1991-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (2) �� o� q�p� � M � � � � s
„nivgb
(gitu of Salem, Aussucllusetts
Pourb of �k"eal
N[q l,ylnl.WY
MINUTES OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JANUARY 16, 1991
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, January 16, 1991 on
the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice �of the hearing was sent to-:abutters
and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News on January 2, 9, 1991 .
Present at the hearing were Board Members Richard Bencal, Joseph Correnti, Richard
Febonio, Edward Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt; Associate Member John Grady,
Assistant Building Inspector James Santo; Stud'ent 'Intern Juia Burns and Clerk of
the Board Brenda Sumrall.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Richard A. Bencal.
Mr. Bencal welcomed Ms. Julia Burns;'. Student Intern.,r'. .. • v,';.'-- • ^be �f
Mr. Bencal addressed the assemblage,: informing them that word had just been
received that the Allied Forces have-just bombed Irag, war has been declared. A
moment of silence was observed.
Mr. Correnti made a motion to adjourn the public meeting and go into Executive
Session, Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ADJOURNED 7:05
• Mr. Bencal called the regular meeting of the Board to order at 7:21 p.m.
22 Koskiusko st. - W. David Crosby
This petition for Variances from density, setbacks, and frontage to allow the
construction of a single family, dwelling was denied by the Board of Appeal on
March 15, 1989. The Board's decision was appealed and subsequently remanded
back to the Board. Attorney George Vallis, representing the petition is requesting
the Board grant his client leave to withdraw this petition. Mr. Luzinski made
a motion to grant this request to allow this petition to be withdrawn,crftl.ioF.ebonio
seconded. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN
1-3 Colby St. - Salem Hospital
Mr. Bencal will not be sitting on this petition. Mr. Grady has been appointed
'a v6ting member. Mr. Luzinski will be acting Chairman. This petition to allow
the construction of a Day Care Facility has been continued from the September 19,
1990 meeting. Mr. Correnti read a letter from Attorney John Serafini, Sr. re-
questing leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Serafini addressed the Board:
We applied to the Board for this because the Ordinance was unclear as to Day Care.
We ':have had several meetings with the abutters, as a result, we have decided to
forego the adult day care and proceed with the permitted use, and to construct a
building that will corrform with the density requirements. Mr. Correnti made a
motion to allow petitioner to Withdraw Without Prejudice, Mr. Grady seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN
MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1991
page two
• 24 Saunders St, - W & G Realty Trust
Petitioner is requesting a two year extension of the variances prevously granted
August 9, 1989 and extended by the Board on August 22, 1990, said variances were
granted to allow the construction of sixty (60) residential units, to include
both condominium and rental units. Mr. Correnti read the application. Attorney
John Serafini, Sr. , representing the petitioner, addressed the Board. I think the
petition speaks for itself as to what has occurred. The financial institutions
are holding back on financing. This trend is bound to get better. We asked for
two years but what we are in fact asking for is to grant the variances that have
already been granted. The Variances are good for one year, we can then come back
to the board, if necessary, for a six month extension. Mr. Bencal: are you
asking to amend the application? You are now requesting a Variance, we can amend
down but not up. No one appeared in favor. In opposition, Leslie Burn, 16
Saunders St. , I oppose the fact that you need another year to build, if you are
going to build, why not build now. Also, I am opposed to the size of the project.
Concerned with traffic. Would like it clarified, is this going to be rental or
condominium. If it is rental, I am opposed to that. I will lose my water view.
I bought my house with the guarantee of having a water view. After I bought this,
I found out they are going build 60 units. The building of these will reduce the
resale value of my house. Liz McKinnon, 14 Saunders St. , always have been opposed.
I was under the impression they were going to build condominiums. The woman who
bought the house at 16 Saunders abuts the entire project. The prior owner was
elderly and did not speak good english. I would like something done to the property.
It is in bad shape. If they •are going to build, build now, we have been waiting
• long enough. Hearing Closed. Rebuttal. Mr. Serafini: perhaps it would help if
I recounted the history of this project. This plan was the result of many months
of work with the Councillor and the neighbors, even before coming to this Board.
It was a shoe factory and in very bad shape. The business, like other shoe bus-
inesses in the area, declined. At the time we began this, they could have, by
right, continued a manufacturing use. It was determined that residential use was
a better use. We had many meetings, had a traffic study done, had 21E done, had
extensive site plan review. The unfortunate part of this whole thing is the
timing. It is a very attractive project. As far as the view, I don't know what
we can say about that. This project coincided with the City's Master Plan. My
client has spent a lot of money already, they have torn down the old buildings,
removed the tanks. Mr. Luzinski: what is the condition of the site now? Mr.
Serafini: it is leveled off. There are boulders there to block the site off. We
had to stop people from going on the site, had a problem with abandoned cars. Mr.
Luzinski: you would not have a problem with a condition that the lot be kept
clear. No. Mr. Bencal: does the Board have any comments, any questions, if not,
is there a motion. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition, as amended,
for variances to allow construction of sixty residential units on condition that
all fourteen conditions of the prior decision are to be incorporated as part of
this decision and that the lot be kept reasonably clear of weeds and other debris. ,
Mr. Luzinski seconded
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
•
MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1991
page three
• 70-72 Dearborn St. - James Cahil Jr. (owner) Joah & Patricia Taft (Petitioner)
Petitioners are requesting Variances to allow the division of land into two lots,
the first which would contain 66.28 feet of frontage and 16,500 square feet of
land, the second which would contain 83.6 feet of frontage and 15,579 square feet
of land. Mr. Correnti is not sitting on this petition, Mr. Grady is a voting
member and acting secretary. Mr. Grady read the application, a letter from
Councillor-at-Large, George McCabe in opposition; a letter from the Salem Fire
Department, Norman LaPointe, Fire Inspector, no objection subject to conditions.
(on file) Attorney George Vallis, 81 Washington St. , represented the petitioner
and owner: to begin with, I sympathize with the Board tonight, this is going to
be a difficult decision. This has always been one of the nicest neighborhoods
in Salem. Mr. Cahill, the Harbormaster, is the owner, he is a friend of mine.
The lots are well over the 15,000 sq.ft. , we are looking for a variance from
frontage of 16 feet. He bought this lot, the one containing 15,579 sq.ft. in
1976 with the idea of building a house on it. Later he became aware the house
next door was for sale and he bought that house. He had seven children. At the
time he bought these lots, they were both legal lots, if he had bought them in
a trust or a separate entity we would not be here tonight, but that is the way it
is. His son-in-law and his daughter wish to buy this. When I was approached to
represent them, I did not think there would be a problem, the neighbors have
been friendly. My client has been a very good neighbor, he has allowed the
neighbors to use the lot, he built a basketball court. They will state their
reasons for being opposed, they will say parking, although we have plenty of
parking. There is an easement 'and a right of way. If you'look at the other lots
in the area they are all much smaller. He display copies of the Assessors Map.
• A few years ago there would not have been a problem, zoning was not meant to be
etched in granite. When the Planning Board decided to have 15,000 sq.ft. and 100
foot frontage it was to discourage developers from building on tiny lots. The
problem with zoning in Salem is we have one ordinance for the whole City. It
makes virtually all the lots in Salem nonconforming. There is a for sale sign
on Mr. Cahill's house, if his daughter is allowed to build there he would like
to stay, but otherwise he will sell and move. Mr. Luzinski: why wasn' t this
lot built on before? Mr. Vallis: He just let them use it as a playground. Mr.
Luzinski: I am talking about the previous owner. Mr. Vallis: he bought the
vacant lot first and had intended to build, then he got the chance to buy the
house next door and decided to live there and use the vacant lot for a yard for
the children. Mr. Grady: but for the law of merger, he could build. All he needs
is frontage. Speaking in favor. Councillor O'Leary: I am in favor of this. In
Ward four we have had developers buy lots, but they knew enough to put their
wives names on the deed, or their children's names, or a trust. In 1985 the merger
of lots became immediate. Mr. Cahill wants 'to have his daughter live there and
that is nice. I think she will make a good neighbor. Paul Carr, 3 Locust St. ,
I agree with Mr. O'Leary. The people next door built a house for their son.
This will not be any different than most homes in the area. Will keep people in
Salem. If we deny this we are sending a double message, we want you to come
back to Salem, but don' t build. Speaking in opposition. Peter O'Brien, 66
Dearborn St. , level of the property is. below the sewer line;according to the
Assessor it is a substandard lot. The situation with the sewer bothers me, I'm
concerned about it and how it will affect my house. We have problems with
flooding, why put something that close to the river. Norman Houle, Dearborn Lane,
• I am right next to him, I have two lots, I was able to buy because he told me
about them, he is a friend, this is nothing personal. This is a beautiful area.
MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1991
page four
70-72 Dearborn St. - Continued
• This has not torn the neighbors apart, this is not neighbor against neighbor. I
bought my property because I was going to live there, not because I was going to
leave it to my kids. I like my privacy. He submitted a petition of opposition
signed by 23 people. These are all direct neighbors. He (Mr. Cahill) has
enjoyed this property for many years. His house is for sale, has been for sale.
He is a good neighbor, I am a good neighbor to. Mr. Bencal read the petition
Mr. Houle submitted. Owen Megan, 65 Dearborn St. , we have to oppose this, first
let me say this is not personal, they have been good neighbors. They have
alleged enforcement of the ordinance would involve hardship, I contend that the
lot has always been a small, vacant lot. The street width is only 25 feet. There
will be more cars, no where to park except on the street. Have had two accidents
involving the Cahills cars where cars struck parked cars. It is a very narrow
street. Hardship? We all bought our homes with 100 feet, that is why we
paid the big bucks. Should enforce the zoning. If we grant this we would be
creating two substandard lots. If this is granted, number 70 would become the
smallest lot as far as frontage. It doesn' t matter if he sells to his daughter,
once the variance is granted it can be transferred to anyone. It makes a good
argument, father selling to his daughter, the Board should ignore this issue,
it is not relevant. As far as grandfathered and the argument that the lot was
buildable when he bought it, he had a chance to act on this for a while after
he bought it, but he chose not to. The lot is very steep on the Dearborn St.
side, it slopes to the flood plain, the buildable area is probably less than
2,000 sq. ft. More than once I have seen ducks and geese swimming there at high
tide. To be a good building it should be built right up to the side walk.
Lastly, the granting of this would create not one but two substandard lots. The
• lot at 72 Dearborn has 84 feet frontage but the lot at 70 Dearborn, the one with
the house already on it would have only 66. Front Felt St. , north, only two
do not have frontage of more that 100 feet, the neighborhood is Dearborn St. ,
Dearborn Lane, Felt St. , the petition that Mr. Houle submitted is signed by every
single person with the exception of Mrs. Gallant. He also submitted a copy of the
same petition. Ms. McManus, 67 Dearborn St. , bought my property for the same
reason as Mr. Cahill, water view. I have concerns with congestion and parking.
Kim Heath, 7 Larch Ave. , parking, will there be adequate parking. Stephen Wilson,
7 Larch Ave. , the construction of the sewer might be a problem, might involve
EPA. The lot slopes down about 12-13 feet. Could cause a fire hazard. As far
as economic hardship, we are all aware of the times. Mrs. Megan, 65 Dearborn
St. , we bought our home to get away from driveways that touch each other. My
child was grazed by a car. His property has very short driveway, there is truly
no place to park. We have lived there since 1979, have very good neighbors, this
is not a personal matter, consider Jim a friend. Councillor Sarah Hayes, Ward 6,
it is up to the Board to do what is right for the neighborhood, Jim Cahill has
been wonderful. I think there is enough land, I am stuck in the middle. I
have to represent all the people but it seems like there is plenty of land there.
Wherever we go we are going to have cars. Mr. Bencal: if this is granted, they
will have to meet the parking requirements. Gail Terrell, 1 Dearborn Lane, this
is still an nonemotional situation. Consider the fact that Jim's house has been
up for sale for many months. Mr. Bencal: this petition was submitted back in
November. Ms. Terrell: been for sale before then. Patricial Donahue, Dearborn
Lane, this has nothing to do with Cahill, this is one of the last nice areas,
his lot is one of the best. We all enjoy the North River, this will impact on
• all home values. Hearing closed. Rebuttal. Attorney Vallis, we have to go to
the Conservation Commission, they will be the next step, there is no sense going
there first. As far as the sewer, maybe the land is below the sewer line, that
MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1991
page five
70-72 Dearborn St. - Continued
• is not a problem these days. 'The big issue seems to be the view, nobody is
entitled' to a view. You cannot prevent someone from building solely on a
view. Character of the neighborhood, again the plans shows this lot will
be in harmony with the the existing lots. .Mr. Vallis went over the Assessors
Map again. Parking, traffic hazards, we all have them. They will have the
required parking. As far as people visiting, we all have visitors some time.
Basically, all I am saying is the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance should be a
help and not a hindrance. Mr. Grady: you can place the house on the lot and
meet the setbacks? Yes. Ms. Stirgwolt: I am concerned about the topography,
if this is granted it will run with the land. Mr. Febonio: it is unfortunate
he did not do this before. As far as the arguments about a view, they can' t
own a view. Traffic? we will have traffic problems no matter what, one more
house will not cause the problem. I can't believe that for 16 feet we are going
through this. It is emotional. It is tough, what is he supposed to do, leave
it so the neighbors have their view, thier property values increase by virtue
of his not being able to use his land. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant
the Variance from frontage on condition the petitioners obtain the proper'-street
numbering from the City of Salem Assessor and the petition obtain all necessary
permits and approvals from any other City or State authority which has jurisdiction,
including, but not limited to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Grady seconded.
The Board of Appeal voted four in favor, one opposed (Ms. Stirgwolt) .
VARIANCE GRANTED .4-1
29 Circle Hill Road - Silvano & Kim Dinicola
• Petitioners are requesting Variances to allow deck and stairs in this R-1
district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. ,
no objection. Attorney Joseph Sano, Lynn represented the petitioners. My
client and a friend installed the deck and stairs and they did so without a
building permit, did realize a permit was needed. Shortly after that, he lost
his job and his wife had her hours cut down and they decided to move. They are
not in conformance with the zoning ordinance. They have found a buyer, the
property has been sold and escrow money has been put aside because of this
problem. I am here to request a variance as to deck and stairs. This enhances
the property, adds to the safety, Would-.like the deck and stairs to stay in
place. My clients have talked to the neighbors and explained what happened.
They received no indication of any problem with this. No one appeared in
favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: I would just want to
make sure the construction meets requirements. Mr. Febonio: if we grant this
and it did not meet the codes it would be torn down and rebuilt? Yes. Mr.
Correnti: where are the stairs? Mr. Sano: from the second floor. Mr.
Correnti: any othersecond floor egress? Yes, there is an interior. Mr.
