordable, you will not be getting a thousand a month for a one bedroom, the most would be five hundred. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : it is bad situation. Would hate to see it expanded to more that what is there now. Mr. Febonio: He was here before looking for five units, he has made concessions. There has been some compromise. I have a lot of reservations. Ms. Stirgwolt: the only hardship I see is economic, don 't see any distinction about that property. Mr. Correnti : The proposed plan would keep the building as a two story? yes. Mr. Corrent: would be two and two? yes. Mr. Correnti : any exterior work? just stairs. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the variances requested on condition all construction be in accordance with city and state building codes; all construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted, a building permit be obtained, a certificate of occupancy for each unit be obtained, petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety, nine (9) legal parking spaces be maintained on site and that the • property at 22 and 24 Webb St. remain in common ownership, either 22 or 24 Webb St. remain owner occupied. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board of Appeal voted 2-3 against the motion. The motion having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass is defeated and the Variances are denied. Mr. Febonio and Mr. Correnti voted in favor. Mr. Bencal , Mr. Luzinski and Ms. Stirgwolt voted in opposition. VARIANCES DENIED. 96 Bridge St. - Liani Realty Trust Petition is requesting Special Permit and Variances to allow construction of two additions in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti. read the application and a letter from Eric &-Patricia Williams, 4 Pearl St. , no objection, but expressing some concerns (on file) ; also, a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Salem Fire Dept. had no objections subject to certain conditions (on file) . Attorney Richard Stafford represented the petitioners. As the petition highlighted, this has been a coffee;,donut and pastry outlet for many years, about 25, will be no change in the number of employees, there would be one more cook, but there would be one less server. The present owner operates the business, used to operate it as the tenant,now own. There will be two handicapped bathrooms, additional food preparation areas and refrigeration. If he is going to remain active at the site, he will have to make changes. This is necessary to allow him to compete with the new competition in the area. The recent competition has a drive-thru feature, Mr. Liani 's site does not lend itself to such a feature so he intends to expand the business, do cakes, breads, salads, etc. • There will be no change in the parking, there are 16 on site spaces. We are nonconforming as far as parking goes, the use is nonconforming so we need a Special Permit for that, also, the lot area and rear yard setback are non- MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1990 page six 96 Bridge St. - Continued • conforming so we are also requesting a Special Permit for that. We are requesting a Variance for the left side setback. This is a corner lot with frontage on Pearl St. and that meets the requirement, the building faces Pearl St. The hours of operation will not be affected. Mr. Liani : basically, if you grant this, you will be allowing the business to evolve, more a bakery than just a donut shop. Well expand into cakes, breads, etc. We notified all the abutters, plans were made available. The Williams and I discussed the fences and I will do whatever they want. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing Closed. Ms. Stirgwolt: I am concerned with the Bridge St. side, the landscaping that is there is very nice, will it remain there. Mr. Liani : that is our intention. The Board went over the plans, asked if the sign and the front facade would remain. Mr. Liani : again, that is our intention, that is our look and we don't want people to think we have moved. Mr. Stafford: we would have no problem with a condition relative to the plantings. Mr. Bencal : in their letter, the Williams, the immediate abutters, mentioned an 8 foot fence. 6 feet is the maximum allowed in an R-2 district. Mr. Williams: the building will be moved 20 feet closer to us, therefore the dumpster will be closer to us. We have had a problem with litter coming over the present 6 foot fence. We just feel that it would be amiable for us to have a higher fence. Have tried to grow trees there but to no avail . Maybe 8 feet is too high, perhaps the Board wants 7 feet. Mr. Bencal : what if we have the dumpster fenced in. Mr. Williams: thought that was going to be done anyway. Mr. Liani has always been a very good neighbor, and he tries very hard to keep the place clean, but still some litter comes over into our yard. We once had a problem with early morning traffic backup and we spoke with him and he took care of it right away. • He has been a very good neighbor. Ms. Stirgwolt: Signs? Mr. Liani : they will stay the same. Ms. Stirgwolt: what are the hours of operation? Mr. Liani : 5 a.m. to midnight. ' Mr. Bencal : • regarding the fence; th6oBoard' haso; only granted variance from height once before that I am aware of, and only once before have I seen a compelling reason for it, until tonight. The neighbors have made a good case for an 8 feet fence. Petitioner has no problem. I would also like to see the dumpster fenced and maintained in perpetuity. Concerned with granting a variance for a fence that is not part of this property, we can grant it where it is common boundary, but not on what is just the property of the Williams. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Speci.al Permits and� Variances- to allow construction of two additions as requested on condition all construction be in compliance with all local and state building codes, all construction be in strict accordance with plans and dimensions submitted, exterior finishes of the proposed additions be in harmony with -the existing structure, a building permit be obtained prior to any construction be started, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to, signage remain as per the plans, exterior lighting be as per plans and facing away from adjacent residential properties, and eight (8) foot fence be erected by petitioner along the common boundary with lot 118, said fence is to be main- tained in perpetuity, the dumpster is to be screened with a six (6) foot fence and maintained in perpetuity. Mr. Luzinski seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1990 page seven • 15 Upham St. - Peter & Christine Louf Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow existing addition to be demolished and to construct an addition with a foundation in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property has current compliance and the Salem Fire Department has no objection subject to certain conditions. (on file) Mr. Louf represented himself. He explained the building is existing and they would like to remove the existing addition and to rebuild it on a foundation, the only difference would be a slight extension. He went over the plans. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Correnti : the new addition is going to be the same as what is there plus 2 '8" extension? Mr.Louf: right Mr. Correnti : does the present structure have a foundation? No, we will be putting one there, will still be single story, cathedral ceiling, will be stained shingles, the same as the existing building, poured concrete foundation, slab in the crawl space. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Variances requested to allow existing addition to be demolished and to construct an addition with a foundation and add two feet eight inches to the addition on condition all construction be as per city and state building codes, all construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted, all exterior finishes be in harmong with existing finishes, a legal building permit be obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained for the new addition and petition comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety. Mr. Correnti seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 68 Loring Avenue - Arthur Valaskatgis (owner) William Jackson (petitioner) • Petitioner is requesting a Variance to change the use of the premises to a retail floor covering business in this B-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the Fire Dept. had no objection, he also read communications from Councillors Blair, Ward 7; and Nutting, At-Large, both in favor of petition being granted. Mr. Bencal : I spoke with Councillor Blair and he will not be able to attend the meeting. Mr. Jackson represented himself. Chose this location because it fits my needs. I am running two places now would like to have everything under one roof. No large trucks. This is a nice clean operation. Will not be any changes to the structure. Mr. Bencal : you are not going to put a second business in there? No, eventually we will be making some changes, such as windows. Make garage door a window, not sure about signs. Speaking in favor. Arhtur Valaskatgis, 27 Surrey Rd. ; Paul Valaskatgis, the area all around here is retail . No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal : will there be any further curb cuts? No, it is all cut, has been for years. Mr. Bencal : will you be backing out onto Loring Ave.? Yes. There are no parking lines there now, could park some on each side. Mr. Luzinski : He has room for six cars, three on each side. Mr. BencaL: if we were to take this parking plan as submitted the state would no approve because they would have to back out onto a state highway. He needs 10 spaces, only showing 8. He has asked for variance or special permit, can grant variance from parking based on this. Mr. Febonio: what are the odds of there being more than 6 people there at one time. Mr. Jackson: has never happened since I have been in the business. My truck parks inside. Mr. Febonio: would the parking space the truck uses • at night be available during the day? No, would not be practical . Mr. MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1990 page eight 68 Loring AVe. - Continued • Valaskatgis: if he needs parking he can park behind the White Hen. Mr. Bencal : the tanks will be removed? yes. Mr. Paul Valaskatgis: there is an empty lot that Mr. Dionne leases parking space, could see about that or could park behind the Auto Mart. Mr. Luzinski : We can grant him variance. Mr. Bencal : hours of operation? Monday, through Wednesday 8-5, Thursday till 8 possibly Friday till 8, not usually open Sundays. Mr. Bencal ; we could limit 8-9. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition all renovations be done as per city and state building codes, all renovations be done as per plans and dimensions submitted, a legal building permit be obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety, six (6)legal parking spaces be maintained on site, all signage to comply with City of Salem Sign Ordinance, hours of operation shall not exceed 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. except where limited by City Ordinance and/or State Law. Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board of Appeal voted four in favor no one in opposition, Mr. Bencal voted present. GRANTED 4-0 Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 6, 1990 minutes as taped, Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED AS TAPED The Board discussed the future Stop & Shop proposal . They have not as yet applied to the Board. When another City abuts a piece of property that is seeking relief from the Board of Appeal , that City is notifed just like any other abutter. Mr. Bencal : as far as the time frame, they will not apply until • all the neighbors are satisfied with the plans, this is an important project for them. All the stores that are there now will be gone. They want all their stores to be 60,000 sq.ft. , everything under one roof. There is talk that if there is a lot of opposition they might flip flop with Bradleys. If and when they come to the Board we may schedule a separate meeting for them, at a different location, possibly Salem State, mainly because that will accomodate more people. I have heard they would like to by-pass this Board if at all possible. Doesn 't look like it is possible. A letter from Leonard Femino, Esq. , Assistant City Solicitor was read regarding 22 Koskiusko St. (on file) The next meeting will be either the 15th of August or the 22nd. The 15th is the week of Heritage Days should meet on the 22nd. The meeting was adjourned at. 10: 12'p.m. , next scheduled meeting torbe:-he,ld August 22, 1990 at .7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. umral • Clerk of the Board .vco>m4b Ctu of tt1Pm, ttssttLljusPtts v �} c�PP ultra of ettl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - AUGUST 22, 1990 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, August 22, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on August 8th and August 15th, 1990. Abutters and other interested persons were notified of the hearing by mail . Present at the hearing were Board Members Bencal , Correnti , Febonio, Luzinski and Stirgwolt; James Santo, Assistant Building Inspector and Clerk of the Board, Brenda Sumrall . ' Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman Richard A. Bencal . Mr. Bencal made note that the agenda was going to be revised, item number 5 would be heard first. 9 Cambridge St. - Ann Tomsho Mr. Correnti read a letter from Attorney George Vallis, Counselor for Ms. Tomsho, request the application for a special Permit to allow property to be converted back to a two family be continued until the next hearing. Mr. Bencal : the next meeting is booked, the next available meeting would be in October, should the " Board grant this request for continuance I could suggest a condition that the • petitioner be responsible for notifying the abutters by certified mail , the abutters list will be made available to them. Mr. Febonio made a motion to continue this petition until the October meeting on condition the petitioners waive the time requirement and agree to notify the abutters of the new hearing date by certified mail . Mr. Luzinski seconded UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL OCTOBER 471 Highland Ave. Lucille Malone Mr. Bencal read a- letter sent to the Board of Appeal , dated August 14, 1990, from Lucille Malone requesting leave to withdraw her application to use the premises as a pet store. He explained to assemblage that should Mrs. Malone decide to come back to the Board at a later date it would be re-advertised and abutters would be notified. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to allow the petition to be withdrawn. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNAIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1990 page two 135''Wby St. - John & Gina Marks • Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow the home occupation of palm and card reading. The property is located in a B-1 district and is owned by Mr. Thaddeus G. Wlodyka, 137 Derby St. Mr. Correnti read the application, there was no other communication. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner. My clients apparently put up a sign and a member of the historic commisstion saw it and they made a complaint to the Building Department. The Building Inspector went down there. My clients had assumed that because they were located in a business zone it was all right to do business there and to have a sign. They have been in this business for a long time and they have requested a transfer of the license from Pickering Wharf to this location. They live here on the premises. Mrs. Marks is not in good health and this location will be much better for her. They estimate one or two people a day take advantage of this service. We have asked for home occupation, this meets the requirements. There will be no employees, only Mrs. Marks. This will be operated entirely within the dwelling, will be operated by the residents of the dwelling, will be no employees, will not use more that 25% of the floor area and they are allowed a sign of 12 sq.ft. which will be attached to the building and that is what they will have. They will still have to go to the Planning Board and the Historic Commission. Mr. Bencal : a lot of places are using the breadboard signs, I am not sure they are legal . Mr. Atkins: I don 't think the ordinance deals with them, however, I think the 1z sq.ft. is allowed by ordinance. Mr. Luzinski : did they just pick your clients out to make a compliant about, I know of two or three signs in the area. Mr. Atkins: I don 't know, I know they were surprised. Mr. Luzinski : basically the historic commission wants your client to comply with the ordinance? Yes. Ms. Stirgwolt: how many apartments are there? Three. . Mr. Febonio: would you mind it being conditioned on just Mrs. Marks doing business? Mr. Atkins: We have no problem with that, . the license is • just her. Mr. Correnti : did you say the business was already existing at the Pickering Wharf site? Yes, but due to her health she can no longer stay there. Ms. Stirgwolt: how many clients per week? Mr. Atkins: about two or three per day. Speaking in favor. Mr.Wlodyka, 137 Derby St. , owner of the building, 100% in favor. Ms. Suzanne Schleicher, 134 Derby St. , not opposed or in favor, just have a question. I am concerned about signs, will there only be one sign? Yes. Okay. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : I should probably remove myself, I have relatives in the same business. Ms. Stirgwolt: If you remove yourself at this time they would have the right to withdraw. Mr. Atkins: no problem with Mr. Luzinski voting. Ms. Stirgwolt: do you have any problem with only one sign be there? No, we have no problem with that, the Zbning •Ordinance is very clear, only one sign. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition the signage restrictions as delineated in Section 5B-1 of the Zoning Ordinance be strictly adhered to, that all proper permits and/or licenses be obtained from the Historical and'.L' icensing Boards respectively, and all necessary state and local permits be obtained, including, but not limited to, building and fire permits and inspections. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1990 page three 5 Buena Vista Avenue - Jeffrey Sano • Petitioner is request variances from side and rear setback requirements to allow construction of a pool deck in this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal which stated the property was in compliance and the fire department had no objection to this being granted. Mr. Sano represented himself, he explained to the Board he would like to put a deck around his pool . The property has a lot of ledge and this is' the only place feasible to put the deck, otherwise they would hit ledge. He submitted a petition in favor signed by nine- teen (19) neighbors and abutters. This is just a pool deck, will give us access to the pool . Speaking in favor. Mrs. Sano, 5 Buena Vista Ave. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio made a motion to grant the Variances requested on condition all construction be done per existing City and State Building Codes, a legal building permit be obtained and all construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted. Mr. Luzinski seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 81 Bridge St. - David L. Frank Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to rebuild existing structure in this B-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the the Fire Marshal stating the fire department had no objections to the granting of a Special Permit subject to certain conditions. (on file) Mr. Frank represented himself, expanding his business, Dave Frank 's Motorcycle Sales. The work had been started and I ran out of money, I now have the money to finish, I have plans and I am ready to finish. He submitted a petition in favor, signed by fourteen (14) persons, • most of them abutters and neighbors. The structure was a closed deck that I tore down and closed in. I found that was against the law, that is why I am here now. I have started a mail order business and I need the storage space. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Ms. Stirgwolt: do you have anything that shows the pre-existing structure? Mr. Frank : I have no pictures, but I have letters from abutters stating there wasa deck. He submitted affidavits signed by Patrick Ryan; 83 Bridge St. and Raymond Young, 79 Bridge St. attesting to the fact that there was a closed in deck and stairs on the site of this addition. Mr. Luzinski : I remember that. Is this addition going to be strictly warehousing, storage, no sales or repairs? Mr. Frank : strictly warehousing, yes. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, all construction be done in strict accordance with the plans and dimensions submitted, exterior finishes of the proposed addition be in harmony with the existing structure, the proposed addition is to be used for warehousing only and no servicing of motorcycles be done on site. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 13 Pope St. - Charles Brett Mr. Bencal explained that this was just a housekeeping issue. This petition has been sitting on hold since 1985. He read a letter from Attorney John Serafini Sr. , withdrawing this petition without prejudice. Mr. Bencal : I am surprised it has not been done before, I did check with Attorney Femino, the Assistant City Solicitor and it was his opinion that we could allow this to be withdrawn. Mr. Febonio made the motion to allow petition to be withdrawn. Ms. Stirgwolt seconded. • UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 1990 page four • 24 Saunders St. - William Gordon et al , Trustees Attorney John Serafini Sr. , has requested an extension of Variances that had been granted on August 9, 1989 allowing the construction of sixty (60) residential units. Mr. Luzinski : how far along is this project? Mr. Serafini : we have the plans and financing and. the factory has been demolished. The site-:is cleared, clean 21E. Mr. Febonio made a motion to grant an extension, 'six months from the date the original decision becamereffective:.;_,Mr'.. Luii.nski-:seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED SIX MONTH EXTENSION On a motion by Mr. Febonio;. seconded by Mr. Corrent i, the Board of Appeal unanimously approved the minutes of May 16 & May 30, 1990, as transcribed and the minutes of June 27, 1990 as taped. The Board Members discussed many proposals for additions, deletions and changes to the existing Board of Appeal Rules and Regulati.ons which were adopted in 1980 and have not been updated since. Rather than make a motion on each and every change, Mr. Correnti made a motion to vote on all changes at once, after they have all been discussed and agreed apon. Ms. Stirgwolt seconded. Motion unanimously passed. After much discussion Mr. Correnti made a motion to continues with the present rules and regulations until the updated rules and regulations have been accepted. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY PASSED The Clerk of the Board was directed 'to type copies of the`:proposed Ruled & Regulations and to submit' a copy of such to the City Solicitor for his opinion. • Hearing adjourned at 9:20 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held September 19, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second^floor of One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk-of the Board • r (llitg of "Salem, 'Mttssadjusetts • '- t M P attra of ettl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, September 19, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on Septebmer 5th and 12th, 1990. Abutters and other interested persons were notified of the hearing by mail . Present at the hearing were Board Members, Bencal , Correnti , Febonio; Luzinski , Stirgwolt; Associate Member Grady, Inspector Santo and Clerk of the Board Sumrall . The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Richard Bencal . He introduced John Grady, the new Associate Member and welcomed him to the Board. Mr. Grady� wfll be sitting on the first two petitions as Mr. Bencal has a conflict on the first item, 1-3 Colby St. and Mr. Correnti has a conflict on the second item, 16 Lynde St. Mr. Grady was appointed a voting member, Mr. Luzinski will be Acting Chairman. 1-3 Colby St. - Salem Hospital The petitioner/owner of thenpropeni:y, Salem Hospital , is requesting Variances from use to permit the operation of a day care center and from rear yard setback requirements. Mr. Correnti read the application and letters from Dr. Maury • McCough, 90 Highland Ave. and Dr; Richard Conway, 9B Colby St. , both in favor of the petition. He also read a letter from the Fire Marshal , Robert Turner which stated the Fire Department had no objections, subject to certain conditions (on file) . Attorney John Serafini , Sr. , represented the petitioner. All of you are familiar with this petition, you have all seen it. Representatives of the hospital met with the abutters. The lot is presently being used as a parking lot for 120 cars. This project would provided day care services which would primarily serve the employees of the Salem Hospital , while nurseries are permitted in this area, it is felt that the definition is not broad enough to coverrday care. Day care has become an important item for employees, people who need the facilities in order to perform their duties. The hospital is no different fromnany other business. To help attract quality nurses it was felt that the hospital should provide this type of service. They looked for the best people to run this facility, they found an excellent firm. A lot of thought has gone into this, knowing the area and the neighbors. This property is 4.4 acres, intauding the pond, will he green area and protect the pond area. He displayed plans and renderings to the Board and the assemblage. Will put a berm around the green space and around the pond as a buffer. Mr. Divirgilio's property-at 5 Almeda St. has always had a water problem, we will go to the Conservation Commission arid'.at that time we will present a plan that will alleviate the drainage problem, this will solve a lot of the problems and provide a much needed service: We were concerned the doctors might have a problem with this, but they wrote a letter stating they were in favor. We comply with all requirements except rear setback. There willn.not be any further building on this site, will •ehhance the ability of the Sal.em Hospital to provide quality services. Building will be slab on grade, cedar clabboard siding, dark • green:,.accent. Mr. Luzinski : will there be a play area? Yes. Mr. Serafini : the standards they will set are state standards and this will be built according to those standards. Mr. Grady: is this limited to the hospital employees? Mr. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 page two • 1-3 Colby St. - Continued Serafini : yes, it will maihly be for employees, if there are neighbors who want to use it, they will be given priority but it will not be for the general public. Mr. Febonio: I am surprised you met with the individual neighbors rather than in a group. Neighborhood concerns are very important to this Board. Mr. Serafini : what we did was this, we spoke with the Ward Councillor and then to individual neighbors, thought this was the best way to find what the individual concerns were. We did not have a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Luzinski : how many children and adults are we talking-.about, and will this be strictly day care? Mr. Serafini : It will be just days, 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. There will be 77 children and up to 40 adults. At the present time they conduct adult day care service and there is certainly a need for that. Right now they are being taken care of at Schaughnessy, they are individually picked up and dropped off. We have some statistics regarding parking analysis for day-care facilities, it will give you some idea of what traffic will be generated and what parking may be needed. He submitted statistics for Family World Child Care Centers in Peabody, Danvers and Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport (on file) . He introduced Joseph Picone, from Family World who addressed the Board. The drop off and pick up is relatively easy, there is plenty of room at this site. I have been in the business quite awhile and never had a problem with congestion. Mr. Febooio: what can we expect as far as traffic? Mr. Serafini : The peak is between the time we open and 9:00ra.m. , and then from 3:00 p.m. to closing: He explained the statistics he had submitted and then read them verbatim, the stats regarding Anna Jaques Hospital ;. these are consistent withrour other stats. Ms. Stirgwolt: those numbers would have to be increased because we are dealing with 77. Mr. Serafini : • Centennial Park in Peabody has 77. Mr. Grady: how many parking spaces? Mr. Serafini : 19 plus the drop off area, between 7 & 13. Mr. Grady: how many staff members? fourteen plus or minus. Mr. Serafini introduced Judy Ritchie, Acting Director-as Shaughnessy; Shaughnessy deals with adult day, probably won 't ever be more than 30 there at one time, 60% come in the van or multible trans- portation. The adults come to the center and they stay there. There are no day trips. Mr. Febonio: how many nurses will take advantage of this, how many of their children will be there? Mr. Kenneth Chisolm, Vice President of Human Resources, Salem Hospital : We have twice as many employees as Beverly, so we will have twice as many employees using it. Mr. Serafini : This will be less intense a use than a parking lot for 120 cars that are coming and going. Will be more attractive site. Mr. Luzinski : Salem Hospital will own the building? Yes. Speaking in favor: Mr. Mario Divirgilio, 5 Almeda ST. , they said they will take care of the drainage problem and I want that on the record. Mr. Goldman, Architect for the project, any time you can take a gravel area and replace it with green space it is much better for the area. This is one of the more effective team efforts. Mrs. Perry, I own property on Highland Ave. , I have seen some wonderful nurses who had to leave because there was no day care. Speaking in opposition: Patrick Curtin; representing One Hundred Highland Ave. Realty Trust, I am authorized to speak for the Association. I was approached by them, they brought plans and showed what was going to be done and explained the need. Unfortunately, it was brought to me and I don 't know if it was brought to other neighbors. The approach was that they already had permission for the child day care and only needed adult care permit. This are is extremely con- gested, especially this corner. Our building replaced a garage, the traffic • study at that time showed we would impact less than the garage. There was a MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 page three 1-3 Colby St. - Continued • a condition that we use Colby St. . it is very dangerous situation there. To add 70 to 100 cars to this kind of congestion will be a problem in this area. There is no parking allowed on Colby St. on either side. We have a potential of 66 cars to be entering and leaving this area. With this small a pick up area I don's see how they can handle the 60 or even 30 cars. This is a major concern. for us. We all know the tendency we all have, that if there is no parking space to use the nearest parking area. The facility, the building itself, would be owned by the hospital but it would be an absentee landlord situation. Should this no longer be used for day care, the building is already there and of course they will want to use it for something. There is a drainage problem there and a berm will not help. Dr. Monaldo, 100 Highland Ave. , if indeed, a couple of years down the road possibly this was going to be moved to a bigger facility, what happens to this building. Ron Tremblay, 10 Almeda St. , it is a great idea to do something with the parking lot but they are saying they are going to alleviate the drainage problem, I don 't see how. What about the play yard, my home is right there, will we be listening to screaming all day, will my kids be able to sleep. 