Febonio: is the addition an add on or was it built with the house? Mr. Sano:
I have no idea, it was there when my clients bought it. The title was passed
December 16, 1990. Mr. Bencal: do they having standing? Mr. Correnti: not
sure, could you be here, possibly representing the new owners? Mr. Sano: they
both have interest. Mr. Bencal: this is a very sticky area, this is no
opposition but I don' t see where the petitioner has any standing. Mr. Correnti:
you say the property is sold, but isn' t this open till this is settled? Mr.
Sano: would be my contention that at the time the petition was filed it was
• filed properly and they have standing because of the escrow set asided.and it
was contingent at the time that this be approved. Mr. Febonio: I have no
MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1991
page six
29 Circle Hill Road - Continued
• with granting this but are we opening a pandora's box. MMr.GSanoi.'Lmay lot: a
suggest, .and.•I do':topreciate-,.what is being said, I meant the petition to include
the new owners, perhaps a written communication from the new owners that they
are in accord with the decision. Mr. Correnti: I don' t think the Board can
act on this till we have something, the new owners are not here, perhaps they
should withdraw. Attorney Sano: I have no objection to withdrawing and re-
submitting. Councillor O'Leary: how did the bank close? Mr. Correnti: on
the condition this be granted. Mr. Bencal: is time limited? Attorney Sano:
not really. Mr. Correnti: our next meeting is February. I have a problem
voting on variances that owners are not here, nor do they have representation.
Attorney Sano: I would prefer to continue this and have documentatidn.and have
the owners present. Mr. Correnti: could we amend the application to include
the new owners? Mr. O'Leary: it would probably be better to withdran and
refile. Mr. Correnti: that would be the safest way. Attorney Sano formerly
requested leave to withdraw withcut prejudice. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to
grant the request for leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN
45 Mason St. - Stephen Haley
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of an
addition, the proposed addition does not meet side or rear setbacks. The
property is located in the Business Park Development District (BPD) . Mr
Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire Department stating they
had no objection. Mr. Haley represented himself. He explained the type business
• he ran there, an auto body supply. The proposed addition will be two stories
and will be used in conjunction with the auto supply business. It will be an
unheated addition. There will be some flamables stored there, with the approval
of the Fire Dept. Have talked to my neighbors and have some letters. Mr.
Correnti read letters from Daniel P. Wiggin, President of Hendrick Manufacturing
Corp. , 32 Commercial St. ; Michael Shea, 54 Mason St. ; and, Mason Realty Trust,
53 Mason St. , all in favor. (on file) No one appeared in favor or in opposition,
hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: you started the addition already? Yes. Mr.
Bencal: you have been to the Boa-d in 1984 and 1986, are you planning on coming
to the Board every couple of years? No, never intended for this much, I am
maxed out, What this will allow me to do is buy in larger.-Auantities. The
coverage, with the addition, is 40%• The addition will be mason and steel.
Will be explosion proof. Mr. Febonio: no problem with parking? Mr. Haley:
no, we deliver. Mr. Febonio: this will be right on the property line? Mr.
Haley: yes, will be about one inch between my neighbors building and this.
Mr. Febonio: how much flammable are we talking? Mr. Haley: I am limited by my
permit. I am not building this specifically for flammables but would like it
rated in case I need it to store them. I sell auto body supplies, flammables
are only one percent of the business. Mr. Bencal: why did you not go all the
way to the right at the time you were here before? Mr. Haley: my wallet was
stretched to the limit. Also, there was the possibility I could lease the lot
in back and I wanted to have access to it, but that is no longer an issue.
Ms. Stirgwolt: you have requested a Special Permit under extension of noncon-
formity, why a Special Permit? Mr. Haley: It was a Special Permit I got the
last time. Ms. Stirgwolt: I believe that if the use is granted by a Special
• Permit it doesn' t make it nonconforming. The Special Permit is for uses that
were not in existance at the time of zoning. Mr. Haley: whey I bought the
property back in 1980, it did not conform, so the previous extensions were by
Special Permit, so I thought this was a Special Permit.
MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1991
page seven
• 45 Mason St. - Continued
Ms. Stirgwolt: I see your point. Mr. Correnti: clearly this is non-conforming
building and use, I -.would not have any problem with a Special Permit, the petition
is correct. Mr. Febonio made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit
to allow construction of an addition on condition all construction conform to
city and state building codes; all work done be as per the plans and dimensions
submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. , be strictly adhered to,
the exterior of the addition be in harmony with the existing structure, a building
permit be obtained and a certificate of occupancy be obtained. Mr. Correnti
seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
9 Cambridge St. - Michael & Ann Tomsho
Petitioners are requesting variances to allow a two family dwelling.- 'The
property is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and
letter from the Salem Historical Commission which stated they were not supportive
of this but should this be approved any exterior work must be approved by the
Commission., (on file) Mr. Bencal: before you begin Mr. Vallis, would please
address the substantial changes, as this was denied::November 7, 1990. Attorney
George Vallis representing the the petitioners. First, I must apologize to my
clients, they have done a lot of running around. Filed back in July or August.
They came to me and I told them, and I still believe, that they did not have to
come to the Board. They went to get'.a building permit and they were denied ,
because the records did not show the use, even though` this is R-2 zone and
• historically it was a two family. They applied to the Board, .I went to the
City Solicitor. The petition to theBoard was continued twice and finally scheduled
for November 14, 1990. Meantime, got a letter from the Solicitor or rather I was
made aware there was a letter, I did not get it, it went to the Building Inspector.
I went and got a copy of the letter, I neglected to notify the Board, as a result
no one came to the meeting, it was entirely my fault. The Board denied the
application. We are here tonight to get the Variance, we don't want a denial
on the record. Mr. Bencal: have you been to the Planning Board? Mr. Vallis: NO,
but I intend to. I don't need to go there first. Ms. Stirgwolt: it is my
understanding we can only rehear a petition is the Planning Board consents. Did
the appeal period run out before you applied? yes. Mr. Correnti: it was a
Special Permit that was denied, not a Variance. Perhaps the variance could be
heard. We could listen to the arguments. Attorney Vallis: There are different
eliments to a Special Permit, with the Variance we must show hardship. There is
certainly a distinction. I just feel that these people have got what they want,
but there is a cloud on their title and I would like it removed. I am just trying
to resolve this situation. There is no opposition. Mr. Bencal: Basically, what
you are saying is this is a Variance and not a Special Permit and that is the
significant change. Mr. Luzinski: I think that is enough of a difference, and
I make a motion to re-hear the petition. Mr. Febonio seconded. the Board of
Appeal voted unanimously in favor of the motion and they will hear the petition.
Mr.Vallis: This property has been used as a two family for 70 years. He sub-
mitted documentation relative to the use, same .data that :was submitted to the
City Solicitor. From 1963 to 1984 it was continuously used as a two family, the
• tenant on the first floor moved and the family decided they needed more room. They
never changed the character of the building. It has always been two mail boxes.
MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1991
page eight
• 9 Cambridge St.-Continued
There was one family living in two apartment. He submitted a notarized letter
from an abutter, Marie Fouhey which stated this had been a two family during the
years 1961 - 1965. He submitted a petition in favor signed by nine abutters,:'a
letter from the Assessors stating it has been a two.'family since 1973. There are
also two separate heating systems. The neighbors are all aware this is a two
family, it is located in a,-two familyc.district. Mr. Febonio: will there be any
inside renovations? Yes. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing
closed. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner
meet all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety,and that petitioner meet any and all requirements of any other Board or
Commission .that has jurisdiction, including, but not limited to the historic
commission. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
23 Becket St. - Philip Jesonaldo
Petitioner is requesting Variances from lot size and parking to allow this
property to be converted back to it's original design as a two family. The
property is located in an R-2 zone. Mr. Correnti read the application and a
letter from the Historic Commission. Mr. Jesonaldo represented himself. He ex-
plained he had withdrawn his previous application to allow himself to get the
support of the neighbors, whick he did. Need this for financial reasons, is getting
married, fiance is unemployed and I am in school. 1846 to 1961 there were two
families living there. He submitted copy of the Salem Street Directory from 1846
• showing two families living there. It was converted to a single family for tax
purposes. Submitted a petition from neighbors and abutters in-ifavor, signed by
eleven individuals. Most:of these people have been very supportive. I know that
parking is a problem and I am asking for a variance from parking, it has not been
too much of problem so far. This building needs a lot of work. It would be owner
occupied, we intend to live there and it is located in a Residential Two family
zone. Speaking in favor. Councillor O'Leary: I was born at 22 Becket St. , grew
up there, it was a two family back then. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing
closed. Mr. Luzinksi: I am basically opposed to not havi6g any parking, but
the people who live there signed the petition in favor and they dont seem to
mind. Mr. Correnti: you don' t have any parking at all? No. Ms. Stirgwolt•made
a motion to grant the Variances requested oncco6dition the petitioner obtain all
necessary building permits, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, that all
rules and regulations of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety
be adhere to, all city and state building codes be strictly adhered to. Mr.
Febonio seconded. Granted by a 4-1 vote, Mr. Bencal voting in opposition.
GRANTED
Old & New Business
Mr. Febonio:,made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 17, 1990
minutes as transcribed and the November 7, and November 14, 1990 minutes as
taped. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
•
MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1991
page nine
• Old and New Business - Continued
Mr. Correnti read a letter from Attorney John R. Serafini, Sr. , dated January 8,
1991 requesting an extension of Variances that were granted to CANAL ST. REALTY
TRUST,138 Canal St. on January 17, 1990 allowing construction of an additional
building to be used for a Subaru Vehicle franchise. Mr. Serafini addressed the
Board. This is the Gauthier Motors on Canal St. Suburu required they build a
separate show room. The franchise is very strict, but they do understand the
economy. This will cost a million, both his banks could not finance this at
this time, we renegotiated the franchise. They now require the building be put
up by October 1992. We needed a six month extension. If things are not better
we will have to go for a new variance, may have to come back to the Board if
things don't improve. Mr. Correnti made a motion to grant the six month extension
as requested, up to and including August 13, 1991 . Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY EXTENDED
John Serafini, Sr. , Esq. : I am sure you are all aware of the controversy
regarding Holyoke building on Crombie St. , I have talked to the Attorney for
Holyoke and if they get to the point that they are going to tear it down, we would
like to move the building to Federal St. , we would then come to the Board to
divide land, we would need a variance as there is no frontage, we will also need
to go to the Planning Board. We have commissioned a surveyor and are in hopes to
to on the February 27th meeting, if that is when you are going to have the next
meeting. Mr. Bencal: that depends on the number of petitions, right now there is
only one. Mr. Serafini: just wanted to make you aware of what was happening.
• Mr. Luzinski made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY ADJOURNED AT 11 :00 P.M.
The next meeting of the Board has not been scheduled, tentatively it will be
February 27, 1991 :
Respectfuully' submitted,
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
•
Ctu of Salem, 'MttssadjuBette
Pourb of �kp vettl
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - FEBRUARY 27, 1991
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, February 27, 1991 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 February 13 and 20, 1991 and notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and other interested persons.
Present at the hearing were Board Members, Bencal, Correnti, Stirwolt and
Labrecque; Assistant'Building Inspector Santo; Clerk of the Board Sumrall.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Richard A. Bencal. Mr.
Bencal advised the assemblage that there was only a four member Board and it would
take a unanimous..vote for any petition to be granted. If anyone wanted to withdraw
at this time, the Board would entertain their request. Mr. Labreque voting member.
29 Circle Hill Road - Petros & Hrisoula Gouvousis
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting variances to allow deck and
stairs. Property is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application,
there was no other communication. Attorney Joseph Sano, Lynn represented the
petiitoners. Just for clarification, I was here on January 16, 1991 on the same
• petition on behalf of the former owners, they owned the property at the time the
petition was filed but between that date and the date of the hearing, papers were
passed and they no longer owned it. To prevent any problems in'-;the 'fiature, the
Board felt it would be to everyone's best interests to re-apply. So here we are
again. As you can see from the plans, the violation is the porch and stairs. We
need variances. They are in existance and were built without a building permit.
The prior owners had already talked to the abutters and neighbors and there was no''.
opposition. No one appeared in favor or in oppostion. Hearing closed. Mr.
Correnti: how lot has this been there? Since July or August of 1990. Ms. Stirgwolt
made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition a building permit be
obtained, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety be adhered to. Mr. Labreque seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
15 Cherry Hill Avenue - Brian, Call
Attorney George Vallis, representing the petitioner, requested the Board continue
this matter until the next meeting when there would be five members. Ms. Stirgwolt
made a motion to allow this to be continued until the next meeting, the date of
which will be set later. Mr. Labrecque seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED
86 Summer St. - John Perroni, Trustee '
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition in
this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application, a letter from the Fire Dept. ,
• no objection, a letter from the Historic Commission, information, offering design
review. John Perroni represented himself. I will just reiterate what you just
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 27, 1991
page two
86 Summer St. - Continued
• heard. Mr. Bencal: will .this be visible from the street? Mr. Perroni: no.
My sister is unable to go up and down stairs and this will allow her to live there
and-:have her bedroom and bathroom on the first floor. No one appeared in favor.
speaking in opposition. Raymond Detroia, 8 Oliver St. , one of the trustees,
13 Prescott St. , a direct abutter, what he wants to build will be too close to
my property, it is too large, will interfer with my sunlight, air and view. Much
too close to my property. He looked the plans over with the Board and showed them
where the proposed addition would be as it relates to his property. He agains
stated it was too large and too close to his property, would be an invasion.
Hearing closed. In rebuttal. Mr. Perroni: I don' t understand what the objection
is. Mr. Bencal: they are objecting to the size. Mr. Perroni: will only be
one story. Mr. Correnti: this plan is a little confusing. Mr. Perroni showed
them on the plan where the addition would be, the proposed addition was not shown
on the plans, Mr. Correnti: would you be willing to alter the peak of the roof.
Mr. Bencal: maybe there is some room for compromise, we could we could wait until
the end of the meeting and give Mr. Perroni and his neighbor some time to work this
our. Mr. Correnti: I would make a motion to that effect, withdraw and confer with
the neighbors and have him come back. Mr. Perroni: I would like to :know what is
permissable. Mr. Labrecque: I think the best thing is to continue this and have
him meet with the Building Inspector and get some help with these plans, they are
not suitable. Mr. Detroia: I already told him :what I would agree to and he
knows what he needs. Mr. Correnti: made the motion to allow the petitioner to
continue this matter until the next meeting on condition he sign a waiver relative
to time requirements and he must notify, by certified mail all abutters of the
• date of the next meeting. Mr. Labrecque seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED - Mr. Bencal instructed Mr. Perroni to contact the Clerk of
the Board by the end of the week for the date of the next meeting and for a copy
of the certified abutters list.
22 Webb St. - Raymond Page
Retitibner is requesting Variances to allow a three family dwelling in this R-2
district. Mr. Correnti read the application, attached to the application was a
letter from Walter Power, III, the Chairman of the Planning Board stating the
Planning Board had voted unanimously that specific and material changes have been
made. He then read a letter from George Nowak, Councillor of Ward One, no objection,
a letter from the Salem Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Bencal explained to Mr.
Page about showing the Board what the substantial change would be. This property
was denied a Variance June 27, 1990. Mr. Page, representing himself, explained:
the last time I was here I asked for a four unit building, this time I am asking
for three. I went to the Planning Board, you have a copy of the letter from'.them.
Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to re-hear this petition. Mr. Labrecaue seconded.
the Board voted unanimously that there was specific and substantial change and
they would hear the petition.
UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO HEAR THE PETITION
Mr. Page: this building has been all gutted out. I need the income to finish
repairs. It has been empty for about four years, it is an eyesore. He displayed
Pictures to the Board. There willbkwo units of the first floor and one on the
second floor. I was going to go up a floor before but I did not get 'the variance.
•
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 27, 1991
page three
22 Webb St. - Continued
• Mr. Bencal: what are the specific variances you are looking for? You mentioned
an existing store, the store is an abandoned use, are you looking for a Variance
from parking, from setbacks? Mr. Page: I'm not sure, I think the same as last
time. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing ctosedr. Mr. Sticgwolt:
what about the parking, Councillor Nowaks letter was contingent on' pahking. What
is at number 24 Webb St.? Mr. Page: that is a two family. Mr. Correnti: three
family, is that going to be in the two stories? Yes. Mr. Correnti: the units
on the first floor, will they be ;one bedroom? Mr. Page: yes. There will be
white siding. Am putting in Anderson windows. Mr. Correnti: just make everything
clear, you want three units only, will only be two stories. Yes. Ms— Stirgwolt:
flat roof will remain? yes. Ms. Stirgwolt: have you spoke with the neighbors?
Yes. Mr. Bencal: under the ordinance we can allow the.)parking as long as there
is parking owned by the petitioner within 400 feet, and must be owned by the
same owner in perpetuity. Ms. StirVolt: do you own the next lot? yes. Mr.
Bencal: it is not in a trust is it? No, it is in the same name. Mr. Bencal:
would need 8 parking spaces. Mr. Correnti: He's got them. Mr. Bencal: the
variances requested are, lot size, width, setbacks, use and parking. We have
done this before on condition both lots remain in the same ownership. There is
three spaces at #22 so 2 spaces at #24 shall be for the free and open use for the
property at #22. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the variances requested
and allow three residential units on condition all construction be in compliance
with state and local 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, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to
smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to and petitioner is to provide three
• parking spaces on site at 22 Webb St. and 'five spaces on 24 Webb St. , as 'shown
on the plan submitted, two of these five spaces are to remain available for the
free and open use of the residents of 22 Webb St. , both 22 Webb and 24 Webb Sts.
are to remain in common ownership. Mr. Labrecque seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
13-15 Central Street - Arjod, Inc. , d/b/a Red':s Sandwich Shop.
Petitioner is request a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition in
this B-5 district. Mr. Correnti read the application, a letter from the Fire
Dept. , no objection and a letter from the Historic Commission., informational.
Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , represented the petitioner. You are all familiar
with this restaurant I am sure. My client bought the property about 4 years ago.
Would like to construct this addition to make the business more functional. It
will be a storage area in the rear of the building. This make the operation of
the restaurant more economical. It will be a single story addition, flat roof,
will not be visible from the street. This is adjacent to the Police Station. It
will')be in keeping with Salem's desire to assist business. This will not increase
the existing capacity of the restaurant. Mr. Michael Black, from':the firm of
Belanger and Black, Inc. , Consulting Engineers: We are preparing the plans for the
petitioner. He displayed renderings. This will be about 11 feet below the
existing roof. There is a 7 foot wall on the side and rear. Mr. Bencal: can
a normal person look at this from the front? Mr. Black: it would be a strain to
see it. Mr. Bencal: what about the rear? Mr. Black: they would be looking down.
Mr. Bencal: can you see this from any public way? no. Attorney Serafini: Will
be an appropriate fence put on the front. 'There is a dumpster there now and he
• will fence that in. Speaking in favor. Councillor O'Leary: I have spoken for
other areas, other than my own ward. I think this will be good for Salem.
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 27, 1991
page four
• 13-15 Central St. - Continued
Dave Pelletier, 12 Crombie St. , they care about the City and they care about the
property. This will help a Salem' business continue. Marjo Mahoney, 20 Central
St. , they are good neighbors. Mary Wright, 20 Central St. , would like the fence
be a condition. Steben Chapsky, 20 Central St. , would like the fence to be at
least high enough to cover the dumpster. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing
closed. Ms. Stirgwolt: what material will the addition be? Mr. Black: masonry,
it will be fire resistant. Ms. Stirgwolt: what will the colbr �be? Red, it will
match existing. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested
on condition all construction be done in accordance with plans and dimensions
submitted, all necessary state and local permits and certificates be obtained, and
that all applicable codes be adhered to, including but not limited to, building
and fire permits and inspections; exterior finishes be compatible with the existing
structure, 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
area which fronts Central St. be fenced along Central St. with a six foot fence
which has been approved by the Design Review Board and in conjunction with the
Board of Health rules and regulations. Mr. Labrecque seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
Old and New business
Mr. Correnti made a motion to approved the minutes of the November 14, 1990
minutes, regular and executive session, as transcribed and the minutes of the
January 16, 1991 meeting as taped. Ms. Stirgwolt seconded. UNANIMOUS
• Mr. Bencal; you have all received you copies of the new Rules and Regulations,
I would like to :thank the Clerk for her efforts.
Mr. Bencal: we should discuss the fee's of the Board, they have not been increased
for more than 10 years. I called most Cities and Towns in the area and they are
all getting more than us. Most of them are getting $75.00. Mr. Labrecque: I
would recommend raising our fees to $75.00. Mr. Correnti: do we have the
authority? Mr. Bencal: I spoke with the City Solicitor and he found nothing
one way or the other. We are going by past :history and that indicates the Board
does have the authority. Mr. Correnti: the City Solicitor has not rendered an
opinion? Mr. Bencal: no, he is going to continue to research it. But as yet,
he has not found anything contrary. Mr. Correnti: I question whether each
individual Board can set it's own fees. The Chairman is proposing a reasonable
increase. Mr. Bencal: our fees, as it was explained to me, is to cover the
costs of our budget. The City Council is the only authority to pass a budget,
our budget comes out of our fees. Mr. Correnti: I think the Board should publish
the new fees, give people notice. I would suggest they become effective the
first of April. Mr. Labreque•made a motion to increase the fees to $75.00. Ms.
Stirgwolt seconded. Under discussion. Mr. Correnit: I would amend the motion
to include advertising the increase and reviewing it in one year. The amended was
accepted and motion carried UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned 8:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing tentatively set for
March 20, 1991 .
• Respectfully submitted,
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
�b =': (1�itu of Salem, �ttssttcljusetts
• �- F PDttrb of �kpveal
hi..uim�.dt"
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - MARCH 20, 1991
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was'-held Wednesday, March 20, 1991 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 March 6, and 13, 1991 . Abutters
and other interested persons were notified by mail.
Present at the hearing'.were Board Members Bencal, Correnti, Febonio, Stirgwolt,
Associate Member Lab'recque; Assistant Building Inspector Santo and Clerk Sumrall.
Meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Richard A. Bencal at 7:00 p.m.
86 Summer St. - John Perroni, Tr.
This petition for a Special Permit to allow construction of an addition was
continued from the February 27, 1991 meeting. Mr. Correnti read a letter '.
from Mr. Perroni requesting leave to withdraw his petition. Ms. Stirgwolt made
a motion to allow his request and to grant him Leave to Withdraw Without
Prejudice. Mr. Labreque seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN
50 Winter Island road - City of Salem, Park & Recreation Commission
• Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the overnight parking of
not more than sixty (60) recreational vehicles in this RC district. Mr.
Correnti read the application, a letter from the Park & Recreation Commission,
in favor of the petitioner and a letter from the Salem Fire Dept. , no objection.
Gary Moore, Manager of Winter Island, represented the City. It has been a total
of ten years that these vehicles have been coming to the island. There have
been no problems. It provides visitors with place to stay. It has been very
positive over the hears and it financially sustains the island. The average
use is about 15 vehicles, we ask for 60 because every-once'-in a while we have
bigger groups. Mr. Bencal: does the Wally Barnes group still come. Mr.
Moore: yes, usually as individuals, once in a while as a group. Mr. Bencal:
I know you have on site security. Mr. Moore: yes, most groups have a wagon-
master and they manage the groups, which is a big help. Mr. Febonio: do you
have rules and regulations that you give to the people? Mr. Moore: yes, they
are given a'.list :when they come in. They know the gates are closed at 10:00 p.m.
The Fire Department and Civil Defense have keys if they are needed, in cases of
emergency, as do police and ambulance. There is a very fine procedure written
out for every guest when they sign in, who they .are, where they come from, how
long they will be there and a list of all our rules and regulations. Mr. Correnti:
I take it it is busiest on the weekends, what kind of presence does the City have
overnight? Mr. Moore: from May through'-Labor Day, there is a security person
till 3:OOa.m. and weekdays till 1 :00 a.m. , then it opens up with a staff person
again at 6:00 a.m. There is only a three hour gap on the weekends. Mr.
Correnti: what if there is an emergency during the three hours that there is
no security man on duty. Mr. Moore: the wagonmaster would have the key. Mr.
Correnity: are there any other type guests? Mr. Moore: we do have some tenting,
there are eight sites for that, they come under the same rules. No one appeared
in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I have had the
MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1991
page two
50 Winter Island Rd. - Continued
• opportunity to sit on this since they have been^coming.to the Board. It is
a very good operation. They have done wonders. They are to be congratulated.
Mr. Febonio: public access will not be limited? No. Mr. Correnti: This is
nice for the tourist and it is good that the funding and the fees are used to
allow Salem Residents free access to the Island. Mr. Bencal: this is a non-
intrusive use. Probably the best use we have. In the past, we have done this
for two years at a time, given the track record and the fact they are under the
control of the Park and Recreation Commission, I would be in favor of letting
them go for five years. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition
requested on condition the overnight parking of not more than 60 recreational
vehicles at one time shall be permitted during the May :to November period for
five years, location of said vehicles shall be approved by the Salem Fire Dept. ,
all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be
strictly adhered to, proposed use will in no way limit public access and use,
petitioner obtain approval from any other City Board and/or commission having
jurisdiction, including, but not limited to the Park and Recreation Commission.
Mr. Labrecque seconded
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
8-10 Chase St. - Laurier Bouchard
The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to increase the height of the
existing garage roof in this R-3 district. Mr. Correnti read the application
and a letter from the Fire Department stating they had no objection, subject to
• certain conditions. (on file) Mr. Curtis Dragon, Lafayette st. , represented
the petitioner, basically want to raise the roof about 11 inches to drain the
water, it is a flat roof now, thats it. No one appeared in favor or in opposition.
Ms. Stirgwolt: what will the material be, going up the side, will it be the
same or what will it be? Pine. Mr. Febonio: that water will be shedding where?
Mr. Dragon: to the rear. Mr. Febonio: not on anyone elses property. No
Mr. Correnti: what is the current height? about 14 feet. Ms. Stirgwolt: how
will you make this match? Will be painted green. Ms. Stirgwolt: will it drain
on the school property. Mr;. Dragon: there is about a foot of property inbetween
where the school abuts the back of the garage. Ms.Stirgwolt: is it paved? no.
Mr. Dragon: it will drain naturally. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the
special permit requested on condition all construction be incompliance with
existing city and state building codes, all construction be as per the plans and
dimensions submitted, the exterior finishes be compatible with the existing
structure, a building permit be obtained and all requirements of the Salem Fire
Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Febonio
seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
5 Balcomb St. - Virginia & Fernando Gomes
Petitioners are requesting Variances to convert a two family dwelling into a three
family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a
letter from the Salem Fire Department, no objection, subject to certain conditions,
(on file) . Mr. Bencal asked if the petitioner was present, there was no answer.
• Mr. Correnti made a motion to continue this matter till the end of the meeting.
Mr. Febonio seconded. Mr. Bencal: I will just make note that the petitioner was
notified of the hearing. The Board voted 4-1 to continued this till the end.
Mr. Bencal voted opposed. This will be heard as the last matter on the agenda.
MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1991
page three
Skerry Street Court - Mark Petit
• Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow construction of a single family
dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter
from the Fire Department, no objection, subject to conditions, (on file) . Mr.
Richard Mailhoit, Engineer, 43 Bridge St. , represented the petitioner. He
displayed a copy of the Assessors Map to the Board and the Assemblage. Displayed
pictures of the property as it currently exists. He explained they would like to
take the garage down and 'put up a single family dwelling. Will improve the area.
Mr. Bencal: how long has Mr. Petit'.owned the property? Mr. Mailhoit: about a
year. We have talked with most of the neighbors. They were concerned with the
appearance in the back and they have requested a fence be put there, 6 ft. high: .
There will only be two windows in the back, kitchen and bedroom; will be no
back door. We have also been to the City Engineer and he says no problem, We
feel this is a good solution to the problem in'.that area. Mr. Febonio: I would
like to know if this is going to be a stick or pre-fab. Mr. Mailhoit: not sure
but it will be the same building no matter which. Speaking in favor. Edward
Martins , I am here on behalf of my parents who are in favor but with'-eonditions':.
They leave 7 feet from fence for maintenance, would not like any decks or dormers.
Mr. Bencal: one of the conditions put on the decision will be as per the plans
submitted. Should they want to do anything like that in the future they would
have to come back to the Board. Mr. Martins: Would like to see something done
with the property. Would like a 6 ft. wood fence put up right after the present
structure is taken down, there is a school there. Would like to see it exter-
minated. James Santo, Building Inspector: that is a standard requirement for
any demolition. John Jackimowicz, my parents live at 2 Skerry St. , they are in
• favor and they signed a petition. Mr. Bencal: did your parents have any questions
as to the design. Mr. Jackimowicz: no, they have seen it and they are in favor,
the property has been cleaned up. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed.
Ms. Stirgwolt: what is the hardship? Mr. Mailhoit: The lot is very narrow and
it would require variances to put anything there. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Petit, when
you bought this property from Mr. Little, was the name on the deed in the same
trust, also, you bought this knowing it was an undersized lot. Mr. Petit: when
I bought this I intended to use it for storage but it was •in too bad a shape.
Mr. Bencal: if this property was in the same name there could be a problem. Ms.
Stirgwolt: we don' t know if they might have merged. Mr. Bencal: Page sold to
Little. Little care to the Board and withdrew. He asked Mr. Correnti if there
was a chance there was a merger. Mr. Correnti went over the plans and the pictures
that had been displayed. Mr. Correnti: how many rooms in the .house? Mr.
Mailhoit: four on the first floor and possibilty of 2 on the second. Mr.
Febonio: slab or grade? Will be foundation. Ms. Stirgwolt: when you first
purchased it for storage of materials, what kind of materials? Mr. Petit:
roofing supplies. Mr. Febonio: I :would like to make sure that any future
builder or owner know that we are opposed to any deck or porch being added.