77 children plus elderly, thats a lot. We have a cul-de-sac the Planning Board made us put in, now they are going to park in my front yard. People use that pond to fish, who is going to take care of the pond, hospital doesn 't take care of it now. In winter they just plow and push all the snow right up there . There are no measurements on these plans. We can look at this on paper, but not all of us are contractors and we would like to see where it is going to be. Larry Levesque, 32 Hillside Ave. , the traffic will create a hard- ship on the residents of Hillside Ave. , we have no sidewalks. MaryAnne Letorte, • 15 Colby St. , I was never approached by them, never saw any plans, heard it from the grapevine. Saw them surveying and had to ask the surveyors what was going on. Concerned with traffic flow, everybody knows they come from Boston St. down Hillside Ave, down Colby St. , , there are a lot of kids here. Ray Letorte, 15 Colby St. , traffic is big concern. He looked over the plans. I am concerned with the berm; water will come on to my property, much more so with the berm. The parking lot was not always a gravel pit. The hospital made it that way, brought gravel in. James Fleming, 47 Buffum St. , former member of the Board of Appeal , I am somewhat familiar with this land, the hospital came to us and said they want to use this for parking, ,now they want something else. This is too much for this small parcel , too much for this small neighborhood. After having been granted relief many times and having been given privilege many times; I think the hospital should find someplace on the hospital side of Highland Ave. for day care. Too dense for here. Dianne Clark, 36 Hillside ave. , that was supposed to be a temporary parking lot, was granted back in the seventies. Carol Stetson, Hillside Ave. , concerned with safety of the children, traffic. Leonard O'Leary, Councillor, Ward 4, they did not meet with all the neighbors and from the way the neighbors are speaking it looks like a neighborhood meeting won 't help, but if they would consider on, I would be willing to set it up. Perhaps we could continue this. There is a problem with parking, traffic, I was told this pond used to be larger and they filled some of it, I am no sure. Jeff Clark, 36 Hillside Ave. , traffic. There is a drop in the road where Colby meets Hillside, it is very hard to see, very dangerous. There is a drainage problem, it freezes in the winter, there are no sidewalks. Have tried to get signs. This is a bad corner. Mr. Luzinski : any chance of getting sidewalks there? Councillor O'Leary: not at this time. Neighbor: have been promised sidewalks since I have • been there and that has been 35 years. Mr. Luzinski : is there an area laid MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 page four 1-3 Colby St. (Continued) • for sidewalks? Yes, Salem Hospital has been parking there illegally. Mr. O'Leary: An Ordinance has been put in that the owners have to put the sidewalks in. Dave Tremblay, 8 Almeda St. , sidewalks would work negatively, need to put catch basin there. The building is too big. Lucille Levesque, Hillside Ave. , Concerned with parking, dirt in pond, safety of children. Mr. Stetsin, 35 Hillside Ave. , it should be in this area. Mr. Divirgilio, 5 Almeda St. , I am still in favor, it will relieve the parking. Janet Lasade, Hillside Ave. , concerned With traffic, if you have ever say at that corner trying to get on to Colby St. , you would know what I mean. Parking is problem but traffic is the main problem, it is very dangerous. In Rebuttal : Mr. Serafini , we have no problem with trying to get together with and air some of these problems. If we sit down with these people we have to feel there is an air of compromise. We have a survey that says when you have a day care you have this many cars that will be there and this is how many parking spaces we need. If we needed more parking spaces, there is plenty of land for more parking. Highland Avenue is a built up area, there is nothing we can do about that, it is a fact. We can control something with this parcel . We can control the traffic flow. We will have to go to -the Conservation Commission, they will help take care of the water problem. We are talking about a catch basin. If we all work together maybe we can get something done. In the spirit of cooperation I would not object to continuing this and to try to do something cooperatively. Hearing closed. Mr. 'Febonio: why wasn 't a neighborhood meeting done in the first place? I was going to vote against this but if you are willing to meet with the neighbors and work something our, I would be willing to hear this again. Ms. Stirgwolt: I would like to see better plans, the hospital has been to the Board a number of . times, is there a master plan of what the hospital is planning. You show 19 parking spaces, how many staff, would like to see better parking plan. I am concerned that this was supposed to be a temporary parking lot, would like to see a copy of the old decision. Mr. Grady: there are 120 spaces there being used by the hospital now. You are proposing a day care for '77''child'ren, 40 adults, they could theoretically all show up at the same time. Mr. Correnti made a motion to continue this meeting until a Noverber date, on condition the petitiions meet with the neighbors. Mr. Grady seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED Until a date .in .N6vember 16 Lynde St. - Witch Dunge6n Museum, Inc. Mr. Correnti will not be sitting on this petition, Mr. Grady is a voting member. Ms. Stirgwolt is Acting Secretary. Petitioners are requesting a Variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance to allow a directional sign which would be located on the North Street overpass just to the east of the North River. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application. - .Mr. Robert Curran, Treasurer of the Witch Dungeon Museum, home address, 16 Bay View Circle, Salem, represented the Museum. A lot of our customers can 't find us, there are no signs. There used to be a lot of signs, but no more. We would like to put a sign at the overpass, won 't be a very big one. Mr. Grady: I am trying to get a feel for the exact location. Mr. Curran: Will be past the Merit Station, before the cut off. Not over any public way. Does come under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, we do have permission. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Staley McDermit, 30 Dearborn St. , this sign has been up before, was put up illegally and they • had to take it down. This is a fairly-substantial sign, the post is still there. The City has done a lot of work getting rid of a lot o sign Don 't think we should start putting more up. There are a lot of tourist attractions, they all MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 page five 16 Lynde St. - Continued • have the same rights, what if all of them put a sign up , it would be an eye sore. The downtown looks so good, the flowers are so nice everywhere, it would be a shame. In rebuttal . Mr. Curran: yes, we did have a sign up in 1985, it was not illegal , as a favor we voluntarily took it down, but I assure you it was not an illegal sign. The post is still there because because the State gave us permission to Out it there and they did not require us to take it down. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : How high off the ground? About 14 feet, but it is taken at ground level , It is in fact about 10 feet, the land drops off. Mr. Febonio: we are trying to encourage business, I find nothing wrong with this, I have no problem. Mr. Bencal : I have been told there was a possibility that the City is going to get some kind of uniform signage for the tourist attractions so that hopefully we won',t run` into this. Perhaps we can give some thought to putting a time limit on this. Ms. Stirgwolt: I am concerned with the size; it looks like an advertising rather than a directional sign. I have no problem with with a directional sign but I think this goes beyond that. If this is granted I would want to see a condition that if there is a uniform signage done, this be brought into compliance. Mr. Febonio: could this be downplayed? Mr. Curran: the designer felt this was the size. A 5 x 8 sign is allowed, we are here just for locational . I would have no problem bringing it into compliance with common signage, I have been advocating that for many years. Mr. Bencal : again, the size. Mr. Luzinski : I think this is too big, advertising in disguise. Ms. Stirgwolt asked Mr. McDermit it he thought it was feasible to make this smaller. Mr. McDermit: this is designed to be a highway sign, to be seen by cars. Mr. Grady: I agree this is oversized. If it could be down sized and • conditioned on going to conformity with common signage when it becomes effective. Mr. Curran: we could downsize to a 4 x 4 but that is the smallest we could live with. Mr. Luzinski : that is more acceptable to me. Mr. Febonio: with the condition that once there is common signage that it be removed, also, 18 month review period. Mr. Bencal ; I would like to see some type of time limit, 18 months is good. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the request for a Variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance on condition the sign be no greater that 4 feet by 4 feet in dimension, that the sign installed conform with the desxription provided with application, that in the event the City of Salem adopt a uniform sign plan that the petitioner will install a sign that conforms with said plan, that the petitioner agree to an 18 month review period to determine the impact of the sign at said location, and that petitioner obtain all necessary permits or approvals from appropriate state agencies relating to signs of public roadways. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 11 Witchcraft Road - Patricia Popp Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow an existing deck in this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property has no current compliance relative to installation of smoke detectors, the Fire Dept. has no objections to the Special Permit being granted on condition the owner obtain compliance. Mr. John Spoffard, 10 Hathorne Place, represented Mrs. Popp, his mother in law. My late father in law hired someone to put in the deck. My Mother in law was not aware that there was no permit taken out on the deck and she would like to have this situation • corrected. He displayed pictures of the deck. Mr. Bencal : you will not be MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 page six 11 Witchcraft Rd. - Continued • adding on to this? No. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Correnti : it is nonconforming to' begin with so it is a Special Permit. How long has the deck been there? Since the fall of 1986. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Special Permit to allow the existing deck on condition the petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety, petitioner obtain a legal building permit, the deck remain as per the dimensions submitted and all construction be done as per all existing City-and State building codes. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 63 Flint St. - Allied Realty Trust Petitioner is requesting a Variance from density, lot width, side yard setback, buffer area required, open space required and a Special Permit to allow removal of existing buildings, construction of two new structures and continuation of the nonconforming use for retail and wholesale and storage of builidng supplies with offices and warehousing associated with said use. The property is located in a BPD district. Mr. Correnti read the application, a letter from Mayor Neil J. Harrington in favor of the petition, a letter from'�the Fire Department, no objection. Attorney George Atkins, represented the petitioner. Just to clarify the request, the Variances- are requested for lot width, side yard and buffer area, the special permit is to continue the nonconforming use. Will remove four existing structures and replace with two new buildings. The bridge project and the by-pass project is causing the lot to be reduced in size by eminent domain. Bridge st. will be moved and the canal redirected, F1'intrSt!.,li; • w.ill be .widened; my clients will be losing land on both sides. Will create an unbuildable lot. This is a classic hardship case. He displayed plans and renderings. Bridge St. is being moved to the North, the Canal is being moved to the North, the state is taking this land. The widening of Flint St. will take the other building. He submitted a letter from Jane F. Garvey, Commissioner, Executive Office of Transportaiton and Constructi.on, Dept. of Public Works, which is direct Allied Lumber Company to vacate the premises without delay (on file) . This Variance represents life and death for this business. He showed on the plans where the land they would lose is and where the new buildings would be. This is a narrow lot and this action by the state makes it even more narrow. This was an Industrial zone and was changed to BPD. He displayed the violations as far as the lot width and side yard would be. Also, the BPD zone requires, a buffer zone. Seems to me we have a classic case of hardship, only this property is affected. If the Ordinance is strictly enforced, this business cannot survive. The granting of this will not derogate or nullify-'and will not be detrimental , just the opposite, if not granted will lose business, lose jobs, lose revenue for the City. There will be two new buildings instead of the four old ones there now. There will be landscaping on the Bridge St. side. Additionally, we asked for a Special Permit for the use. . The uses allowed in BPD are very broad, does not specifiy any retail . This is storage and warehousing, most of our uses conform but not the retail . Will be no expansion of the use, no expansion of the buildings. Again, parking, BPD says according to the Planning Board, no sure if that takes your jurisdiction away or not. We have 18 parking spaces, 15 in the front and three in the rear. We have the architect and designer here, Mr. Collier the owner is here. Mr. Febonio: no construction plans? No at this time. Mr. Coke; • Architect: these are industrial shell buildings. Displayed brochures showing some MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 page seven 63 Flint St. - Continued • possiblities for design. He explained the layout of the interior of the buildings. We will be sensitive to the neighborhood. Mr. Atkins: buildings will be 25 feet, the rear building will be totally warehousing and storage. Mr. Coke: we are below the envelope of requirements. Mr. Atkins: we have no construction plans but we have, as far as the Board of Appeal goes, the foot print plans. We have many more steps to go through still . Mr. Bencal : Usually this is the toughest Board' but' in this case the conditions of'. the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board will be tougher. Mr. Correnti : A buffer of 75 feet is required from Oak St. , what will you have? Mr. Atkins: there is no violation on the Oak St. side, we are about 80 feet, this violates only .the buffer of the canal side. Mr. Luzinski : the new buildings, will they be larger that whats there now? Will there be outside storage? Mr. Atkins: There will be outside storage. The buildings will be smaller. The building supplies are sold wholesale, will be no change in the use, will continue the business that is on the site now. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Jamie Fisch, Attorney from Boston, representing Philson realty Trust, owners Clayman & Sons, 12 Goodhue St. and 63 Grove St. , we are concerned about the rules not having been followed. Plans were not submitted at the time of submittal of application. Mr. Bencal : by contacting the Board, you could have found out who the representative of the petitioner was and could have found out about the plans. Mr. Fisch: we have an easement throught their property, they have prevented us from using that easement by putting up a fence. There is litigation. Has cost my client substantial loss of business. We are concerned 'about the easement, looks as if it is physically outside this easement. We are skeptical about the accuracy` of the plans. Impact of traffic. Again, • we have no time to review the plans due to the lateness of the plans being filed. I have -a questions as to the Boards ability or if they should exercise their descretion when a petitioner has prevented use of the easement. Mr. Bencal : certainly your clients are aggrieved by hot having use of the easement. We have to be reactive to the petitions, if this is granted, we can put on a condition relative to'the easement be kept free and -clear. Mr. Fisch: would certainly like to see that condition. Mr. John Clayman, 63 Grove St. , the plan does not show the easement, the deeded easement, for over three years they have eliminated our right of way, they have erected a fence. Since they propose to build-' in a different area, they have offered us 15 feet in lieu of our easement. Would like to see them keep their business but we would like to keep our business too. Mr. Bencal : can you property be accessed by Grove St. or are you landlocked? Mr. Clayman: front can be accessed by the raw materials should be loaded from the rear. As it is now we have to carry them through the manufacturing part of the building. In rebuttal : Mr. Atkins: The reason we haven 't placed these buildings anywhere is because of these rights of way. The right of way is onit 12 feet wide. We are in litigation, not a simple litigtion, very involve and it is not relevant to this. To leave the inference that my client is preventing or prohibiting his business is just no fair. If they are not happy with the decision they have recourse. As far as outside storage, it is a lumber yard, of course there is outside storage. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: we have a business here that has to evacuate in• 30 days, if the second party disagrees they can appeal any decision we make. The easement situation is in litigation and will be handled in the courts. Mr. Correnti : as far as -the right of way, what they are proposing, there are no buildings on that right of way. Mr. Bencal : • it is a moot point. Ms. Stirgwblt: what about signs? Mr. Coke: they will be MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 page eight 63 Flint St. - Continued • in compliance with the Ordinance. Mr. Febonio made a motion to grant the Variances and Special Permit requested on condition all construction be done in compliance with City and State Building Codes, all construction be completed accord ing to plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are strictly adhered to, legal building permits must be obtained prior to construction, a certificate of occupancy for each building, be obtained, all signs shall be in compliance with, the City of Salem Sign Ordinance, petitioner must obtain the approval of any other city board or commission that has jurisdiction, including but not' limited to, the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission. Mr. Correnti seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 47 Leavitt St. - 108 Congress St. Leonides & Micele Getsim The petitioners are requesting variances to allow the parcels to be divided in this R-3 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and referred to a previously granted variance dated March 18, 1987. There was no correspondence. Michele Getsim represented herself and her husband Leonidas. She explained the bank was holding money in escrow pending this being granted. The use will not change. We own both parcels and want to redivide them. This will give 108 Congress st. more land. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Correnti : I see three lots on the plan, are you dividing three lots or two? Two, was three lots at one time, the old decision involved three lots. Part of a divorce settlement. Mr. Febonio: you just want to separate the lots, you have no plans to building. No. Mr. Bencal explained to the Board members the previous decision • and why it was divided, marital dispute. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition to allow the parcels to be 'divided as per the plans and dimensions submitted. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 394 Highland Ave. - Thomas Katsepetsas, Tr.Prime Investment Trust Petitioner is requesting a 24 month extension on conditions 2(v) of a Consent Judgment that was entered into on August 1i , 1986. The property is located in a BPD district. The extension is requested to allow the completion of the remaining units in the condominium project. Mr. Correnti read the application. Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioner, not really sure we should be here but as I explained in my application we are here to satisfy any question there may be. Mr. Katsapetsas bought this property recently at a sale. Mr. Bencal : does he have legal building permits? Mr. Vallis: yes, he has them on all the units. Presently there are 28 that are not complete, the foundations are all there. They have been actively selling them. He has completed some of the buildings, they are in various stages of construction. The consent judgment which runs with the land, not the owner, says the entire project must be complete within three years. The building inspector has no problem with this, he has issued the permits. According to the language of the consent judgement, the time is was up last August. The utilities were all done, the foundations all in. He submitted a petition in favor signed by 97 owners/occupants of the Highland Condominium as Salem, the immediate abutters. This is just a matter of allowing the developer to finish the units. It is our opinion that all the conditions have been met. Mr. Luzinski : was there a point in time that no construction • at all was being done? Yes, during the foreclosure period, there was quite a while there was no construction being done, no sales going on, nothing could be MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 page nine • 394 Highland Ave. - Continued done. Mr. Febonio: your client feels that 24 months will be long enough? He would like to be done in 6 months, these are fanny may approvals. Mr. Bencal : what about item B? Mr. Vallis: that has nothing to do with this, the City owns that, my client is not involved with that at all , all he has to do with is the units. Ms. Stirgwolt: are we granting a new variance? Mr. Benal : this is a time variance. Mr. Vallis: basically we are looking for something very simple, an extension of time. Speaking in favor. Arthur Bouras, M.D. , he has done an excellent job, very enthusiastic, working very hard. Mr. Meller, 3 Indian Hill lane: since he bought these he has done a great job, he has done landscaping. Jack Lawrence, 6 Indian Hill Lane, I just have a question, is the sole trustee of this operation Mr. Katsapetsas? Mr. Vallis : yes, Mr. Thomas Katsepetsas is the sole trustee, the sole signatory. Mr. Stasinos was president of Highland Ave. Condominium Trust, the bank foreclosed, the bank then owned it, they sold it, Mr. Katsapetsas bought it, he owns them and he has a right to call meeting of the condominium trust. Mrs. Peoni , 403 Highland Ave. , he has maintained the entrance. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Correnti : the judgment is in fact a variance, a variance with conditions, if we look at this as a variance and this request is amended, that clears up any issue as to whether we have the authority, clearly we do. Mr. Bencal : this is questionable, we grant extensions for 6 months but never more than that. Mr. Correnti : the ordinance doesn 't restrict us to any time limits. Mr. Luzinski : this is quite a change from original contact witht his project. Mr. Bencal : condition should be put on that all conditions of the consent judgement be adhered to. Mr. Febonio: I don 't have any objections to this. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the request for • a 24 month extension on condition all other conditions of the consent judgment made on April 18, 1986 be complied with. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 1-3 Ocean Terrace - Peter White & Nancy Chatis Petitioners are requesting Variances to allow a three family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application, a letter from the Fire Marshal , no objection; a letter from Walter Power, III the Chairman of the Planning Board which stated the Planning Board voted a specific and material change from a previously denied petition (on file) . Attorney George Vallis represented the petitioners, he submitted a copy of the Assessors map showing multi-family dwel- lings in the area. Mr. Bencal : before we go into your presentation would you please explain the substantial change. Mr. Vallis: when this was denied by the Board in April of this year, the property was not owner occupied. Mr. Bencal : it was alleged it was owner occupied. Mr. Vallis: the variance granted in 1981 was to allow property to go from a four family to a three family. The condition on that variance was that the plans be approved by the Building Inspector, this evidently did not happen, there was also a condition that the petitioner live there. Mr. Bencal : seems to be the typical language of a decision. Mr. Vallis : subsequent owner came to the Board and the Board was not convinced it was owner occupied. My clients purchased the property and are intending to get married and live there, they need the rents. The building was always laid our as a three family, 5 rooms on each floor. We know the owner occupied condition is very important, it avoides absentee landlord. We have a young couple who want to live • in Salem. The intend to live there. Mr. Bencal : could you please sum up what the substantial change is. Mr. Vallis: it will be owner occupied. Mr. Febonio: what about parking? Mr. Vallis: was going to get into that later, the Chairman wants to know about the change, but to answer your question, there are 4 spaces. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 page ten 1-3 Ocean Terrace - Continued • Mr. Bencal : you are basing this on owner occupancy? Mr. Vallis submitted a petition signed by neighbors and abutters in favor. Mr. Correnti : Although it was perported to be owner occupied previously, you are saying the difference is because it is owner occupied? Mr. Vallis right. Mr. Bencal : when the Marsilias bought it,it was alleged that one of them lived then when they were in town, the question-now before us is, is this a significant change. Mr. Febonio made a motion that there was a significant changed based on the owner occupancy and the letter from the Planning Board. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted UNANIMOUSLY TO RE-HEAR: Mr. Vallis: there are three electric meters, three doorbells, three mailboxes. It has been assessed as a three family since 1974. The house was basically built as a multi-family building, I think the reason the Board has stressed owner occupancy is because of absentee landlords, buildings tend to become run down when the landlord is not on sight. This is a young couple, both are engineers at G.E. They are not buying this as an investment, this will be their home. Speaking in favor: Peter White, owner/petitioner, we have done quite a lot of work there, having this a three family is the only way we can afford to purchase this, we really like the neighborhood. We have no intention of using this house as an investment, as Mr. Vallis said, this will be our home. We did buy this as a two family with the hope it could be a three. In opposition. Betty Ash, 15 Cliff St. , no really opposed,just want to make sure of the parking. There is a no parking sign on my side. They have done a great job getting four cars into the lot. We have had a problem with trash collection and I am concern with the fire dept. being able to get down there. They are a real nice young couple. Mr. Bencal : have you seen any changes since they owned it? Ms. Ash: oh yes, they even cut • the bush so they could fit another car. I was raised in that house, it was always a two family. Mr. Vallis: as far as parking, if the Board feels it is necessary they could take some of the grass out, could fit five cars, not legal spaces but five spaces. Hearing closed. Mr. Correnti : are most of those homes three family. Ms. Ash: they are now. Mr. Febonio: the petitioner has shown good faith. The Board went over the plans and discussed different parking solutions. Mr. Valtl:isn?' suggested''arcondition`that adlicar•s belonging to :tenaotsoberoffi-thi istceet ` They can �maintainrfbbr spaces; that is',al-1 •theyneed,:rn!Could..f,.itnfiueci'F-ithey�3tbok out thb� grass', which they vibuld-dd if the Board 'said i.trwas,,necessaryr,.inMni:inValdJsupir-d conferred with his �ctients. .=Mr.:>Vall'is: ctheywou(Id^be;,.wi•lliiig. toecwhibhergnasscl.if rieetled.i!:M'r."Bencal : I am not hearing the same complaints I heard at the last hearing, I am willing to give them a chance. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition request on-,condition a certificate of occupancy for the third unit be obtained, all requirements of the Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be adhered to, property remain owner occupied, five parking spaces be provided on site if necessary. Mr. Febonio seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Minutes of the meeting of August 22, 1990 were unanimously approved as taped; minutes of the meeting of June 6, 1990 were unanimously approved as transcribed. Correspondence received from Attorney Arthur Palleschi of Lynn was received and read into the record. (on file) Meeting adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. , next scheduled meeting to be held October 17, 1990 on the second floor of One Salem Green. • Re�ully�ed, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board fllity of ulem, �fflussadjusetts Poura of �kpveal Minutes of the Board of Appeal - October 17, 1990 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, October 17, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. one the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News on October 3 and October 10, 1990. Abutters and others were notified of the meeting by mail . Present at the hearing were Board Members, Bencal , Correnti , Febonio, Luzinski , Stirgwolt, Associate Labrecque. Also present was James Santo, Assistant Building Inspector and Brenda Sumrall , Clerk of the Board Meeting was. called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Acting- Chairman; Edward L'uzinski . Mr. Bencal will not be sitting on the first petition. Mr. Labrecque was appointed a voting member. 1 Sewall/6 North/284 Essex Sts. - Salem Young Men 's Christian Association (YMCA) The petitioner is requesting Variances to allow construction of of a two story addition to the existing building which will house a swimming pool on the first floor and a fitness center on the second floor, the property is located in a B-5 district. Mr. Correnti read the application, a letter from the Salem Fire Marshal which stated the Fire Dept. had no objection to this being granted, letter from • Maura Smith, Executive Director of The Salem Partnership, in favor; and a letter from Marjorie Satinsky, Director of Managed Care, Salem Hospital , in favor. Attorney Richard Stafford represented the petitioner, the president of the Board of Directors is here tonight as well as other members of the Board. Mr. Turner of Turner construction is present to answer questions you might have. He intro- duced Bruce McDonald, Director of the YMCA. Mr. McDonald: one of the things that distinguishes the Y from other organizations is they never turn anyone away regardless of ability to pay. He played a Video tape which was prepared by Warner Cable. This video gave a history of the YMCA from it ' s beginning to the present. In 1905 the present building was opened. We now have 3,000 members and 90 employees. We must expand to meet the growing needs of Salem. The day care already serves 100 and there is a waiting list. There is a need for pre-school day care as well as the current after school day care. Over =, of the members are over 50 years of age. The present pool is in good condition but it is too small to serve everyone. We propose to build a new wing, the pool will be on the first floor and a fitness center on the second floor, the will allow the expansion of our day care and to do the women 's locker room. Mr. Stafford: it has been1z years since the start of this proposal and we haAe raised 12 million dollars. We have had great support in the City of Salem, We have a Board Members who says everyone can relate some- thing to the Y. We would like to say thanks to the Church for their help and support. We are look for minimum relief. As far as the side yard, we have the 5 feet needed and will withdraw our request for that relief. . The lot coverage will still leave us with plenty of open space, there is plenty of parking. We are dealing in a time where the government is reining in its funding for com- munity needs, the Y would like to see this go forward and to provide a much needed • service for the community. Speaking in favor. John Walsh, 5 Emerald Avenue, Treasurer of the Y, we need new facility if we are going to attract new people, this will provide needed services. John Boris, Chamber of Commerce, very much in MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 1990 page two . 1 Sewall St./6 North St./284 Essex St. - Continued favor. Jack Levitt, 300 Essex St. , direct abutter. . Have watched the Y for 12 years now, it was almost bankrupt at one time, 'these young men have done such a good job, they have been wonderful neighbors. Roy Gelleanu, 21 Front St. , on the Y Board, i.h.favor. ',Mrs': Smith �i51 Samm1td5t: ,fMr. ;:'Jones i101 Summer St, Paul Benoit, address not given, Rose Harrigan, Teacher"Salem High School , all in favor. In Opposition. Frank D'amato, I am in favor of the Y but where are we going to park, that is my concern, parking. Mr. Stafford: as far as parking, in the B-5 district the City does not require parking, but we are adding 10 parking spaces on North St. , they can be used by the neighbors. We made a land exchange with the Church. Bob Quijano, Architect, displayed renderings. The west facade that faces North st. will be brick, when we get to the Church side it will be split face block so it will' blend. Mr. Correnti : when to you anticipate beginning construction? Mr. Stafford: we hope to be on the Planning Board' s next agenda and will try to get into the ground by December, we estimate it will take about 9 months to complete, we will go straight throught till it is complete. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : just looking for lot coverage? Mr. Correnti : that is one of the requests, the request for side yard setback has been withdrawn. Mr. Luzinski : that should be made part of the.motion. Mr. Correnti : the variance is for loading dock. He asked Mr. Stafford about going to the Historic Commission. Mr. Stafford: that is no necessary, this in not part of the district. We are trying to match so that we will compliment the Church. Mr. Febonio? what color, split face? Same, red. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition requested and as amended removing the request for side yard relief, on condition a certificate of occupancy be obtained, all require- ments of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are strictly adhered to, all city and state building codes be strictly adhered to, all con- struction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted, the petitioner apply to and appear before all other city boards and commissions as deemed necessary by law, including by not limited to the Salem Planning Board and the Design Review Board. Mr. Febonio seconded. Unanimously granted. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED. 5 Fairmount St. Joao K. Sampaio The petitioner/owner is requesting a Special Permit to extend and enclose a rear porch. The property is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application. Mr. Luzinski is not sitting on this case, Mr. Labreque is. a voting member. Mr. Correnti then read a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he had no object.ions-to this being granted. Elizabeth Sampaio represented the family. She explained they are extending the porch, it will be a screened in porch. Mr. Bencal : you are not going to extend any further out, just following the line of the house? Yes. Mr. Correnti : who will do the construction? My father and brother-in-law, my brother-in-law is a carpenter. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Ms. Stirwolt: what color? White, same as existing. Mr. Bencal : what size? 7 ' x 14' single story. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition all construction be done in accordance with city and state building codes, all construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted and amended to reflect a 7 ' x 14' extension, exterior finishes be in harmony with exiting, all requirements of the Fire Dept. • be strictly adhered to, a building permit be obtained. Mr. Labreque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - October 17, 1990 page three • 408 Essex St. - John Theodorakopoulos (Mandees Pizza) , petitioner Sparky Nelson and Robert Nersasain, owners Petitioner is requesting a variance from parking to allow Mandee's Pizza to be located at 408 Essex St. which is located ina B-1 district. Mr. Luzinski is not sitting on the-petition, Mr. Labrecque is still a voting member. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the property is not in compliance with MGL relative to smoke detectors. Attorney Robert Ledoux represented the petitioner. Any on you who have lived in Salem are familiar with this property. This building was constructs .sometime after the Salem fire, the whole lot is only 3,416 square feet. Tortilla Flat and the Music shop are there: Anything that could go there would need a variance from parking. This would be strictly take our, would be no eating on the premises, 90% of the business is delivery. There is no parking there. It is all noncon- forming, the building is already there, the use is an allowed use. This will not derogate or be detrimental . He is presently located down the street. He is just asking to move. Mr. Febonio: that parking lot in the back, is that part of the property? Mr. Ledoux: it is, but it is not enough. Mr. Boris. Essex Office Associates, is here tonight and he has a place across the street and he would be Willing to allow them to use his property. Mr. Febonio: could have signs saying to park in the lot in the back or at Boris 's. Mr. Ledoux: no problem with that. The lot in the rear is not paved. Speaking in favor: John Boris,member.'of the :i= Chamber of Commerce and speaking for many small businesses in the City, if the parking requirments were strictly adhered to, a lot of businessess would not be here. I have a business next to them and they are good neighbors. I am on the • Licensing Board and we have granted them a license. Councillor Leonard O'Leary: in favor, that whole block has'-.no parking but it has not been detrimental . They take care of their property. George Sacrelakos, Lynn, Employee of Mandee' s. This move would keep business in Salem and would keep Salem growing. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: what are your hours of operation? Mr. Theodorakopoulos : would be 11 to 11 Monday through Thursday, 11 to midnight Friday and Saturday and 1 to 11 on Sunday. Ms. Stirgwolt: will you be parked outside the front door for taking deliveries? Yes. Mr. Ledoux: We would put up the signs as suggested by Mr. Febonio. Mr. Bencal : is it possible for the delivery vehicles not to park on the street? Ms. Stirgwolt: that is very important to me, there are already two restaurants there. Mr. Ledoux: they are take-out restaurants. Ms. Stirgwolt: I could only support this if you used Mr. Boris ' s lot and if your delivery vehicles used the back lot. Mr. Bencal : I was in to Mandee's and I was told there was going to be eating on site, now you say no, there won'.t be. Mr. Ledoux: there will be no eating on the premises. Mr. Bencal asked Mr. Boris if bec.ausenthdyi�arecchangTngvlocatiohs-,if they heeded Council approval to stay open after 11 . Mr. Bencal read from the Ordinance. Mr. Boris: that is for retail , does not include when they need a common victular license, does not fall under retail use. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the variance requested on condition all construction be in compliance with all City and State building codes, all construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, a legal building permit be obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety, the use of off street parking, owned by nearby Essex Office Associates, be encourage for use by customers, employees and others related to the business, all deliveries be loaded from the rear of the building, not on • Boston or Essex Streets, no dining be allowed on premises and appropriate signage encouraging the use by patrons of off street parking be places in an appropriate and conspicuous place on site and be maintained by the petitioner. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Minutes - October 17, 1990 page four • 471 Highland Ave. - Lucille Malone The petition is requesting a Special Permit to allow a Bottle Redemption and Discount Beverage Center in this B-2 district. Mr. Luzinski is not sitting on this petition, Mr. Labrecque is a voting member. Mr. Correnti read the application and letters from; Captain Herlihy, Traffic Division, Salem Police Dept. , stating they had reviewed the plans and the design appears to be an improvement to the neighborhood: At this time Mr. Bencal informed the assemblage that if they had sent a letter and it was read into the record, that would serve the same as if they had spoken, if they would prefer to speak then their letter would not be read into the record. A letter from Rent-All , Inc. was received but not read. The following letters were read into the record: Dorothy Day, 1501 Ferncroft Tower, Danvers; Barbara & Frank Brachanow, 2 Wyman St. ; Charles Hincman, Sr. , President of Hincman Enterprises, Inc. , 259 Highland Ave. , all expressing no objection, all read into the record. Attorney John Keilty, Peabody, represented the petitioner. That site presently houses the Malone Fence Company and the area in the rear is presently being used by the fence company. These eight parking spaces shown on the plan aPe- not currently hear. Property is now entirely used by Malone Fence, we are proposing to use about 1000 sq.ft. for the Bottle Redemption, we will unlock the fence and utilize that area for parking. Treating this as a retail use, we are here because the use is not addressed by the Ordinance. Of the 1000 sq. ft. , about z will be used for recovery of the bottles. The-containers for these bottles will be kept completely inside. On a bi=weekly basis, these bottles will be delivered to other redemption centers. The neighborhood is concerned about the problems that are currently there. He is evidently going to phase out the fence business which is very slow right now. • He will be reducing the number of trucks by four. The issues this Board is con- cerned with are, number one, will this use generate a safety hazard. It is our thought the conditions will be improved. The reduction in the truck fleet, the parking in the rear will elleviate the parking problems in the area. We could have a condition that blocking of Wyman Ave. be prohibited. The Malones are here if there are any questions. Speaking in favor: Mr. Kramer, Rent-all , Inc. , 475 Highland Ave. , the is be good, will improve the parking problem there, will generate business in Salem. Mr. Natilla, 7 Wyman Ave. , never had a problem with these people, I am in favor. Chuck Thornhill , 90 Federal St. , these are good people, hardworking people and they should be given this opportunity to survive. Speaking in opposition. Mr. Petruccio, Wyman Ave. there are always trucks parked there, there is a bus stop there, can 't see when we 're trying to get out. This is a very narrow corner, room for only one car. I am very concerned with