The Board discussed the wording of such a condition. Ms. Stirgwolt made a
motion to grant the variances requested on condition all construction conform to
existing city and state building codes, all construction be as per the plans and
dimensions submitted, the square footage of windows or door area in the rear of
the structure shall remain as per plans submitted in perpetuity, a building
permit be obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, all requirements of
the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to,
proper'-,numbering be obtained from the City of Salem Assessor, a six foot fence be
. installed in the rear across the entire rear line, two legal parking spaces be
maintained on site in perpetuity, no further encroachment on this nonconforming
lot be allowed. Mr. Labrecque seconded. The Board voted 3 in favor 2 opposed,
Mr. Correnti and Ms. Stirgolt, having failed to garner 4 affirmative votes, the
petition is DENIED
MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1991
page four
3 Connors Road - Carroll & Arlene Dickinson
• Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit and Variance to allow the second floor
to be expanded and to convert to a two family in this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti
read the application, a letter from Councillor Kevin Harvey in favor and a fetter
from the Fire Dept. , no objections, with conditions (on file) . Attorney George
Vallis, represented the petitioners. He submitted a copy of the deed. They
bought this in 1964. Built a small cape. There are other two family' homes in the
area. They have lived there and raised two children. His son and daughter-in-law
presently live in a condo in Pickman Park. Three years ago they had a child that
was born prematurely.and the child is under constant car. Medical bills are
extremely' high. Mother has to stay home now with the child and this makes it
impossible to maintain the condo. Their father has been trying to help them out.
He wants to do everything he can. Would like to expand this small cape into a
garrison. He has talked with all the neighbors. He submitted a petition in favor
signed by 12 abutters and neighbors. The hardship is not so much a hardship for
the owner as it is for the petitioner, the owner has no problem with it being
conditioned on owner occupancy. The reason we requested a special permit as well
as a variance is the structure is currently nonconforming, the variance is for the
use. The situation is so important and so dire, they have no problem with any
conditions the Board might see fit to put on. There are other two families in the
neighborhood. This will not intensify the area. '. Will need a variance from parking,
plenty of room for two, can put three, but not legal".spaces. Will be an increase
of two feet on side and .three feet in height. Speaking in favor. Joseph Canty,
152' East Collins St. , there are two family home on the other but not on this street.
I am not opposed, not sure if I am in favor, I am concerned with the situation
• changing in the future. Mr. Bencal: one of the conditions the Board can put on
is that it be owner occupied. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed.
Ms. Stirgwolt: any parking on the site? Yes, we can put three cars. Mr. Correnti:
will there be a seconded entrance? Yes, there will be a second entrance, more for
safety, we heed two exits. Mr. Bencal: I went by the property this weekend,
there are two families in the area but not one this street, this was made up of
single family homes. After hearing the argument tonight I have been swayed and
I would be in favor on condition it be owner occupied. I think there is a clear
hardship. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Special Permit and Variance
requested on condition all construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted,
exterior finish be compatible with the existing structure, all necessary state and
local permits and certificates be obtained, and that all applicable codes be
adhered to, including, but not limited to building and fire permits and inspections,
at least one unit of the dwelling remain owner occupied at all times and that a
driveway be maintained for off-street parking. Mr. Labrecque seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
•
MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1991
page five
15 Cherry Hill Avenue - Brian Call (Petitioner) , Beneficial Mortgage Co. (Owner)
• The petitioner is requesting Variances to allow property to be divided into two
lots, the first lot which contains a dwelling and has an address of 21 Valley St. ,
will contain 50 feet of frontage and 6,681 sq.ft. lot area, the second lot which
is located at 15 Cherry Hill Ave. , will contain 50 feet of frontage with 6,659
square feet of land.and is located in an R-1 district. .T,his'petition has been
continued from the February 27, 1991 meeting due to there only be four members
present, the petitioner chose to be heard by a five member Board. Mr. Correnti
read the application, a letter from the fire Dept. , no objection subject to
certain conditions; (on file) , a sample letter signed by Mr. Vallis, Attorney for
the petitioner, informing abutters of the date>of this hearing as per the condition
of the Board when allowing this to be continued. Attorney Vallis, submitted the.
green cards indicating the notices to abutters had been sent Certified Mail,
as per condition. Mr. Vallis: Finance Co. owns this property, he submitted
copy of the mortgage deed. We are hear because of a merger of lots. These are
two lots, each facing a different\street, both are substandard lots. Mr. Call
has a Purchase and Sale Agreements' The bank foreclosed on this, took both lots.
As you can see, most of these lots are similar in size. There are special conditions
and circumstances that effect this particular lot. When these lots were origin-
ally cut out they were intended to be built on, all of them. These lots have
frontage on different streets. The prior owner did not take care of the rear lot.
The bank is trying sell and they are going to lose money. If the Board grants
this ` t_won' t^.create any hardship on the neighborhood. It will not be detrimental.
Will not congest the area. This will be a good size lot, 6,659 sq.ft. It will
encourage the most appropriate use of the land. If nothing is built there it will
• stay vacant and it is my understanding it has always;be a -kind of a mess. Mr.
Call is a long time resident of Salem, it good to have the young people who
want to live in Salem be able to live here, they should be encouraged. I know
there is going to be some opposition here tonight but most of it is because it
is a small lot. There are very few lots in this area that could meet the zoning
requirements. No one appeared in favor. In opposition. Robert Gerolamo.,_22�
Cherry HIll Ave. , I am here representing other neighborsHewpresented_a_petition .�
signed by 21 neighbors and abutters. Mr. Bencal read the petition into the
record (on file) . Mr. Gerolamo: majority of the homes in this^a ashave 100 feet
of frontage, he submitted copies of the Assessors map. Lots 227 & 223, both with
homes, are grandfathered lots. There are five of these lots, potential of more :
variances, could set a precedent, we°.have been trying to buy the lot next to us
from the City. As far as the entrance, the lot is accessible from Valley St. ,
there is a lot of possiblilities for that land. Nancy Pelletier, 17 Cherry Hill
Ave. , It is not a dumpy lot, there is one sports car next to the fence. It is
not a dumpy area. When I bought my lot I was told that could not be built on.
There is the possibility of more homes being put there. I too am a life time
resident of Salem and I chose this because I like the idea it was not a dense
area, now I feel there maybe homes put in the area one on top of the other.
Richard Pelletier, 17 Cherry Hill Ave. , I take offense at the area being called
dumpy, one of reasons I bought my home herenis because it isnice area. Mr. Bencal:
what is the condition of the lot now? Mr. Pelletier: There is some wild brush
and a car. There is a big shed. —Councillor Leonard O'Leary: I also take offense,
it is not dumpy. At the last meeting, I asked if we could have a neighborhood
meeting to discuss the problems. The individual who owned this lot used both the
front and the back, it was utilized. If this goes through tonight it could set
. a precedent. The neighbors keep their property up. Terry Avery, 28 Cherry Hill
Ave. , I agree with the Pelletiers, it would be a shame to have a lot of houses
built here.
MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1991
page six
15 Cherry Hill Rd. - Continued
• In rebuttal - Attorney Vallis: I did not say it was a dumpy area, just said it
was a dumpy lot, not properly maintained. As far as if this was granted it would
set a precedent, each case stands on its own merits. I take issue with the fact
that Mr. O'Leary said he asked for a neighborhood meeting, I don't remember him
saying anything about a neighborhood meeting. I don't think, if the Board grants
this, we will have a bunch of houses built. Mr. Correnti: would like to get
this clear in my own mind as far as ownership. The lot fronting on Cherry Hill
is the same as the one fronting on Valley St. Mr. Vallis: yes, the bank owns
both. Mr. Correnti: setbacks would be met? yes, except for frontage. Mr.
Correnti: the lot at 17 Cherry Hill Ave. has 50 feet of frontage. yes, it was
grandfathered. Mr. Febonio: could start a tail gate effect. Ms. Stirgwolt:
this petition that we are hearing has a direct bearing on Valley St. , we are
increasing the nonconconformity on Valley St. property, we are making one non-
conforming lot more nonconforming. I am concerned why this wasn' t handled the
same as previous lots regarding the address. Mr. Vallis: it was the same, the
abutters were notified, the issue is still the same. Mr. Correnti: part of the
neighborhood opposition is to development period. Most of the lots seem to be
bigger. The problem I have is the immediate opposition is from people who have
a lot smaller. Part of my hesitancy is "we have ours but we don't want anyone
else to have theirs" Ms. Stirgwolt: when did the owners of the Cherry Hill AVe.
property purchase the Valley St. property? My point being, it may have been
grandfathered at one time. Mr. Vallis: All of them were grandfathered at one
time. Mr. Correnti: there does not appear to be any other lot that runs the
entire length between Valley St. and Cherry Hill Ave. , everything else is divided
• right up the middle. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition of
Brian Call for Variances from lot size and frontage to allow parcel to be divided
and to construct a single family home on the lot known as 15 Cherry Hill Ave. on
condition'.the petitioner obtain proper .street numbering from the City of Salem
Assessor. Mr. Correnti seconded. The Board voted 4-1 in favor of the motion
(Mr. Febonio opposed)
GRANTED - 4-1
313 Highland Ave. - Tony Lena (Petitioner) Loyal Order of Moose (owner)
Petitioner is requesting a Variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance to
allow a roof top sign. The property is located in a Business Park Development
District (BPD) Mr.: Correnti; read the application. There was no correspondence.
Mr. Lena represented himself. He explained the existing sign, which has been
there for about twelve years, currently says "Dicks Donuts" and he would like to
put his business name "Tony Lena" . The previous owner put the sign there and
there was no building permit. Will not change anything except the name will put
replacement panel on existing box. Basically using the same sign, just changing
name. Roof signs are not allowed but if there had been a permit issued to the
previous owner, we would no be here. Mr. Correnti: hours of operation? That is
controlled by the City Council. Mr. Febonio: basically only changing the lettering.
yes. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Ms. Stirgwolt
made a motion to grant the petition as requested on condition all construction
be in accordance with all ldcal and state building codes, all construction be done
as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire
• Depar.tment relative to smoke and fire safety, a sign permit be obtained, the
proposed sign have no flashing lights, petitioner obtain approval of the Sign
review Committee of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) . Mr. Correnti
seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1991
page seven
• 5 Balcomb St. - Virginia & Fernando Gomes (continued from earlier on agenda
This was originally scheduled in the fourth position of the agenda. The
petitioners were not present at that time, the Board votednto'he8r._it last :;a
Mr:;Bencal informed the assemblage that Mr. Labrecque had to'-.leave and there
would only be a four man Board. Mr. Correnti read the application again. Mr.
Bencal asked if the petitioner or his representative were present. They were not.
Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petitioner's request for Variances as
requested. Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board voted one in favor of the motion to
grant (Mr. Febonio) , 3 opposed. The motion having failed to garner the four
affirmative votes needed to pass, fails, and the petition is denied.
DENIED 1-3
The Board approved the minutes of the February 27, 1991 meeting as taped.
The meeting'.was-adjourned* at 10:00 p.m. , the next scheduled hearing will be
held April 17, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green.
Respectfully submitted,
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
•
•
yr
b Ctu of ttlem, Httssttcllusetts
• -,, _ f Paura of 4veal
krr.,rnc��
MINUTES OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - APRIL 17, 1991
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, April 17, 1991 at
7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notice of the meeting was sent to
abutters and other intereste9d parties and notices of the meeting were duly
advertised in the Salem Evening News on April 3 and 10, 1991 .
Present at the hearing: Board members Bencal, Correnti, Febonio, Luzinski;
and Associate Member LaBrecque; Assistant Building Inspector David Harris and
Clerk of the Board Brenda Sumrall.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Richard Bencal. Mr.
Labrecque was appointed a voting member.
119 Webb St. - Hayden Safe & Lock Co. (petitioner) , Robert & Murel Rouleau (owners)
Petitioners are requesting a variance from use to allow the premises to be used
as a safe and lock company. The property is located in an R-2 district. Mr.
Correnti read the application. Attorney Michael Stelman, represented the
petitioner. This is a brick building, has been used as construction company
(Walsh'Construction) for about 50 years, has been vacant since approximately
September of 1990. Hayden has been in business in Salem many years. They have
a lease, with an option to buy, will move their entire business there. There
are 4-5 full time employees and 2 part-time. The company uses vans, the vans
would be stored inside the building. We feel we have plenty of parking. The
average on the retail end of the business is three to four customers at one time.
They will be able to park on the si.e. This will not be an intrusive use, at
least no more than what was there before. It is not ou't.of character as the
building has been there for so many years. Submitted a petition signed by 42
individuals'' Submitted a letter from John Walsch, Chamber of Commerce, both in
favor. Speaking in favor: Roberta: Phipps, 121 Webb St. No one appeared in
opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: this is a very reputable firm, I
have done business with them. Mr. Bencal: from the petition we saw, it is a
glowing tribute to the company, they add to the economy of the City. Mr. Febonio:
they have had a good reputation all through the years. The letter from Mr. Walsh
holds a lot of weight, I am in favor. Mr. Correnti made a motion to grant the
variance requested on condition the petitioner comply with all requirements of
the Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety, parking be provided as per the
plans submitted and petitioner obta_n any and all necessary permits from the
Salem Building Dept. Mr. Luzinski seconded
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
A
MINUTES - April 17, 1991
page two
99 Tremont St. - Georgia Giannias
• Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting Variances from use and parking to
allow a two family dwelling to be converted to a three family dwelling. The property
is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application. Georgia Giannias
represented herself. I took over from my brother, my brother never got permits and
I have been renting an illegal apartment. I will make parking in the back. No one
appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Patricia Gallant, 100 Tremont St. , there
was a family living on the third floor all last year. Since this woman has had this
house it has been like a half way house, it has been a horror show. There is parking
problem. They have been rude to me. I have lived there all my life. We try to keep
our home up and keep it clean. Never met this woman before, have nothing against her„
It is an absentee landlord situation. Lou Levesque, 2 Tremont Place, my structure is
very close to the parking lot and there has been problems there. Their windows are
very-close to me. Started illegal construction back in 1987 finally called the
Building Inspector to come down. Paul Bizzozero, 97 Tremont St. , I have two small
children, very congested area. I have had to call the police many times. This is
noTowner occupied and that makes a difference. Have a problem with their litter, they
shovel snow on to my property. Hearing closed. Rebuttal. Ms. Giannias: Was not
aware of problems. I will clean the litter up, I will mow. The property has not
been neglected, I have kept the property good. Mr. Febonio: you bought this as a
two family and used is as an illegal three family. You never intended to live there.
Seems to me a lot of problems are caused when there is an absentee landlord. Mn7 T
Bencal: when .I was made aware ofthis petition, I asked people about it and the re-
sponse was, where would you put the cars. It would be a shame to tear up the yard .
and make a parking lot. Mr. Febonio: I don' t understand a contractor not knowing
about the permits. Mr. Bencal: I see no hardship. Never had a permit for anything.
• Mr. Correnti made a motion to grant the petition as requested on condition all con-
struction be in accordance with the plans submitted. Mr. Febonio seconded. The
Board voted unanimously 0-5 against the motion. Having failed to garner the required
four affirmative votes to pass, the motion to grant fails and the petition is denied.
UNANIMOUSLY�DENIED
83-831 Proctor St. - C. Jean Donoghue
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit and Variance to allow construction of a
deck in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application, there was no cor-
respondence. Ms. Donoghue represented herself. She would like to replace the deck
that was taken down, move the steps. The driveway is on the left side of the house.
The stairs are from the middle to the rear. She explained the plans to the Board.
There will still be two sets of stairs, just moving them. Speaking in favor. Ms.
Ouellette, 79 Proctor St. , will improve the property. Joyce Famico, 77 Proctor St. ,
Steve Chaput, 77 Proctor St. , the existing stairs should be replaced. No one spoke
in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: Is that the egress? Yes. Mr. Correnti:
the side is already nonconforming, it will encroach on the rear. It requires a Variance
and a Special Permit. Mr. Correnti made a motion to grant the request on condition
all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly
adhered to, all construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all con-
struction comply with all city and state building codes and a building permit be
obtained from the Salem Building Inspector. Mr. Labreque seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1991
page three
• 2 Goodhue St. - Stephen Haley
Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow property to be used for sale and
storage of cars in the repair process. The property is located in the BPD Zone.
Mr. Correnti read the application. Mr. Bencal: .do we have anything from the
Fire Dept.? Ms. Sumrall, Clerk: yes, I spoke with Mr. Lapointe, Fire Inspector,
and the only point he wanted to make is if this is granted he wants to be sure
there will be no selling of Christmas trees at the same time cars are being stored
there. Mr. Haley represented himself. I am here to apply for a variance to
operate a second class used car dealership :as well as store cars in the repair process.
Mr. Bencal: before you go any further:can you explain what is a second class
auto dealer and what is cars under going the repair process? Mr. Haley: well,
this is related to the auto body shop across the street, second class licence is
a used car license. The repair process vehicles, typically when you send your
cars in 'for •repair it takes time to negotiate with insurance company, possibly
have to disassemble the vehicles to see whats wrong, need to wait for parts, so
lots of time there is time involved between the time the fellow may have an accident
and the time it actually undergoes repair. Could be a ten day to two week period.
This property has been used for this use since 1978. It .came to ,the licensing , . .
Board's attention that the zoning was inappropriate for these uses. Mr. Bencal:
one of those uses was denied by this Board was it not? Mr. Haley: before I
bought the property Mr. Weener brought a proposal before the Board, I.'don' t know
the details of it. Mr. Bencal: he was seeking a variance from density and use
regulations to allow the construction of a single story structure which will be
utilized as an office and car repair facility at 2 Goodhue St. Mr. Haley: the
difference is we. are not planning to really change anything from the way it is now.
• It is merely to store cars there that have been stored there the same way they have
been. No per se change that we are planning. Mr. Bencal: I am going to stop you
right there, I am going to keep stopping you sir. I was opposed to this petition
when it came to the Board, I haven't heard anything so far that is going to change
my mind, it is nothing more than an attempt to take over Goodhue St. by running
these cars back and forth. You are in an Entrance Corridor Overlay District which
means you are going to put junk cars in the middle of disrepair in an Entrance
Corridor into the City. You have no provisions for any structure to store them in,
to keep an eyesore away from the City. Mr. Haley: as I said, we are not planning
on putting a building there, I think that a previous attempt to get a variance
to put a structure there was unsuccessful. We are not putting junk cars there, these
are cars that are registered that were involved in an accident but are merely in
the process of being repaired. There are no changes planned from the use that has
existed on that property for about 13 years. The history of that property, briefly,
is that in 1978 Mr. Weener bought the property at 11 Goodhue St. , later in that
year he started storing those vehicles across the way on what is 2 Goodhue St. , which
is typically known as Sylvania's old parking lot..' In 1978 he got a class 2 dealers
license, a used car license, to sell cars at 11 Goodhue St. , his office is in the
building he owned there, which is the auto body shop building. So he started selling
cars off of that property in 1978 and he was storing them there at the same time.
In 1987 Mr. Weener bought 2 Goodhue St. , the parking lot and he went to the Licensing
Board and expanded his license to include the address 2 - 11 Goodhue St. Later
he sold his business, Classic Auto Body, to Mr. Russo and Mr.Green. At the time he
sold the business, he leased a portion .of the 2 Goodhue St. property to them
for the purpose of storing the .cars there. When he sold 2 Goodhue St. he was forced
• to relinquish his used car license. Mr. Russo and Mr. Green applied for that
License and it was granted, March 1990. The license was renewed- January of this
year, and February I got a call to go before the Licensing Board to explain the
use of the property with the zoning as it is, BPD. I was unaware of any conflict
between use and zoning until Mr.Fleming of the Licensing Board alerted me to that
fact and sent me here to get a variance. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Fleming also sa.t on
that previous petition as a member of the Board of Appeal.
MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1991
page four
2 Goodhue St. - Continued
• Mr. Haley: All I'm requesting is that we be permitted to continue the use as it
has existed for the past 13':years. There is no change planned. I take offense at
the implication that something that happened in the past somehow jaundices this
hearing and somehow something that happened that I don't even know about, before I
bought this property or was ever involved in it somehow reflects poorly on what's
going on there now. Nothing has been changed since 1978. We are just asking for
the continued use. It's also the case that there is a boat yard storage behind it,
there was a variance granted for the boat yard, there's an auto repair shop on other
end of the property that you drive in off Bridge St. , there's a Lumber Yard behind
it, there's obviously the auto body shop at 11 Goodhue St. , it is not out of
character to have a used car lot on that property. I'm here just to ge.t;in-tom-
pliance with what the zoning is today. That's the sum and total of the whole thing.
Mr. Luzinski: is your property involved in any aspect of the new highway? Mr.
Haley: the State has taken a portion of this property about 10 feet deep off of
Bridge St. , parallel to Bridge St. and rounded off the corner. Mr. Luzinski: is
that the dotted line? Mr. Haley: That wastthe original line, the dark line is the
new-line. Moved back ten feet so the street can be widened. Mr. Luzinski: as
far as the boats and the auto repair on the other side, have nothing';to do with you?
Mr. Haley: correct. Mr. Luzinski: just this lot here and you do the work across
the street. Mr. Haley: actually I don' t do either, I own the 2 Goodhue st. property
but I lease some of the property to the people who own the auto body across the
street. They own the auto body, they operate the used car lot, they store their
cars that they are repairing. They pay me for the use of it. Mr. Luzinsk: so the
cars there are either being repaired or being sold. Mr. Haley: yes, two operations,
in the ,back some cars that are in the repair process are being stored. There is
• no parking on the lot at 11 Goodhue.St. There is a dumpster there. On the front
of the lot up near Bridge St. they usually have the used cars. These cars are
registered. Mr. Luzinski: with the aspect of the new road coming in, have you
contemplated dressing up of that side of the street? Mr. Haley: we need a long
term plan to improve the property. It is in the works. I don' t have one formulated
now, in this economic environment. It is something I had a plan for two years ago
after I bought the property. The economy has changed a little with regards to
real estate. I have left those plans of hold. This is an interim thing: The
state will undoubtedly take the fence down and remove it, and if it is taken down
I don't believe they will be allowed to put it back up. What is happening is, the
state .is temporarily taking an easement on a portion of this property and it might
be another ten or twelve feet in, in order to put their equipment there to work on
the road, so it's probably not appropriate to attempt to develop a long range plan.
That easement lasts, I believe, for three years while they work on the recon-
structing the road. It is difficult to really to do something to change it, it is
a paved lot, its not pretty but its no less attractive than others, just a paved
parking lot. There is a need for this and it is an industrial area. At one time
the Licensing Board made a suggestion that there could be a •compromise, possibly a
fence constructed in the back portion of the lot. Disguise the cars. Now if you
have cars that are damaged they won' t be visible. There is an expense involved
there, I'm not anxious to undertake but if its a pivotal issue and its got to be
addressed, I guess we can live with it. Mr. Correnti: how long have you owned the
property? Mr. Haley: November of 1989. Mr. Correnti: and this is a flat paved
parking lot? Haley: correct. Mr. Correnti: I would like you to address what
special conditions and circumstances affect your lot, that make your lot different
• from adjoining lots.
MINUTES - April 17, 1991
page five
2 Goodhue St. - Continued'
• I would like you to address the substantial hardship. Mr. Haley: There is nothing
being changed, we are just going to continue on with what has been, I am not
asking for anything new, the quantity of cars will stay the same. We are not
requesting anything new other than to be permitted to continue the use as it has
been in the past. Mr. Correnti: which was an improper use. Mr. Haley: at least
since the zoning was aparently changed, which seems to be a debatable subject with
regard to when the new map was signed. I appears that there is at least an
argument as to whether or not this usage existed prior to the BPD zoning. I'_have
heard both arguments, that it has and it hasn't. Mr. Correnti: do you want to make
that argument to the Board. Mr. Haley: no, I am unprepared. It is different
from'-the other properties surrounding it in that there is no building there. The
boat yard has a building there. Mr. Correnti: what special conditions exist that
affect your land? Mr. Haley: the body shop at 11 Goodhue uses that property
continuously. Part and parcel of owning an auto body shop is you have to have
place to store vehicles. Mr. Correnti: so the special condition is your lease
with 2 Goodhue �St. I would suffer the financial hardship of not collecting the
revenue I now collect if this is not granted. More importantly, my tenants in the
body shop could be put out of the used car business or be put out of business
completely because they have no place to put a car. In a 4 bay body shop you
absolutely have to have outside parking. They would suffer very serious conse-
quences.if they could not continue to use this. Mr. Correnti: I am not sure that
addresses special conditions on your land. Mr. Haley: not sure I understand.
Mr. Correnti: that is one of the requisites for granting a variance. You need
to show special conditions and circumstances which affect your land as opposed to
• other parcels in the area. Mr Haley: my tenants are the ones that would suffer.
They would not have use of their property and they would be out of business. I
would suffer the hardship of not having the income but it would not impact me as
dramatically as it would them. Mr. Correnti: so the substantial hardship would
be to 11 Goodhue St. : Mr. Haley: submitted a letter from the Licensing Board-
that explained the dates of the licenses. Mr. Correnti read the letter into the
record (on file) ' Speaking in favor. Lou Rousso, 2 Kingdom Terrace, Peabody. I
am the tenant, part owner of the auto body shop. This affects me more than Mr.
Haley. Bought this business in 1987 with the lease for parking facilities at
2 Goodhue St. No knowing there was a problem with zoning. Did not know until
Mr. Fleming from the Licensing Board directed it to my attention. When the
License was granted was not on the Licensing Board. If the Board denies this
Variance I would consequently, if not put out of business, I would end up putting
damaged cars all along Goodhue St. I think that would be more of a hazard.
Would be more of an eyesore. I conduct a legimate in Salem. Have had no complaints
from people. I am just a working man trying to make living. If you hurt me, four
more guys will be out of work. Speaking in opposition. John Clayman, abutter,
12 Goodhue st. , displayed plans to the Board and the assemblage. I have been at
this location for 35 years. We have done a lot of work on our property, spent
over a million dollars. Bought the property next door, the one with the old
factory on it. As you know, the State is going to take some lot and this will be
a major roadway into the City. We will be constructing a brand new building. We
have cleaned up a lot of the mess left by the tannery. I object very strenuously
to Mr. Haley's proposal for these reasons. The City is very concerned with the
first appearance the city will have to visitors, especially tourists. Self
interest, purely. The proposal that we have here (referring to the plans on the
• Board) is to add a building, about 40,000 sq.ft. , will be first class. Our business
has expanded. Added about 80 jobs, even in these difficult times. Out of those
selfish interests we have a real problelkinvesting 4 million dollars in the property
MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1991
page six
2 Goodhue St. - Continued
• here with a used car lot and a lot used for storage of vehicles in the process of
tieing repaired. Doesn' t make much sense to put a beautiful building to greet
visiters with an eyesore like this in the front yard of the building. More
importantly, I think, the Board has to consider the public good here. I think
there are more than enough used car lots in the City of Salem. Every morning I
drive by here and I have been driving by since they have started using it for
storage of cars being repaired, and I don' t think it is a very attractive site.
Don' t wish Mr. Haley any economic harm: This Board last year approved a temporary
variance for the use ,of this..property as a boat storage by Dion's Board Yard and
I think that was a wise move because it was temporary use, it didn' t involve
putting up a structure and in years we come to regret when this potential for very
significant development on this property here. Would certainly improve the tax base
in the city and would add at least another 100 jobs. I understand the use of the
land has -.ifinthe_.last ten years .has-been illegal. I don' t think there's grounds
for granting this variance. Mr. Correnti: 'it is my understanding your objection
is aesthetic. Mr. Clayman: that is a consideration. I would be willing to give
fair market value for this piece of land. Mr. Bencal: do you anticipate Dion
moving? Yes. Hearing closed. Rebuttal. Mr. Haley: I am concerned with
Mr. Claymans objections on the- basis there's going to be a used car lot there,
I don' t know if he has a brief case of amnesia but Mr. Weener offered to sell him .
the property a couple of years ago when I bought it and he expressed no interest.
Matter of fact he rejected it, that's how I ended up with it. Again, let me
stress we are not interested in :changing anything. Mr. Febonio: would Mr.
Haley be interested in selling that property at a fair market value. Mr. Bencal:
that's something we can't consider. . Mr. Febonio: would you be willing? Mr.
• Haley: by all means. Mr. Febonio: but I don't understand, you said yes you
would sell it but your biggest concern was for your tenant. One minute your
concerned about your tenant Mr. Haley: I'm concerned for myself too. Mr.
Correnti: Mr. Haley, 11 Goodhue is using the property for an auto repair shop,
they also have a license to sell used cars, which they,use )2:Goodhue •fo ,?isthat!s
right.. . What percentage of cars under repair would be there? Mr. Russo: that's
hard to say, about 7 or 8 cars most times. Some take longer than others. Mr.
Luzinski: Mr. Chairman, is there a limit on the number of cars they can sell?