parking. Mr. Bencal : I saw the pictures you have at the Mayor's neighborhood meeting, have you had contact with the Ward Councillor since that meeting. There was no answer to that question. Mr. Petrucci : I am concerned with kids getting off the bus. Mr. Bencal : if there are still on going problems with parking I would suggest going to your ward councillor. Councillor Leonard O'Leary, I am the Ward four `councillor but I did talk with the Ward Three Councillor, Mr. Furfaro. There is not enough room there for another business, Mr. Malone has good character but I am opposed. There is a proposed ordinance change regarding entrance corridors and this is part of that. Part of this is wetlands. Perhaps if one business was coming and one was going out, that would be different. That does not seem to be the case here. Mary Milton, 83 Wyman Ave. , have been there for many years. My mother is very old and at one time she was very sick and • the ambulance had a problem getting through. Had to wait because the trucks park from rent all on one side and Malone on the other side. . My car was damaged and I was treated very rudely. The winter is even worse. Mountains of snow. Can 't get out to Highland Ave. Now you want to put this there and Minutes - October 17, 1990 page five 471 Highland Ave. - Continued is complicate things even more. Do we not have any rights. We value our property, we take care of our property, we have artesian wells up there, we do no have City water. Please look at our side. Diane Windowski , Wyman Ave. , Have had to wait on the main street to get into Wyman, someday there' s going to be a serious accident. I have two children who get off at the end of the street and I am concerned. Frank Damato, Salem, traffic, parking, safety. This is not just recycling, will be selling beverages, pretty soon it will be cookies, so on. Not enough land there. In Rebuttal . Attorney Keilty: I would like to reiterate, we will conduct all business indoors, containers will not be put outside. This area has narrow lots, no sidewalks. That is outside Malone's control . This is a B-2 zone, one of the broadest zones in the City, retail could be put there with out coming to the Board of Appeal . By coming here we have placed ourselves in the position of having conditions placed on this. The area in front was, prior to the fence company, used as gas station and there is some room there.for parking. Mr. Bencal : we have heard from many neighbors and the theme seems to be that they have not been very good neighbors as far as use of the street. Comments? Mr. Keilty: One of the issues is, there is a general problem that no only concerns my client but also the Rent-All . On of the things this proposal will do is down- phase the existing business. There will be parking that was no available before. The truck fleet will be reduced. Conditions could be made that no loading or unloading be done on Wyman. Mr. Bencal : what is the gross floor space of the building? Mr. Keilty: a little over 3,000 sq.ft. Mr. Bencal : how much is storage? About 2/3rds of the building. Mr. Bencal : you are required to provide one space for each 150 sq.ft. of floor space, excluding storage, do you cover that? How many vehicles are there now? Mr. Keilty: there are nine trucks, will be five. • The Board, along with Mr. Keilty went over the plans in an attempt to find more parking space. Ms. Stirgwolt: from what I see, there is an existing business there, I don 't think this can be done by SpecialPermit, you are adding a business, not changing from one to another. You are required to meet'the parking for the existing business. Mr. Febonio: I read this the same as Ms. Stirgwolt, I thought the fence company was going out of business and you were changing from one non- conforming use to-another. They have not made any strong effort to help the neighbors as far as using the street. The company vehicles have been parked there in violation of the no parking signs. If you can put eight parking spaces there now, why didn 't you put them there before and use them for the company trucks. What happens during snow storms? Now you want to add another business. Ms. Stirgwolt: the neighbors have no assurance that when the economony improves the fence company won't remain. Mr. Feboni.o: it looks good on paper. Mr. Labrecque: is Wyman and approved street? Mr. Keilty: there' s a difference of opinion on that. Mr. Bencal : it is an accepted street, it is only about 20 feet wide. Mr. Correnti : you won 't be adding to the building? Mr. Keilty: No. There will be bi-weekly removal of bottles. All will be done within the confines of the existing building. Will be unloaded in the yard. Fencing material will also be reduced, will not onger be delivering by large trailers, will be less employees, if this is not granted it will be business as usual , this will help, but they can't see that. Mr. Febonio: if there was this kind of cooperation to'-begin with we would not have a problem and the neighbors would not feel the way they do. There is strong opposition and the reasons are valid. Ms. Stirgwolt: I am still concerned with the number of parking spaces needed. If we are dealing with everything that is there we are still short of the number required. Mr. Bencal : • ask your client if there would be a problem with having the Board review this Minutes - October 17, 1990 page six 471 Highland Ave. Continued • after a matter of time, say 18 months. They would have to come back to the Board.! Mr. Correnti : what you are proposing is a sunset condition. If there is any problem there, isn 't it up to the Building Inspector to enforce our conditions. Mr. Bencal : it would be a new petition, we have done this in the past. We could refuse to give them permission if there is a problem. Mr. Keilty: we would agree to that. Mr. Labrecque: should send them to thePlanning Board to solve the parking and traffic problems. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition all renovations be done as per city and state building codes, renovations be done as per the plans and dimension submitted, showing eight parking spaces, a legal building permit be obtained, certificate of occupancy be obtained, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relatiJe to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, all recycled items are to be stored inside the building, site to be kept clear of litter etc. , loading and off-loading will be done on the site, the special permit shall expire 24 months from the date the decision becomes effective and petitioner can file for additional relief at that time. Mr. Labrecque seconded the motion. Mr. Bencal and Mr. Correnti voted in favor of the motion, Mr.' Febonio, Ms. Stirgwolt and Mr. Labrecque voted opposed to the motion. Having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes needed to pass, the motion is defeated and the Special Permit is denied. DENIED 2-3 22 Beach Avenue - Dale Lewinski Mr: Lu2inski.^will be sitting on this petition, Mr. Labrecque has left for the • evening. The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure by adding a second level . The property is located in an R-1 district and will remain a single family dwelling. Mr. Correnti read the,application and a letter from the Fire Department stating the property was in compliance. He then read a letter from George Nowak, Councillor Ward One stating he had received no objections from neighbors and he supports this request. Mr. John Lewinski represented himself and his wife Dale. The house is currently a single family with a finished bedroom upstairs. We have two children and one of them sleeps down stairs. Mr. Bencal : this will not be a two family? Mr. Lewinski : no. He submitted a petition signed by ten (10) neighbors and abutters in support of his request. The majority of the homes in the area are two story homes. He read and submitted a letter from William Crowley, Bay View Buildders, Manchester, contractor for the proposed second level , stating a second floor addition should have no adverse affect on the neighborhood. (on file) No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed, no need for rebuttal . Mr. Luzinski : basically just putting all the bedrooms on the second floor. Mr. Lewinski : there will be three bedrooms, bath- and laundry room. Mr. Febonio:, made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested to allow the addition of a second story on condition all construction be done in accordance with City and State Building Codes, all construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted, exterior finishes of the proposed construction be in harmony with the existing structure, petitioner obtain a legal building permit, all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to, a certificate of occupancy for the proposed second story is to be obtained from the City of Salem Inspector of Buildings. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • Minutes - October 17, 1990 page seven 32 Irving St. - Maria A. Costa • The petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow construction of a deck in the rear of this property which is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating they had no objection to this being granted. The petitioner was not present at the hearing. Mr. Bencal : the Board is now faced with voting to either grant or deny the petition, there has been no request to continue or to withdraw. Mr. Correnti : I think the petitioner is properly before us and we should continue with the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Bencal : does the petitioner have to be here? He asked Attorney George Vallis for an opinion. Mr. Vallis: you may go forward and ask if there is anyone present in favor or in opposition. After a brief discussion the Board went on with the public portion of the hearing. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Simone Gongas, 89 Tremont St. They have knocked my fence down, they have built a wall . I would like my privacy, if they build a deck I will not be able to use my yard. Adoph Damore, 91 Tremont St. , this is a fire hazard, there is no access, there is a wall in front. There are three trees in the back. I was in favor when they came and got permission to build the house, but they have caused lot of damage to my property. I have been harassed, they have harassed my daughter. There was no rebuttal . Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal : I am familiar with this, when they came before for the construction of the house, it was a tough vote and I voted a reluctant yes, I would not vote for any further encroachment. Mr. Febonio': °the,,petitioner knew they were to be here tonight, they have been to the Board before and are familiar with procedure. Does no appear they have been good neighbors. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition as submitted. Mr. Correnti seconded. By a • vote of 0-5, the Board voted against the motion. Having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to grant, the motion is defeated and the petition is UNANIMOUSLY DENIED. 9 Cambridge St. - Ann Tomsho This request for a Special Permit to convert back to a two family has been continued from the August 22, 1990 meeting at the request of Attorney George Vallis on behalf of Ms. Tomsho. Mr. Vallis addressed the Board at this time stating they were waiting for a response from the City Solicitor and if it is forthcoming they would ask to withdraw. Would like to request this be continued at this time: Mr. Febonio made a motion to allow the petition to be continued until the November 7, 1990 meeting on condition the petitioner notify abutters by Certified Mail and a waiver of time be signed. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL NOVEMBER 7, 1990 13 Pope St. - Charles Brett Petitioner is requesting variances to allow construction of two structures in duplex form in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , which stated the Fire Dept. had no objections to this being granted. He also read a letter from Elizabeth Debski , 63 Proctor St. expressing support for the project but also expressing concern for the parking plan as shown on the submitted plans and requesting the Board look at the possibility of setting the parking further back on the lot to ensure cars will not be backing out onto Pope and Proctor streets. Attorney George Vallis, • 81 Washington St. , Salem represented the petition. Attorney John Serafini Sr. Minutes - October 17, 1990 page eight 13 Pope St. - Continued • was the Attorney who submitted the application for Mr. Brett, Mr. Vallis is substituting for him. He addressed the Board. I am familiar with this as I represented Mr. Brett back in 1985. He gave a brief history of this property. This was purchased from the City of Salem, the Purchase and Sale was conditioned on a variance being granted to construct three buildings. We appeared here in June of 85. That plan was different from what we have tonight, the configuration was different. Rather than asking for three buildings and six units, Mr. Brett is asking for two buildings and four units. There was some opposition in 1985, people were concerned with the flooding conditions at that site, that matter was continued pending a report from the City Engineer, Mr. Paul Niman. We made a request of Mr. Niman, letters were exchanged, nothing was settled. I think he may have mixed up the properties. Mr. Brett has bought the property, cleaned up the lot and he is back before the Board with this current proposal . He sub- mitted a letter from James H. Simpson, 15 Pope St. , stating his support for the petition and stating that due to the effort and work done by Mr. Brett there has been no incidence of flooding or any drainage problems as a result of the small brook which runs through the property. (on file) He also submitted a letter from Marc McDonald, 23 Proctor St. , in favor and crediting Mr. Brett with cleaning up the property and correcting a drainage problem. (on file) Mr. Vallis: you will note in the legend we are providing 1 ,000 feet more than is required, we have 16,000 sq.ft. One of the problems was'.thei95'ifeet.-toh15lPopeoStfrnBoulldrdot Out'-.anything there without violating some density requirement. He displayed rendering of the proposed buildings. Speaking in favor. Thomas Brophy, 25 Proctor St. , that property has been a disgrace ever since I have known. This will improve the area. Councillor O'Leary: back in 1985 this was not in Ward • 4. It was a blighted area, we had hearings, had an auction. Mr. Brett bought the land. He has maintained it since then. All the residents want something done with that property. I think he' ll do a good job. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal : can the parking be moved? Mr. Brett: I spoke with Mrs. Debski and I have no problem with moving them. I would like to avoid a big paved area. Mr. Bencal : Are sidewalks required? Mr. O'Leary: yes they are, unless waived by the City Engineer. Ms. Stirgwolt: what if the parking were parallel to the house? Mr. Brett: I would have no problem with that. Mr. Febonio: that's the only problem I can see, there is no opposition. Mr. O'Leary: part of the property up there is where the witches were hanged, he is going to keep it clear. I know he will do what he says. He's already been to the Conservation Commission. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition on condition all construction be done in compliance with existing City and State Building Codes, all construction is to be done according to the plans and dimensions submitted and as amended with the parking on Pope st. parallel to the building on the Pope St. side, a legal building permit be obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained for each dwelling, the petition must obtain proper street numbering from the Assessors office, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Febonio made a motion to accept the minutes of the September 19, 1990 minutes as taped and the minutes of June 27 and August 22, 1990 as transcribed. Mr. Correnti seconded. • MINUTES UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED Minutes - October 17, 1990 page nine Mr. Bencal read a letter from Attorney John R. Serafini , Sr. regarding Pumel Enterprises located at 284 Rear Canal St. which is owned by Bertini . The letter (on file) speaks for itself, it was served to me in hand. Mr. Febonio made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Ms. Stirwolt seconded. Meeting unanimously adjourned at 10:35 p.m. , next scheduled hearing will be November 7th at 7:00 p.m. , second floor on One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board • • ;b Qlitu of ttlem, f ttssadjusetts • :, F Poara of �kpprzd MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL FOR NOVEMBER 7, 1990 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal Was held November 7, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting was sent to abutters and other interested person. Notices of the hearing were duly published in the Salem Evening News on October 24 and 31 , 1990. Present at the hearing were Board Members Bencal , Correnti , Febonio, Luzinski and Stirgwolt; Assistant Building Inspector James Santo and Clerk of the Board Brenda Sumrall . Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Richard Bencal . The Board, throught the Chairman congratulated Ms. Stirgwolt on passing the bar. 95 Margin St. - City of Salem The City of Salem, owner/petitioner, is requesting a Variance from use, frontage and side yard setbacks to allow construction of a building to house the City of Salem Police Station. The property is located in an Industrial zone. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the fire department had no objection to this being granted. William Luster, Director of Planning for • the City of Salem, represented the City. I am here with Mr. Dave Shea, Mayor's Staff, and members of the Police Department. Back in 1986, the Board of Appeal approved the division of this property with the purpose of constructing a Police Station. There were variances granted at that meeting to allow the construction. He submitted a copy of the proposed project scope, itemizing the required square footage, the parking, project status, etc. (on file) Mr. Luster and the Board went over all the figures supplied. There will be 95 parking spaces. The design is about to be completed, we thought this would be a good time to come to the Board. Mr. Peter Lynn, Pepi Associates, displayed plans to the Board and to the assemblage. There will be about 25% lot coverage. Have met with the Police Dept. as far as the design. New England Power has an easement. He displayed renderings and went over the parking design and traffic flow: Traffic will be one way. We need a variance from the frontage requirement and we are one foot short of the required side setback. The height will meet' the requirement, at the very highest point it will be 45 feet. Parking for police cars will be on the side. Will be landscaped. Site design will be completed within the next couple of weeks. Mr. Luster: there is an ad hoc design committee that has worked on this project. We have reviewed this at various steps. As Mr. Lynn said, we will not need the variance from height that we originally thought we would need. Because of the topography of the lot, and the drainage concerns, locating the building in this fashion is the only feasible place. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : that was filled land, Margin St. at one point was water front.+ Mr_, Correnti : how wide is the easement? Mr. Lynn: 20 feet, it will be the exit route. Mr. Luster: there is a condition that 10 parking spaces on the west side be maintained for the neighbors. Mr. Luzinski : there will be cars • parked right next to the building? Mr. Lynn: yes. On the ground level there will MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1990 page two a side walk, will not be right up to the wall , the footprint looks like it is but • it, in fact, extends out. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the variances requested on condition the petition obtain all necessary permits, the building be constructed as per the plans submitted, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, all rules and regulations of the Salem Fire Dept. and the Fire Prevention Code be strictly adhered to and that all city and state building codes be strictly adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 63 Flint St. - Allied Realty Trust Petitioners are requesting variances from density, lot width, sideyard setbacks, buffer area required and open space required and a special permit to allow removal of existing buildings, construction of two new buildings and continuation of non- conforming use for retail and wholesale and storage of building supplies with offices and warehousing associated with said use in this BPD district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Salem Fire Marshal , no objection. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioners. I apologize for taking the Board ' s time, there was a favorable decision of the Board on September 19th of this year, at that time, as I indicated in the application, there was an objection made by an abutter regarding a dispute of a right-of-way. As a result of the Board ' s decision, the problem has been resolved by relocating the right-of-way and by a change in the location of one of the proposed buildings. The right of way is on the back, 15 feet wide, there will be a fence along the length. The building will be moved, the size of the building will remain the same, only other change is the relocation of one parking space, there will be a security shed. The open space is somewhat less than before but still more than is required. The requests remain the same, • side yard, buffer zone, we had requested variance for sign but we are withdrawing that request, so there will be the same three requests as before and the special permit is exactly the same. He again explained that the bridge project and the by pass project is causing the lot to be reduced in size by eminent domain. Mr. Coke, Architect, explained the plans and the landscaping, there will be some trees. Mr. Atkins: we can't commit to what the DPW might eventually do but we will try to work with them. Again, the granting of this variance means life or death for this business. We have met with' the Planning Board and we will meet with them again. We will also meet with the Conservation Commission. Basically this is the same as the request made in September, exept for those minor changes. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. L'uzhnskic'(;, wil.lc,there bepanother gate? , yes. Mr. Luzinski : will the new road be higher? Don 't know. Mr. Correnti : what are the time constraints? Mr. Atkins: the State has started demolition. Mr. Bencal read a letter from Mayor Harrington expressing his support for the petition. (on file) Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the variances and special permit requested with the same conditions as the September 19, 1990 variances and special permit, those being, all construction be done in compliance with all city and state building codes, all construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, legal buildings permits be obtained, a certificate of occupancy for each building be obtained, all signs be in compliance with the city of Salem Sign Ordinance, the petition must obtain the approval of any other City Board or Commssion that has jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1990 page three • 9 Cambridge St. - Ann Tomsho This is a continued petition, originally heard August 22, 1990, continued to October 17 and again to November 7, 1990 at the request of the petition through' her attorney George Vallis. This request is for a Special Permit to allow the property to be converted back to a two family in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read a letter addressed to David Harris, Assistant Building Inspector from Attorney Leonard Femino; Assistant City Solicitor (on file) Mr. Bencal asked if the petitioner or representative was present, there was no response, after a couple of requests Mr. Febonio made a motion to put this request at the end of the agenda. Mr. Correnti seconded. UNANIMOUS, the Board will hear this at the end of the agenda. 30 Prescott St. - John & Dianne Donahue Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend the already nonconforming side setback requirememts to allow deck and stairs in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application .and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property was not in compliance relative to smoke and fire detectors. Dianne Donahue repre- sented herself and her husband. We redid the kitchen and moved the stairs, did not realize a permit was needed. We do have smoke detectors. Mr. Bencal : you may have but the Fire Dept. is not aware that you do, get in touch with them. Mr. Febonio: I have been at the site, it is no really a deck or a porch, it is really just a platform. Mr. Bencal : is it the same as what was there before? Mrs. Donahue: within a few inches. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : This is simply a case of replacing stairs and reversing the porch. I have no problem. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the special permit as • requested on condition all construction conform to City and State Building Codes, all work be done as epr the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, a legal building permit be obtained from the City of Salem Building Inspector. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 9 Cambridge St. - Ann Tomsho Petitioner was still not present, neither was her representative. Mr. Bencal asked Mr. Correnti about the letter the Board had received from Mr. Femino relative to this property. Mr. Correnti read the letter one again. Mr. Bencal : does the letter serve as notice to this Board that the petitioner wishes to withdraw? Sounds-like the the Assistant Inspector is requiring proof of non-abandonment. Mr. Febonio: their request is to revert back to a two family, so it would seem that the use was abandoned. Mr. Bencal : it seems strange that neither the pet- itioner nor her representatide is here tonight. I think we should go forward with this case, the onus is on the petitioner to prove their case. Mr. Correnti read the application. There was no presentation. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: if this is denied tonight, do they have to wait 2 years to come back to the Board? Mr. Bencal : yes, ailsbboth'is!r, petition has been continued twice at the request of Mr. Vallis on the condition they notify abutters by certified mail of the date of the new hearing and that they submit proof to the Board of said notification. It appears by this letter that it is up to them to prove their case to the Building Department. Ms. Stirgwolt: • if we deny this, and they can-. prove to the Building Inspector that it has not been abandoned, then they do hot have to come to us, if they cannot prove it then they have to come back to us and to the Planning Board and they have to prove MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1990 page four 9 Cambridge St. - Continued • there has been substantial change. Mr. Correnti : based on the letter presented and what is said on the application there is clearly a conflict. I think we can only look at whats been submitted and vote on that. Mr. Luzinski : we also have a letter from the Historic Commission stating is was built as a one family. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition petitioner comply with all city and state building codes, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, all requirements of the Salem Fire Department be adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded. The Board voted 0-5 against the motion, having failed to garner the required four affirmatidervotes necessary to grant, the motion fails= and the petition is denied. UNANIMOUSLY DENIED Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to review the proposed by-laws at the next meeting, November 14, 1990. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUS Mr: Lazinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the October 17, 1990 meeting as taped. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. , next scheduled meeting to be held November 14, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted • Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board • :.,i vrlb Y . 01itu of Sallem, 'fflttssadjusetts • _ F Pourb of �ppeal h'dmcd"a. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL --NOVEMBER 14, 1990 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, November 14, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Ndtices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on October 31st and November 7th, 1990 and notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other interested persons by mail . Present at the hearing: Members Bencal , Correnti , Febonio, Luzinski and Stirgwolt. Also present was Associate Member Grady. and •Clerk of the Board Sumrall . Meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the Chairman Richard Bencal . 23 Becket St. - Philp Jesonaldo Petitioner is requesting Variances from density and parking to allow property to be converted to a two family dwelling. The property is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating the property- has current compliance relative to installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Jesonaldo represented himself. I beli.eve this was used as a two family long before I bought it. He displayed pictures of the property. There were two electric' meters in the basement. Spoke to a retired mailman who used 'to deliver. there and'he said there was ,the same family bbt living on two different levels. There is plumbing, • it is there but has not been used. Built in 1800, there was a baking oven on the second floor. Manifold for gas box found in the basement, it isnot connected. In the kitchen area on the second level has a pipe which indicates a stove. The house is in a state of disrepair. Needs a lot of work. Bought it at a foreclosure. I bought it in July 13, 1990. Mr. Febonio: you are saying this was a two family? Mr. Jesonaldo: it appears so. The Building Inspector, when he came in, said the renovations were done in the fifties. I guess the use was abandoned. Mr. Febonio: as I read it now, it was always a one family with a possibility of moving another family up there and for whatever reasons they stopped renovations so-to my way of thinking it is incorrect for you to say it was a two family. Mr. Jesonaldo: it was a two family. Mr. Bencal : the Polk book indicates that it was a two family up till about 1964. Mr. Febonio: So, it was two and for whatever reason it became a single. Mr. Luzinski : from what I understand, they used the second floor for storage so it became an abandoned use. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : when was the last time it was used as a two family? Mr. Bencal : I was looking in the Polk book it looks like it was the fifties, his petition said about forty- years. I did not look at any of the other books from 1964, use was abandoned somewhere 'between 1948/49 and 1964. Mr. Febonio: do you live there? Yes. Mr. Febonio: what is the square footage of the finished units? 800-850 sq.ft. , plus or minus. Mr. Febonio: first and second laid out the same? Yes but the first floor has an addition. Mr. Bencal : what is the hardship? Mr. Jesonaldo: this is the only way I can break into the housing market. If I could get this, the extra rent would make it affordable. Ms. Stirgwolt: is the back area green? Yes. Ms. Stirgwolt: there' s no parking? no. Mr. Jesonaldo: I would probably move upstairs when I get married. I don 't heed as big a place as • the first floor. Mr. Luzinski : was this represented as a two family? No. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14, 1990 page two 23 Becket St. - Continued • Mr. Febonio: where would you park? On the street. Mr. Bencal : it looks like two more cars in a very dense area. Becket St. has more cars per resident than the entire Derby St. I find it difficult on a street that is this congested to grant any relief from parking. I don 't see any hardship, the hardship will be put on the abutters and neighbors, I have not seen adequate proof there has been two family use since 1965. I just cannot vote for this. Mr. Febonio: you have no plans on being an absentee landlord? No. Ms. Stirgwolt: have you had any conversation with your neighbors at all? Mr. Jesonaldo: ! no. Mr. Bencal : what it the second floor use for now? nothing, it is gutted. Mr. Correnti : do you know how many multi-family in the area? "There are many, both the immediate abutters are multi . To the left, they have no parking either. Mr. Febonio: to deny him when other multi-family- are there in the area, it ' s difficult. I find it hard to refuse him because of what might be, to leave that second story as it is and not allow him to get something from his investment, 'its hard. Where would you park? Mr. Jesonaldo: either on Becket or Derby. Mr. Bencal : Derby is an emergency area during a snow storm. Ms. Stirgwolt: I am concerned with the size of the units. I looked at some of the other houses on Becket St. and they are multi-family but they have a little more space on the lots. If this is made into a two family it is less likely that you and your wife will stay there as part of the neighborhood'. maybe thats not true. Mr. Jesonaldo: I chose Salem, I 'went to Salem State, I appreciate Salem and I do plan 'tb stay quite awhile, we don 't plan to have children till a year or two after we are married. It does need a lot of repair and on my limited income right' now:it makes it tough. I can 't put out with nothing coming in. Mr. Correnti : have you gotten any estimates? Mr. Jesonaldo: no, I am waiting word. I had an electrician and he said at least 2500 for electric work. Mr. Correnti : any guestimates? About 20,000 possibly • 30,000. It 's a big house, we don't heed all that space. Mr. Febonio: if this should be allowed, how much would do you estimate the City wide problem will be exacerbated7by one more vehicle, by allowing one more unit. Mr. Bencal : I under- stand what your saying. Mr. Febonio: if he gets a refusal here, it 's dead. The second floor remains empty, it becomes dead space. I sympathize with him , he 's seems like a nice young man. Ms. Stirgwolt: there is another opti.bn under the zoning which allow him to take in a boarder, I am concerned with creating another unit which will there forever, as you know a variance runs with the land, I to havessympathy with him. Mr. Jesonaldo: actually it is an eyesore, if you have ever been by it and any extra income will allow me to fix it up and it will be beneficial to the whole area. Mr. Febonio: Was this advertised? Maybe he could withdraw and talk to the neighbors. If there is no strong opposition fie could come back at a later date. Mr. Bencal ; addressing the petitioner: the suggestion has been made through the chair to allow y66-to; wfthdraw, perhaps you want to consider doing that at this time. Mr%iFebon ,o':inade a mot ibnetooarlrlowipe'ti tioneritoowithdraw wi,thoutipr.ejudi.ce: , Mr. `Luzi-nski.'seconded. The Board voted 4-1 (Mr. Bencal opposed) td allow petition to be withdrawn. WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Luzinski made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 7, 1990 meeting as taped, Mr. Febonio seconded: UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Mr. Febonio made a motion to accept the minutes as transcribed relative to 1-3 Colby St. , Mr. Correnti seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. Mr. Bencal did not vote as he did not sit on this petition. - October 17, 1990. • Mr. Febonio made a motion to accept the minutes as transcribed for the rest of the meeting of October 17, 1990. Ms. Stirgwolt seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. Mr. Correnti. did not vote on this as`:heidid not sit on thespeti.ti.on relative to 16 Lynde St. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14, 1990 page three Mr. Luiinski made a motion to adjourn to Executive Session. Mr. Correnti seconded. • UNANIMOUSLY ADJOURNED regular meeting to Executive Session at 7:30 p.m. Regular meeting of the Board of Appeal reconvened at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Bencal : while Mr. Daly is here, he would like to discuss the Rules and Regulations with us. Mr. Daly: yes, I went through'-. your proposed Rules and Regulations for 1990, basically they are fine, few notes I wrote to myself, a few minor changes. Section 4, under secretary, that is a reduced section, less responsibility, is everyone aware of that? yes. Section 6, Clerk of the Board, that's you Brenda, right? yes. I was just wondering under what collective bargaining agreement might exist. Is it an enforceable section. If Brenda doesn't mind, I guess I don't mind. Ms. Sumrall : I had a problem with one part, but Mr. Bencal assured me he wasn 't going to fire me. Mr. Bencal : the Clerk, is not part of the budget for the building department. Mr. Daly: that was my question, does the clerk come under her job description? Ms. Sumrall : no, this is not part of my job description as far as my real job goes (Principal Clerk, Public Property Dept. ) Under the annual Board of Appeal budget I get a stipend. Public Property is the Building Dept. Mr. Munroe, is the Director of Public Property, he is also the Inspector of Buildings and the Zoning Enforcement Officer, its a blanket department. Mr. Daly: that was the only question I had, whether that was 100% enforceable. �- Section 11 . Special Meetings, you reallysshould add a sentence to that- it shall • be -in accordance with'-the open meeting law. Mr. Bencal : why don 't we vote on these as we do them. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to add the sentence All meetings shall be in compliance with the Open Meeting Law. Mr. Febonio seconded. Uaninmous Article II , Section 1 . Mr. Daly: the very last sentence should probably end "by the applicant" I would imagine as the applicant has the responsibility of informing you of whats been happening over the last five years. When someone buys a house he's not responsible for going back for the last five years in the., records before the Board, or are they? As I read that it seems to me that the applicant has to tell you what has been done over the last five years. Mr. Bencal : thats been carried over fromthe original rules and reg 's of 1980. Mr. Daly: as I--read this I thought it was a little ambiguous. Do you mean, requests for Special Permits or Variances by the applicant or by anyone? Mr. Bencal : by anyone. Mr. Daly: perhaps you should put in that the applicant should inform the Board of any request put in on the property, by any party over the last five years. The sentence should read "In addition the applicant shall advise the Board of any requests for Variances or Special Permits made by any party for the property in question over the last five years. " Mr. Correnti : but is that what we want to say, if it is a new owner, is it incumbent for him to research the records for the past five years. Mr. Bencal : they can come to the Building Dept. and ask, they.•have a file card. Mr. Daly: is there a line item on the application? Has that ever been a problem. Mr. Bencal : in denials regarding the two years. no. Ms. Sumrall : I try to research each one. Mr. Bencal : another thing the Board should look at is the application, redoing it. Provide a check list for the petitioner, once all the items are check off, the office or whoever accepts it take. Ms. Sumrall : that is basically what is on the back of the fee schedule. • Mr.Daly: Section 5, Minutes of the Meeting, that seems to be out of order,Article-II deals with applications to the Board and then jumps to the procedure for taking MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14, 1990 page four minutes, public record, etc. , just be reading that it seemed to me it would belong • perhaps Section 12 of Article I . Mr. Luzinski made a motion to take Section 1 Article II and add the words "by any party" after the word question and to remove Section 5 of Article II and place it as Section 12 in Article I . Seconded by Mr. Correnti . UNANIMOUS Mr. Daly: Article III Section One - There is not General Laws Chapter 808, Chapter 808 refers to the Acts o•f 1975, I believe, that should be General Laws Chapter 40A. Section 5 the exact same thing. Section 3A Article IV, does that mean you have to vote, I don't need you have to lock yourself into voting at the next meeting. Mr. Bencal : we have the petitioner sign a waiver of time requirements, this is another section that was carried over. Is there any particular wording. Mr. Daly: that is fine the way it is, the Board can always vote to suspend the rules, should it be necessary to go beyond the next meeting, practically speaking is is fine the way it is. This limits you to two meetings, but I doubt there are many instances when it would go more than two meetings. Mr. Bencal : we have many times had more that two meetings for a petition, for different reasons. Mr. Daly: again, last sentence in Section 4, General Laws Chapter 40A. Mr. Bencal : there are three changes Changing 808 to 40A. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to make the changes as suggested by Mr. Daly, the City Solicitor. Mr. Correnti seconded. UNANIMOUS Mr. Bencal : I haved asked Ms. Sumrall when these are re-typed for the final time that the underlines be omitted. These were added in 1980 and I don 't think they are necessary. Would like to thank the Board for their time and diligence. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the new rules and regulations as amended and corrected to be in effect till May 1991 . Mr. Correnti seconded UNANIMOUS Old/New Business • 92 Columbus Ave. - William & Sallie Cass Mr. Cass: in 1987 I was granted permission to construct a temporary boat shelter. Since then I have worked steadily on this boat, I have progressed nicely. Have run into extra expense, turned out to be a bigger job that I thought, it is taking longer. The Variance is due to expire the end of December and I still have considerable work to do. If I have to take the shelter, I could still have the boat there and put it under plastic, but not at the point I could close the boat off, it would extend the time required. Displayed pictures. Just couldn 't do it, especially in the winter. I have made constant progress, it isn't like I have let the project go. Mr. Bencal : the Board put three year time limit on this, the Board can grant 6 month extension without you having to re-apply, anything longer would require a new petition and a new hearing. Mr. Cass: I have a letter requesting the extension. Mr. Bencal : would you like to submit that. Mr. Cass: what would your advice be? Mr. Bencal : we cannot do anymore than that, 6 months. Mr. Cass : would that prejudice any application for further extension? I don 't think I have offended anyone with this, I have tried to keep the noise down. Mr. Febonio: what is the worst case scenario, how much time do you think you will need. Mr. cass: could really use another full year, 18 months is realistic. Mr. Bencal : within the 6 months period do you think you will be at the point you can take down the temporary shelter. Mr. Cass: I will certainly be better off than I am. People have done this out in the open but you are exposed to the elements. Would double or triple the time. Mr. Bencal : any- thing longer than 6 months would require a new hearing. We can consider this now and he can come back. Mr. Correnti : has the building department had any imput on what you are doing? Mr. Cass: yes. Basically this is frame work with plastic. • Mr. Bencal : the night of the petition there was an out pouring of support by the neighbors and abutters, there was no opposition at all , it was almost like a MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14, 1990 page five 92 Columbus Ave. - Continued • neighborhood project. Mr. Bencal : are there any questions, thoughts or motions from the Board. Mr. Febonio made a motion to grant the petition a six (6) month extension from the original expiration date with all the conditions to remain in effect. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY EXTENDED SIX (6) MONTHS Mr. Bencal read communication from John Serafini Sr. addressed to the Bertini 's relative to Pumel Construction, 284R Canal St. (On file) Mr. Bencal read communication addressed to the Mayor relative to building on Crombie St. owned by Holyoke insurance, signed by J. Michael Sullivan (on file) Mr. Luzinski made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 19, 1990 meeting as transcribed relative to 1-3 Colby St. , Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board voted unanimously to accept these minutes. Mr. Bencal did not vote on this motion as he did not sit on this case. Mr. Grady, Associate Member, sat on the petition and voted accordingly. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 19, 1990 meeting as transcribed relative to 16 Lynde St. Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board voted unanimously to accept this part of the minutes. Mr. Correnti did not vote on this motion as he did not sit on this case. Mr. Grady sat on the petition and voted accordingly. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the remainder of the minutes of September 19, 1990 as transcribed. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. . Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 7, 1990 meeting as taped. Mr. Febonio seconded. Unanimously accepted. Mr. Febonio made a motion to� adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. , next meeting to be scheduled at a later date. Mr. Correnti seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ADJOURNED 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board •