Mr. Bencal: that's set by the Licensing Board. Mr. Luzinski: my biggest
concern is, like everybody else, this is going to be a main entrance to the
City of Salem. I would suggest at this time that we make some provisions for
landscaping along the Bridge St. side.. Mr. Correnti: I am no convinced. A
Variance requires substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellent:
The appellent in this case is Mr. Haley and he has to show there is substantial
hardship to him if he is not granted this use variance and I'm not convinced he
has. Especially with the comment that he would sell the lot at fair market
value tomorrow. While the Board wants to encourage business, and this puts
classic auto body in a bind perhaps, this problem could have easily been detected
upon the purchase of this property. If there was a lease running with the pro-
perty. This could have been detected by any competent attorney looking at the
lease and looking at the use. My main point is, I don' t see the substantial
hardship to Mr. Haley and that is what the Ordinance requires. Mr. Bencal: my
objections are, as they were back then, not necessarily opposed to a use car lot
at this location, it's the idea of ferrying vehicles back and forth across a
common way does not strike me as being a good set up for number 1 , the company or
number 2 is it a good setup for the residents of the City of Salem. This is
• now under further scrutiny because of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and
we have seen nothing from the petitioner as far as a definitive plan to screen
MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1991
page seven
2 Goodhue St. - Continued
. these vehicles, a vehicle that has been in an accident;;is an eyesore. I may
be registered, it may be insured but it still looks terrible and someone coming
from out of town to our city to see something like that, at first blush. Any
other thoughts, comments or motions? Mr. Febonio: I wanted a few minutes to
think about it;. I think Mr. Correnti's comment of.-proving' hard'3hip to Mr. Haley
has not been reached. This is what I have been going over in my mind. Mr. Haley
has not proven hardship to me. Mr. Correnti made a motion to grant the petition
on condition all requirements of the Salem Fire Department be adhered to, the use
be as per plans:submitted, use comply with all state and local codes, Bridge st.
side of the lot be landscaped in an eye appealing way in conjunction with past
requirements of this Board for properties along that corridor. Mr. Luzinski
seconded. The Board voted 0 in favor, 5 opposed. The motion to grant fails and
the petition is denied.
UNANIMOUSLY DENIED
83 Valley St. - Arthur Emerson
Petitioner, owner of tne:property is requesting a Special Permit to increase the
height of the existing structure. The property is located in an R-1: distritt.
Prior to the presentation Mr. Bencal informed the assemblage and the petitioner
that Mr. LaBrecque had to leave, therefore there would only be four members sitting.
He explained that it would take a unanimous vote of the Board to grant any
petitions and anyone wishing to withdraw at this time may do so. Mr. Emerson
elected to go on with his presentation. Mr. Correnti read the application. Mr.
Emerson represented himself. What I desire to do is go up, it is not a full level,
• willjbe catheral ceiling, spiral staircase, lot. Will be an exercise, glass room.
We will be eliminating a room on the first floor. The glass room is where my
wifee will store her antiques. We have done a lot of work on this house. We have
no intention of moving. There will be an increase of about 8 feet total height.
It is now a ranch style, one floor, it will be two stories Mr. Correnti: he
is allowed 2} stories. If he were to build this today, he would not have to be
here. The Board went over the plans. Mr,. Correnti: because it is nonconforming
thats the only reason he's here. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition.
Rose Rediker, 85 Valley St. , they have two families in that home now, we have
cars parked close to our house, they have five or six cars, trailer there, traffic
is terrible, no consideration for us at all, I disapprove it. Mr. Rediker, 85
Valley St. , go along with what my Qife says, two family living there, put driveway
in, it's right on the line, two cars, two trucks, a camper, this will involve more
traffic or something else is going to happen over there. Rebuttal. Mr. Emerson:
yes, my daughter and her husband do live with us, as a lot of kids do today.
I have a pick up truck, my wife has a car, my daughter has a car and I have a
camper. I have a driveway on either side of the house. In fact, there is one
vehicle that is parked on their side of the house on occasion which happens to be
my truck, other vehicles are on the other side of the house away from them. Mr.
Bencal: within the dwelling you don' t have a separate dwelling unit set up. Mr.
Emerson: the down stairs was finished when I bought the place. The kids have
always lived down there, since we bought it. Two of them have moved out. Mr.
Correnti: If you are allowed these additional rooms would that cause any additional
persons to be living with you? Absolutely not. no change. Just for our own use.
Mr. Febonio: will there have to be any additional height for that chimney? Nes,
. the chimneys going to have to go about five feet on that side of the house.
MINUTES - ARRIL 17, 1991
page eight
83 Valley St. - Continued
• Mr. Febonio: can we write it up so that there be no living quarters there. Mr.
Luzinski: doesn' t set up for another unit. Mr. Correnti made a motion to grant
the Special Permit request on condition all requirements of the Salem Fire
Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, all con-
struction be as per all city and state codes, all construction be done as per the
plans and dimensions submitted, a building permit be obtained, a Certificate of
Occupancy be obtained and exterior finishes be compatible with the existing
structure. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0
33 Beaver St. - Thomas & Nancy Silva
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances from 'any and all
density and setback requirements to allow an existing above ground pool and to
enclose an existing deck in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application
and a letter from Councillor O'Leary in favor. Mr. Silva represented himself.
I work two jobs, have for over 12 years. Have four children. Need more space.
Would like to enclose this deck. Have had a lot of trouble, we have no privacy.
As far as the pool', my son has seizures, has muscular therapy, the doctor suggested
the pool. The other children use it also. Submitted petitions in favor signed
by total of 12 neighbors and abutters,. all on Beaver St. , also submitted a copy
of the ad signed by Alice Freitas, in favor. Have heard of no one being opposed.
Speaking in favor. Alison Lake, 31 Beaver, St. , I have no problem, pooll.has
been there a long time, it helps his son. It is the-only place he goes. They
• don't get into any trouble. Nancy Silva, 33 Beaver St. , I am very close to a
nervous breakdown. I can't even go outside without trouble. No one appeared in
opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: will there be a roof over? yes.
Mr. Febonio: the porch is existing? yes. Mr. Bencal: would it be possible for
you to locate the pool and deck any where else on the property? no. Mr.
Correnti made .a motion to grant the Variances requested on condition all require-
men:ts •of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly
adhered to, a building permit be obtained all construction be as per the plans
and dimensions submitted. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0
Mr. Febonio made a motion to accept the minutes of the March 20, 1991 meeting
as taped. Mr. Correnti seconded. Unanimously accepted.
Attorney John Serafini, Sr.,'requested a six month extension on Variances_ granted
to the Essex Institute and Museums •Cooperative of Salem, Inc. for 120- 134Essex
St. (B-5) due to :economic con'st'raints. Mr. Febonio made a motion to grant the
the request for an extension up to and including Deeember15, 1991 . Mr. Correnti
seconded. UNANIMOUSLY EXTENDED.
Attorney John Serafini Sr.. , Esq. , requested a six month extension for Variance &
Special Permit granted to Orille L'Heureux for property at 89 Congress St. due to
economic constraints. Mr. Febonio made a motion to grant the extension requested
up to and including January 13, 1992. Mr. Correnti seconded UNANIMOUSLY EXTENDED.
•
MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1991
page nine
Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. , next scheduled meeting to be held May 15,
• 1991 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green.
Respectfully submitted, p�
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
•
•
oemky'
b 01itu of tzlem, �fflttssadjusetts
Poura of ( Pveal
h�'trmt�
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - MAY 15, 1991
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, May 15, 1991
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 May 1 and 8,
1991. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail.
Present at the hearing were Board Members Bencal, Correnti, Febonio,
Luzinski, Stirgwolt; Assistant Building Inspector Harris and Clerk
Sumrall.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman Richard A.
Bencal. First item on the agenda is the annual reorganization of Board
officers for the coming year.
NOMINATION FOR CHAIRMAN - Mr. Febonio nominated Mr. Bencal. Mr.
Luzinski seconded. Mr. Luzinski moved the nominations be closed. Ms.
• Stirgwolt seconded. Nominations unanimously closed. The Board voted
4-0 (Mr. Bencal voted present) in favor of the nomination of Mr. Bencal
for chairman. Mr. Bencal is elected Chairman.
NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIRMAN - Mr. Febonio nominated Mr. Luzinski. Ms.
Stirgwolt seconded. Mr. Febonio moved to close the nominations, Mr.
Correnti seconded. Nominations for Vice Chairman unanimously closed.
On the motion to appoint Mr. Luzinski Vice Chairman, the Board voted 4-0
in favor (Mr. Luzinski voted present) Mr. Luzinski is elected Vice
Chairman.
NOMINATION FOR SECRETARY - Mr. Luzinski nominated Mr. Correnti. Mr.
Febonio seconded. Mr. Luzinski moved to close the nominations. Mr.
Febonio seconded. Nominations unanimously closed. On the motion to
elect Mr. Correnti secretary, the Board voted 4-0 (Mr. Correnti voted
present) in favor. Mr. Correnti is elected secretary.
ADOPTION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS of the Board of Appeal as they exist.
Mr. Febonio made a motion to adopt the Rules & Regulations as they
exist, Mr. Luzinski seconded. - Unanimously adopted.
13 BOARDMAN ST. - KATHRYN SAMMARTANO
Petitioner is requesting Variances from use, parking and setbacks to
allow the property to be converted to a three family dwelling. The
property is located-in an R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the
• application and a letter from the Salem Historical Commission which
included a building survey form. The Commission took no stand but
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page two
13 BOARDMAN ST. - CONTINUED
expressed the hope that if the petition is granted the Board of Appeal
would be sympathetic to the historic architecture. (letter on file) Mrs.
Sammartano represented herself. Would like to put the stairway, which
was designed by Steve Livermore, from the rear of the house facing the
parking lot up to the roof. It will be all natural wood and will have
corniced railings with lattice work around it. There is a parking
requirement of five cars. The best way we can do this is to have two
slots running two and two this way (indicated on the plan) and one to
the right, paved to the house. Would like to keep the green area.
There is a shed that will need to be moved and it can be moved anywhere
on the property. What else am I supposed to say. Mr. Bencal: you are
going to have to address the hardship. Ms. Sammartano: how am I
supposed to do that? Mr. Correnti explained legal hardship to her. Ms.
Sammartano: do you need my tax returns, how should I go about that?
Mr. Correnti: what we are asking you to do at this point is address the
hardship you face if you are not granted this Variance. Ms. Sammartano:
Oh. I support my mother and my sister who is currently mentally ill,
two stepchildren. Valerie is in Jr. College and Daniel has been
accepted to the University of Arizona. He has a scholarship, been
granted some money but it is not enough. I was a student at Mass.
College of Pharmacy but I lost my scholarship and I am no longer there.
I made arrangements for Bruce Ware to do some electrical work which will
meet the fire codes and we have figured out a payment schedule if this
passes. We have also been in touch with a couple of contractors
regarding the stairway, and hopefully, if this passes we will be able to
make some arrangements to work out the payments. Mr. Correnti: could
you relate this financial hardship to the petition. Ms. Sammartano: if
this passes, I will glean enough income to relieve some of the pressure
on my schedule and complete the work as desired. I support my mother, I
am having a lot of trouble getting her into housing for the elderly.
Mr. Correnti: would your mother move into one of the apartments, it that
the idea? Yes. Mr. Bencal: what is the present configuration of the
property now? three. Mr. Bencal: it is a three. Ms. Sammartano: it
has always been a three since 1974. My husband put in the third when my
cousin came to live. When my husband died in 1981, all this fell to me.
What he left was a very small pension, a mortgage on this house and a
mortgage on my mother's house. Mr. Luzinski: was there always an
egress from the second floor? yes. Mr. Bencal: do you presently live
there? Ms. Sammartano: no, I am not allowed to live there. ; I was
having trouble renting this apartment, I didn't have any time so I hired
a real estate agency to rent the first floor. That was rented the end
of September. That individual made a complaint about chipping paint in
the kitchen about the middle of November. Very shortly after that the
roof blew off the rear of the building. Mike Shea put on a rubber roof
for me, I paid that off in February. Was 1400 dollars. He also re-did
the bay window on the second floor. There was some water damage done
• so I contracted to have some painting done. It took my insurance
company some time to respond to the estimate for the
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page three
13 BOARDMAN ST. - CONTINUED
work. I also used one of the tenant's preferred workers to submit an
estimate, that was refused, Mr. McGrath was accepted. Then, for one
reason or another, Mr. McGrath could not make an appointment with the
tenant on the first floor. Either the tenant was not available, or the
tenant refused to let him in, or they had an altercation on the phone.
It's now the end of January, the tenant made a complaint to the Board of
Health. They came in and said there was work that needed to be done. I
finished all the work on the first floor, that's when they found out
this wasn't a legal three family. The first floor tenant lives there
now, the second and third floor is vacant. Mr. Correnti: Do you plan
on living there? Ms. Sammartano: yes, if I can, I'm not allowed to now
because it doesn't meet these codes. Mr. Bencal: how is this property
being assessed. Ms. Sammartano: it has been brought to my attention
that it is being assessed as a one family. No one appeared in favor.
Speaking in opposition. Regina Flynn, President, Salem Common
Association. We believe the following and urge careful consideration of
these points by the City of Salem, especially the Board of Appeal and
the Planning Board, in their deliberations. We believe that the
residential character of our neighborhood be maintained with no
additional nonconforming commerical uses being permitted. That the
• existing R-2 zoning and density requirements be maintained and enforced
and that parking congestion and traffic problems in our neighborhood be
considered in all future planning and development and that landscaping
such as trees and lawn and streetscape such as facades and fences are
important to the quality of life in our neighborhood and should be
encouraged, enhanced, respected and maintained and that the historic
nature of our neighborhood be encouraged, respected and maintained.
Also, as a private member of that particular neighborhood, I think its
very important to try and preserved every inch of lawn. I don't think
we would be serving the neighborhood very well if this is granted. I
remember visiting the common neighborhood before I ever lived here and
traveling down Boardman st. I was so impressed by the well maintained
homes and small gardens that were there, that my husband and I moved to
the common area. I would like to see that continued. Ed Beaupre, 11
Boardman St. We are in opposition to this request. We believe there is
not enough room to provide for the parking plan. I believe there are
only eight rooms in her side of the house, I find it strange to convert
eight rooms into a three family. Also, she raises a point that she may
be moving her mother into the house, her mother is elderly, again, I
can't see the need for additional parking and an R-3 zoning if you are
going to move members of the family into the home. Mr. Beaupre
displayed pictures of the property. He then read from a prepared
statement which is on file. When Mr. Beaupre got to the last paragraph
regarding an abandoned car, Mr. Bencal stopped him. Mr. Bencal: I am
going to cut you short, how does this pertain to the petition at hand?
There are ways to handle these situations, the City will tow these
• vehicles. I am going to ask you to stay with this petition, how does
that affect the petition? Mr. Beaupre: It turned out to be Kathryn
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page four
13 BOARDMAN ST. - CONTINUED
Sammartano's car. It was towed. She was cited for abandoning a motor
vehicle. My point is she is and has been very insensitive. James
Shatwell, 6 Briggs St. , my property abuts, the plans show only one half
the structure. The shed mentioned is very large and has not been
maintained, the property has not been maintained. We have parking
problem on Briggs. They come from Boardman and Andrew to park on
Briggs. Carol Chapman, I own 4 & 6 Boardman St. , I have a four family,
I have no parking at all, I bought the house just as it was. I would
like to appeal to you on the basis of the quality of life being
jeopardized in this neighborhood by the changes I have seen in the
past 27 years. A young boy was killed on the corner of Washington
Square and Boardman St. only about 10 years ago. My own husband was hit
by a car going down Washington Sq. , was left to die on the street.
thank God they found the driver. I am saying to you, we are now out on
the common 7 nights a weeks, we are parking on the common, 27 years ago
we were parking on Boardman St. Joseph Hedio, 17 Boardman St. , parking
is problem, have had to have cars towed. Very congested. Councillor
Harvey: As you know it is very infrequent that I come here to testify
at the Board of Appeal, I always respect the Board's decisions and I
will respect your decision tonight. I am here tonight because of a very
• simple reason. When I first decided to run for office, my platform was
being opposed to increased density without parking. Here is a very
clear petition with someone trying to increase the density without
satisfying the parking. Also, it is my pet peeve that the Board be very
sensitive to petitions in my ward that deal with piggyback parking. Mr.
Bencal: which, as you know, is illegal under the Ordinance. Mr.
Harvey: I was not aware of that. From what I gather, it is
intentionally being proposed to have piggyback parking to satisfy the
requirements. I am strongly opposed to that and agree with ordinance.
Also, another pet peeve is the filling in of green spaces in yards to
satisfy parking. I know that isn't in the Ordinance but I strongly
oppose it. I sympathize with the petitioner realizing she may be under
some financial strain but I don't believe this is an amicable solution.
In rebuttal. Ms. Sammartano: parking, there is an alternative plan to
allow for parking without piggyback, it will take some of the green
space. This one was only offered up for saving the greenspace. Went
over the plans. Mr. Bencal: that is still piggyback. Ms. Sammartano:
it is, then I guess there isn't anyway. I have been very adament about
not siding, I have retained the clabboards at great expense to myself
and my shutters are intact. I have worked very hard to keep this house
in good condition. While I grant you I have not mowed the lawn, I
apologize for the garbage. I have been trying to get a degree. Mr.
Bencal: have you spoken to the owner of 15 Boardman at all. Yes, I
have. The parking would improve the situation rather than exacerbate.
It is true I have not been there to mow the lawn or to shovel the snow
or take care of the trash. Mr. Luzinski: you will be renting the
• second floor. Ms. Sammartano: I will be living there, I have to live
there. I sleep on the floor at Hynes or I sleep at the libary at
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page five
13 BOARDMAN ST. - CONTINUED
Harvard Medical school, I have been doing that for awhile. Ms.
Stirgwolt: you talked about the resident, it was usually family members
that had occupied it. Ms. Sammartano: yes, usually, but not always.
Mr. Febonio: this has been three family since 1973? Ms. Sammartano:
in 1973 we had two of the three kids living with us. Mr. Febonio: what
were you taxed as? Ms. Sammartano: Only a one family. It was a three
family but we used it as a two family. Mr. Correnti: it is in a two
family district. Mr. Bencal: the other side is, I believe, a one
family. Mr. Correnti: this is a duplex right? Ms. Sammartano: when
you say duplex, it's not really, it is half a house. Mr. Correnti: it
is one building with two doors, side by side. right. Ms. Stirgwolt:
we are only addressing the left hand side of it. Mr. Luzinski: I would
hate to see the change in the structure and also to see it used as a
three family. Boardman St. has probably got the best example of
Georgian houses this side of Boston, to increase the density in that
particular area, I know its a tough area, its a narrow street, I would
be reluctant to vote for this. Mr. Correnti: looking at this petition,
seeing this is a duplex, if the Board were to grant this into a three,
it would be conceivable that Mrs. Stefanski could come in at that point
and ask for the same treatment from the Board. Mr. Bencal: there are
• at least two members of the Board whoare familiar with Mrs. Stefanski
and her family and I think if they could have converted it that
certainly would have. Mr. Correnti: my point would be that it would
not impossible for this to turn into a six family house. Mr. Bencal:
sure, the argument would be, why not me. Ms. Stirgwolt: I live in the
neighborhood that we are discussing and I do have a lot of sympathy for
the petitioner but I would like to say there are provisions in the
Zoning Ordinance to have your family members living with you and for
taking in a boarder, legally, without converting to additional units. I
would have a very hard time voting for a three family here. Mr.
Febonio: strong neighborhood opposition, density, parking, its too much
burden on the neighborhood. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the
petition as requested. Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board Appeal voted
unanimously against the motion. The Variances are unanimously denied.
UNANIMOUSLY DENIED
•
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page six
44 JEFFERSON AVENUE - AUGUSTO DACUNHA
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow a coffee
shop/restaurant in this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the
application, Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , represented the petitioner.
Mr. Serafini: the statement which is attached to the application gives
the Board some history of this property. He displayed pictures of the
property and the area to the Board. The building is in an R-1 zone but
it is not conducive to an R-1 use. It is a single story building and
has a history of nonconforming uses. It was a fruit and deli when my
client bought it. At that time he wanted a coffee and bake shop, the
neighbors where concerned because the property had not been taken care
of. He cleaned the property up. A common victular's license was issued
to him. The uses that are proposed will be compatible with the area.
It is a small restaurant, will not be any addition to the use he has
there. He put some table and chairs there and the building department
felt more comfortable with his getting relief from the Board. We
requested a variance or a special permit under the existing
nonconforming use. There is more than ample parking. It will be a
small restaurant and coffee shop. If you are familiar with the area you
will see the property could not be used as a single family dwelling.
There is a good deal of ledge there. The nearest home is about 150 feet
away. We spoke with the Ward Councillor, Vincent Furfaro and to the
• neighbors and they don't seem to have a problem with this. Speaking in
favor. John Boris, Salem: I am wearing two hats, one as the Chairman
of the City of Salem Licensing Board and if this is granted we would
grant license, and the other hat as VP of the Chamber of Commerce, we
would like to encourage business in the City. No one appeared in
opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: I am quite familiar with the
property and there is ample parking, would like condition that it be
maintained. I don't know what other use there could be there. Mr.
Luzinski: this is a good use for this property. Mr. Correnti: think
it would a cleaner use that the deli. The property has been cleaned up.
As far as seating, they certainly have ample parking. Ms. Stirgwolt:
any change in the sign size? Mr. Serafini: no, it will be the same
size. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition on condition
all renovations be in compliance with all City and State Building Codes,
all work be done as per plans and dimensions submitted, except the
parking plan which shall be amended to prevent backing out on to
Jefferson Ave. , a legal building permit is to be obtained, a certificate
of occupancy be obtained, all requirements of the Salem Fire Department
relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to,
required parking be maintained on site at all time, all signage shall be
in compliance with the City of Salem Sign Ordinance. Mr. Luzinski
seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
•
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page seven
42 JEFFERSON AVE. - GARY NADEAU, A-1 AUTO BROKERS, INC.
Petitioner is requesting Variance/Special Permit to allow outside
display of cars in this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the
application. Mr. Nadeau represented himself. Would like to display
cars outside. I bought the lot because I saw cars outside then I found
out I could only have cars inside. I never heard of selling cars
inside. Mr. Bencal: you never researched the property at the time you
bought it? Mr. Nadeau: I understand there should have been a title
search. They should have told me there was a variance on the property.
Mr. Bencal: when you went by and saw the property for sale and saw that
there were other vehicles outside. Mr. Nadeau: right. Mr. Febonio: I
think what happened at one time it belonged to the Marfongelli Co. who
moved to Florida, that was used for repair garage and the cars he saw
were cars that were being repaired. This is probably what he was
seeing. Mr. Bencal: the request in 1986 was to change from freight
service to auto repair and sales. Mr. Correnti: but is it correct that
no storage of display was allowed outside? Mr. Bencal: that's right.
I don't remember the petition, maybe Mr. Luzinski does. We were both on
the Board at that time. Speaking in favor: John Boris, once again I am
wearing the same two hats, Licensing Board and Chamber of Commerce, we
granted a used car license, it was an oversite on the part of the City.
• On the license granted to this individual he was granted an outside and
an inside license, I don't think this is his fault. We have not had any
complaints about him. Never found him with more than the allowable
number of cars. He was granted 12 outside and 8 inside, all of a sudden
it was pointed out to us that it was against the Zoning Ordinance. We
had no knowlege of that. Normally it is checked, it was an oversight on
the part of a lot of people and I feel very bad. License was issued to
prior owner again to this gentleman. Feel bad that he should have to be
penalized for something I don't think was his fault. Mr. Correnti:
would like to ask Mr. Boris, you said the Board granted a license to
sell cars previous to this owner? Mr. Boris: yes, in November 1986,
after the variance was allowed. Mr. Correnti: does the Licensing Board
grant have to comply with the Board of Appeal decision. Mr. Boris:
without question. Mr. Correnti: and that decision said without outside
sales. Mr. Boris: we were not privy to that. Somebody dropped the
ball, after we grant a license we usually grant it with the proper
authority. Nobody brought this back to us, therefore we assumed it was
correct for these past years and renewed it some six times. Both inside
and out. Mr. Bencal: to your knowlege are there any others that have
just the inside. Mr. Boris: only ones I can think of is Coopers and
Credence. Mr. Correnti: are you saying you witnessed outside sales of
cars prior to this owner? Mr. Boris : yes I did. No one appeared in
opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Correnti: you stated that when you
purchased the property you purchased it with the intention of outside
selling. Mr. Nadeau: that is right. Mr. Correnti: for the record -
for the record - I do not have a conflict but the prior owner was a
• relative of mine, Mr. Marfongelli, my grandfather, I was at the closing
for Mr. Nadeau of Mr. Nadeau's purchase of this property, representing
MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page eight
42 JEFFERSON AVE. - CONTINUED
Mr. Marfongelli. Again, I don't feel I have any conflict, but I want to
state that for the record. Then I would like to ask Mr. Nadeau again if
in fact, Mr. Boris stated it best as a member of the Licensing Board, he
has testified to this Board that in fact there was, he has personal
knowledge there was car sales taking place prior to this owner buying
the property. Ms. Stirgwolt: I don't see any layout, Mr. Boris has
stated there is a license permitting 12 exterior and 8 interior,does
that leave any parking at all, I don't understand, is there additional
parking for customers? Mr. Bencal: where would your customers park?
Mr. Nadeau: there is street parking. Ms. Stirgwolt: Mr. Boris, when
you consider the amount of cars allowed to you consider the customer
parking? Mr. Boris: absolutely. Ms. Stirgwolt: and your Board still
feels comfortable with 12. Mr. Boris: I can't say I distinctly remember
this one, it has always been policy that they ask for whatever, we try
to cut it down for customer parking, yes. Mr. Febonio: he has a nicely
kept place. I think I would go along with his request. Mr. Correnti:
what is the two story building being used for? Mr. Nadeau: it is a two
family dwelling. Mr. Correnti: how many parking spaces would you have?
Mr. Nadeau: two or three. I have never had twenty cars there. Mr.
Bencal asked where the tenants of the dwelling park and Mr. Nadeau
• indicated on the plan. Mr. Nadeau: cars could park in the rear, could
take the bushes down. Ms. Stirgwolt: I would feel more comfortable if
I knew where the parking was. I don' t see adequate dimensions. Mr.
Bencal: piggyback parking is not allowed. Mr. Nadeau: could park in
the back if they had to. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Correnti, you are familiar
with this property, is it possible to park on the side. Mr. Correnti:
the petitioner said he could. Mr. Nadeau: the shed is gone. Mr.
Correnti: how wide is the area on the side? Mr. Bencal: little over
12 feet at the narrowest. Mr. Correnti: there is ledge in the back. I
don't think any of that area could be used for parking. Mr. Nadeau:
the shed is gone and I have had limpak put on. The Board went over the
plans and dimensions. Mr. Luzinski: I think he runs a good place and
this would be an asset and as long as there is parking for the tenants I
have no problem. Mr. Correnti: what are the hours of operation? 8 to
8. What kind of lighting? Mr. Nadeau: there is a spotlight, light
sensor, no residential are affected by the lights. Ms. Stirgwolt made a
motion to grant the request on condition the petitioner maintain three
(3) parking spaces in the rear, lighting of the lot comply with city
ordinances, all signage comply with all applicable ordinances, rules and
regulations, all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to
smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
•
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page nine
16 CALABRESE STREET - Leslie & Linda White
Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow construction of a deck in
this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from
Marilyn J. Bishop, 14 Calabrese St. , in favor. Mr. & Mrs. White
represented themselves. We would like to take the existing porch and
put deck, would not be feasible to put in in the rear, there is no door.
They showed the Board, on the plans, where the new deck would be, on the
right side as you face the house. Mr. Correnti: exactly what are you
requesting a variance from, the side setback? yes. Mr. Correnti: how
close to the side will this deck be? 9 feet. Mr. Correnti: you need
relief for only one foot, is that correct? yes. No one appeared in
favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: if the neighbors
don't object, I have no problem, I think it will enhance the quality of
life. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the Variance from side
setback to allow construction of a deck on condition all requirements of
the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly
adhered to, all construction be as per the plans and dimensions
submitted, exterior finishes be compatible with the existing structure,
a building permit be obtained, all construction comply with all city and
state building codes. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
• 18 1/2 BECKET ST. - JEFFREY MOLD
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to increase the height of the
roof by one foot, the property is located in an R-2 district. Mr.
Correnti read the application and a letter from Councillor Nowak, no
objection. There was also a communication from the Salem Historical
Commission which stated the Commission was not taking any position on
this request but was hopeful the Board of Appeal will be sympathetic to
the historic architecture. Mr. Mold represented himself, basically it's
just an addition on foot in height. It is probably the most expensive
one foot in height I have ever had to pay for. The first contractor
that I had changed his plans between submitting the plans to the
building department and actually building it. When the plans were
stopped by the Building Inspector I sued the contractor, I won my case
and I found out there were four people ahead of me, the first happened
to be the bank, they foreclosed on his house, unfortunately while I
reached the legal community I did nothing to help myself. I also spent
about two thousand dollars cleaning up the mess he made on the property,
also spent about six thousand because he flooded the place trying to by
attaching the hot water system in the midst of minus 20 degrees. It was
a disaster. Basically I am trying to recoup the structure. The
structure is an older building, the part that I am trying to do the
change on however is not historic. It will be completed similar to the
rest of the house. Just simply so I have enough room so one could walk
up there. I live in the house next door, it will actually be my sister
• and her fiance moving in there. Mr. Luzinski: that is a single family
house. Mr. Mold: it is a two family house. Mr. Luzinski: you are not
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page 10
18 1/2 BECKET ST. - CONTINUED
raising the roof to make it a three family No Speaking in favor.
Bob Kawczynski, 20 Becket St. , I live next door. Whatever he does, I
approve of it. Plenty of space all around and I don't think a little
higher will hurt it at all. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing
closed. Mr. Luzinski: you have an easement from both Becket and
Carlton. I don't understand the reasoning for that. Mr. Mold: I own
both houses, 18 & 18 1/2. I bought 18 1/2 which had a prior easement,
the properties had been split up prior to my buying them, when it was
owned by previous owner I wanted to make sure I had emergency exit from
my house to Carlton St. Physically we enter from Becket St. This is a
land locked parcel. Mr. Correnti: on your plans submitted, where it
says third floor plan and it shows a 12 x 12 room, a 12 x 18 room and a
stairway in the middle and storage closets. Right. They went over the
plans. Mr. Correnti: what will the third floor be used for. Mr. Mold:
was originally used for bedrooms, I have completely renovated the
property. The second and third floors will be rented as one apartment.
Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition
all construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all
construction be as per existing city and state building codes, all
exterior finishes be in harmony with the existing structure, petitioner
obtain a legal building code, petitioner obtain a certificate of
• occupancy, all requirements of the Salem Fire department relative to
smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
5 BRISTOL ST. - JERROLD AND ANN HOUGHTON
Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow an existing deck. Mr.
Houghton represented himself. This deck was built in 1986, we were
under the assumption that all permits were taken care of by the builder,
which they weren't. That's about it. Mr. Bencal: it appears on the
plans submitted that part of your deck encroaches on your immediate
neighbors property. Mr. Houghton: that is not correct. Mr. Bencal:
we have a certified plot plan before use, dated March 14, 1991, my
question again, is this plan correct or is the plan you have dated 1986
correct? Mr. Houghton: he has the stairs on the wall that is not so.
Mr. Bencal: the stairs are not there? Mr. Houghton: the stairs are
there but they are not on top of the was like he shows them. Mr.
Bencal: there is a disclaimer on the plan that says should it not be
used to determine property lines but I don't know if I'm comfortable
with this plan. Mr. Correnti: I would re-affirm what the chair just
said, the fact that the disclaimer says it does not always indicate
property lines accurately, it is so close to encroaching. I think if we
treat this as a variance we can go ahead with it, if it is not
encroaching we can assume it is right on the line. I believe we can
proceed with a variance on the side yard setback. No one appeared in
• favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Correnti: have you spoke
with your neighbor? How long has this deck been in existance?
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page 11
5 BRISTOL ST. - CONTINUED
Mr. Houghton: since 1986. Mr. Febonio: it has been since 1986, what
made you come to the Board now. Mr. Houghton: went to refinance and
found out there were not permits. Mr. Correnti: do you have a
compelling need for this Variance? Mr. Houghton: it would cost quite a
bit to remove it. Ms. Stirgwolt: any structure in the rear? no. Mr.
Correnti: have no problem with hardship, topography, size of lot, would
not be any other place to locate it, would be a financial hardship to
remove it. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the variance requested
on condition all construction be done as per the existing city and state
building codes, all construction be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted, exterior finished be in harmony with present structure, all
requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
260A WASHINGTON ST. - MILAGROS MARTINEZ (PETITIONER) , BILL MCKINNON
(OWNER)
Petitioner is requesting a variance from use and parking to allow a
beauty salon in the R-3 district. Mr. Correnti: read the application.
• Ms. Martinez represented her mother, she explained her mother does not
speak good english. She would like to open a beauty shop. Will paint
and fix it up. Speaking in favor. Martin McKinnon, 255 Washinton St. ,
we manage the building. This building has always been used for business
on the first floor. Basically has always been commercial use. Mr.
Bencal: immediately in front of the building there is 15 minute
parking, how long has that been there? Mr. McKinnon: Has been there
since I have managed the building and that is five years. There are no
such restrictions across the street. No one appeared in opposition.
Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: this is a chance to help a small
business person, it would be asset. Mr. Correnti: how many customers
at one tim. About 4 . Mr. Bencal: this would mainly walk in business.
Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the variances from use and parking
on condition all renovaitons be done as per city and state codes, all
construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted, building permit
be obtained, certificate of occupancy be obtained, all requirements of
the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly
adhered to. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
•
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page 12
81 ESSEX STREET - JAMES & CLAIRE BAILEY
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a
sun room in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application, a
letter from Councillor Nowak, no objection and a communication from the
Historic Commission stating the Commission took no position on this
petition but was hopeful the Board would be sympathetic to the historic
architecture. Mr. Bailey represented himself. I would like to build a
sun room in the rear, use it for flowers. We have taken a lot of detail
with this even though it is in the rear, I think it would comply with
the historic commission if it did come under their jurisdiction. It
does not encroach, it exceeds the lot coverage Will not be visible at
all from the street. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing
closed. Mr. Luzinski: I am very pleased with the way the house looks,
especially at Christmas. This would be an asset. Mr. Correnti: will
he need site review from the Historic Commission? Mr. Bencal: if this
were visible but it is not. You would have to strain to it from any
angle. Mr. Bailey: even if it were in the Historic District, it is not
visible. Ms. Stirgwolt: is it visible from Orange St.? No. Mr.
Bencal: I don' t think they need any historic review. Ms. Stirgwolt:
would you be adverse to going to the historic commission? Mr. Bailey:
yes I would be, it would add to the cost and would hold up construction
• and it is not necessary. Mr. Febonio: I think as per plans would take
care of it. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition on
condition all construction be in compliance with City and State building
codes, all construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions
submitted, exterior finished be in harmony with the existing structure,
a building permit be obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained,
all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Department relative to smoke
and fire safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED.
426 ESSEX ST.- FAST FRANKS, INC. (PETITIONER) , MARTIN TAGERMAN, TRUSTEE,
SALEM REALTY TRUST (OWNER)
Petitioner is requesting Variances from parking and setbacks to allow
construction of a refreshment stand in this B-1 district. Mr. Correnti
read the application. Letters in opposition, from the following persons,
were received and read into the record: Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard F.
O'Leary; Patricia Boyd Fernald, 18 Dalton Parkway; Virginia Walsh, 57
Warren St. ; Ward 3 Councillor, Vincent Furfaro; and, Thom & Juli Tedham,
57 Warren St. U2. Mr. Robert Kondon, repesented himself, went to the
Licensing Board today,asked if we were a national franchise or someone
coming in from out of town, the answer is no, I have been a resident of
Salem for 35 years, Fast Franks is a privately held, small company.
Several months ago we went to the Board of Health, a lot of notoriety
has been given the these so-called push carts, we went to Mr. Blenkhorn
and said we would like to do something similar but something better, we
• want to provide better food, better food storage, with refrigeration and
the like. After several discussions, he said, in his own opinion, that
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page 13
426 ESSEX ST. - CONTINUED
was all well and fine but he would like us to conform to those standards
of a restaurant. The original site was the old photo-mat site, after
talking to the health inspector and wanting to not only comply with
health standards but hopefully to exceed them we realize, the
requirement would be for a toilet facility, three compartment sink,
several handwashing sinks, with that of course is the expense of
bringing water into the building, sewerage out. We rethought our
position. There has been a couple of opinions as to what is a
restaurant, what is the difference between us and a push cart, we don't
have wheels. Under the Zoning Ordinance, Section 7, Use/Density,
because of this use, all of the other businesses in this complex have a
requirement of 1 space per 150 sq.ft. , that is retail use except dining.
Is our use that of a restaurant, the Licensing Board says no, nobody
comes in to the building. Therefore, I dont know if we have to ask you
for a variance from parking. Mr. Bencal: I am going to stop you right
there and I am going to say, yes you do, because the entire property,
the bank, Crosby's, the building your proposing are all on one lot, they
are not separate lots. Therefore the entire lot must conform. Mr.
Kondon: I am sorry, I misinterpreted. If the Zoning Ordinance
requirement for a restaurant per se, is 15 parking spaces plus one for
• an employee, so be it, then we are here to appeal it. We can only
provide 8 spaces. Again, this is an unusually small building, it is not
a restaurant. In terms of trash and that sort of thing over the past 7
or 8 months, we've been through the ringer with the property owner. I
have lived in that area for 27 years and I think the owner of the
property does a hell of a job keeping it clean. Don't think requirement
of 16 parking spaces is reasonable. Will be more safer location that
the photomat was. Building will be wood frame with brick facade. Will
have sliding windows. Will be walk up not drive through, by design.
Mr. Luzinski: service from both sides? yes. Mr. Bencal: Why weren't
plans available when you submitted the application? You put the Chair
and this Board in a very precarious situation and position by no having
these plans here, we knew nothing about where the building was going to
be, the Chairman of the Board does not appreciate it. Why weren't these
done and submitted as you promised to the Clerk. Mr. Kondon: I do
apologize for that. The first architect had started then literally
dropped out on us. We had to scramble to get plans. No one appeared in
favor. In opposition. Leonard and Bertha Hoar, 418 Essex St. , how many
parking spaces? There is not enough parking for the businesses that are
there. Mr. Bencal: the petitioner has presented a plan showing the
parking of 129 existing spaces, they come out 7 spaces short on the
entire lot, that's what they are asking for, is a variance from parking
for the entire lot. Mrs. Hoar: they take the two parking spaces in
front of our house, which Crosby uses, you take two parking spaces in
front of 420 Essex st. , which they use, you take three parking spaces in
front of, we live on the corner of May St, which they use, you take
• across they street at 421, which they use. Those are all Crosby people
or CVS people. We have one tenant and that poor tenant can't even get a
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page 14
426 ESSEX ST. - CONTINUED
parking space. Mr. Luzinski: what you are saying is the employees of
these places are parking in front of your house. Mrs. Hoar: yes, all
the time. Mr. Hoar: I know its a public parking space but they are
there all day. Plus, lets get back to sweeping up. It's a regular
thing every day. Mrs. Hoar: that place is filthy. I am tired of
picking up rubbish from these places. Another thing, the kids coming
home from school. Would you like to have them dump stuff on your front
stairs all the time. To keep them from eating what they bought from the
pizza parlor, from the sub shop, etc. , they sit down, they eat, they
leave their bottles, they don't like the pickles, so I wet the stairs
down so they don't sit on them. This is what we have had to put up with
and he says this is going to be a nice clean place. Mr. Hoar: you
can't control this. Mrs. Hoar: whats going to happen when they leave
that place, they don't like what he served, they're on the way home, our
fence gets it. I have to go out there every day and pick up what people
don't like to eat. There is also a bus stop there, what do we get, we
get the styrofoam cups, the half eaten donuts, we get the kleenex,
people blow their noses and throw kleenex in our bushed. I'm tired of
it. Don't need any more. Rebuttal. Norman Marque, 64 Bailey Lane,
Georgetown, I lived in Salem for 35 years, ran a business in Salem for
. 17 years, we had problems with trash and everybody picked it up. The
zoning in that area is business. We are not asking for a zoning change.
The past problems you had, I am sorry. We are going to run a good
business. If we were going to run a restaurant we would not have enough
parking but we are not a restaurant. We hope that this business will
grow into other citys, we want to start in Salem, be a Salem based
business. We can put a push cart there, that is not what we want.
Hearing closed. Mr. Correnti: site location, what type of customer
base are you looking for at this site? Mr. Marque: we think we have an
impulse type business. This is not a destination place. Mr. Correnti:
what type menu? Hot dogs, chili dogs, drinks. Will be no cooking on the
premises. In trying to conform with the health dept. this building has
gotten bigger and bigger. Mr. Correnti: what are the actual dimensions
of the building? Mr. Marque: 12 x 16. We recently got ruling on
bathrooms and we only need one. Mr. Correnti: what about the neighbors
concerns? This something that I imagine you are going to get a lot of
high school business, you have the middle school across the street, a
lot of kids. How do you address this problem. Mr. Marque: evidently
they already have a problem there. We can't control that, but we can
police our area. We are not just coming into Salem, we have been here.
Anybody who knows me knows the pride I have in my business. I presently
have a business in Marblehead. We keep our property very nice. I pick
up paper every day. We will police the area. Mr. Correnti: you will
provide receptacles? Mr. Marque: we will, absolutely, we have to
because the landlord is requiring that in the lease. We have been put
through the wringer over this issue. They keep the parking lot clean.
• Part of our agreement is that we police this and it is not only once a
day, it is constant. Mr. Correnti: will there be a dumpster? No. Will
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page 15
426 ESSEX ST. - CONTINUED
be trash pick up dailey. Ms. Stirgwolt: you then have a lease
agreement? yes. Ms. Stirgwolt: I am not familiar with the history of
the area, when the other buildings were built. Mr. Bencal: the bank, as
it exists, was originally built as a Friendly's sometime in the mid
sixties, the Crosby's building was originally Elm Farm, they occupied
the entire building where the drugstore is and the bank was where the
liquor store is. CVS addition about 10 years ago. Mr. Febonio: this is
a tough one to call. I am leaning towards the neighbors objections, the
Councillors objections, it is going to increase the traffic, Crosby
doesn' t care about the neighborhood. It is like playing russian
roulette driving there. It is going to increase pedestrian traffic.
Kids being kids, I probably did the same thing, get your hot dog or
whatever, throw the wrapper anyplace. There is strong opposition. Mr.
Bencal: this has generated many phone calls. People have buttonholed me
on the street. It is a public safety problem. I can' t see this plan
for the life of me. Mr. Febonio: to squeeze one more business like
this shows total disregard for the neighbors, no concern for the
neighborhood. Mr. Kondon: Mr. Chairman, may we withdraw our petition.
Mr. Bencal: the petition has asked to withdraw. Mr. Luzinski: so
moved. Mr. Febonio seconded. Mr. Bencal: Motion by Mr. Luzinski,
• seconded by Mr. Febonio, under discussion? The Chairman will make the
comment that he has never voted for a withdrawal once the petition has
gone forward and his vote will remain the same way. You will require
three votes. Mr. Bencal, Mr. Correnti, Ms. Stirgwolt voted opposed to
withdrawal. Mr. Luzinski and Mr. Febonio voted in favor. Motion to
withdraw is denied. Mr. Luzinski: I feel it will be an attraction to
the children in the schools, whether before, after, or during classes
and I can just see the possibility of children running over there and I
can see the potential for an accident. I was surprised to find the
employees of the other businesses are parking on the street. Mr.
Correnti: I think Mr. Luzinski has hit one point on the head, it
appears to me the target market is the school children, it is pedestrian
traffic they are going for and if its hotdogs and tonic its got to be
the schools. The only way for them to get there is to cross the street
and that area is so busy, never mind the litter for a moment, I think
there is a legitimate safety question there, it is extremely busy route.
Mr. Febonio: who ever owns that property, to rent it out, knowing there
is existing problems there, shows no sensitivity to the neighbors at
all. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition as submitted,
Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY DENIED
•
• MINUTES - MAY 15, 1991
page 16
Mr. Febonio made a motion to accept the minutes as taped for April 17,
1991. Mr. Correnti seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED
The next scheduled meeting will be held June 19, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. ,
second floor of One Salem Green. Mr. Bencal said the Board could
possible have a second meeting June 26th so that we could take July off.
Mr. Febonio made a motion to adjourn, Mr. Luzinski seconded. Meeting
unanimously adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
•
•
,.aw4M
/ b (1Zit of S'ttlem, Aussadlusetts
• °: �. �F Pourb of �A"eal
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, September 11,
1991 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of
the meeting were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on August 28,
and September 4, 1991. Abutters and other interested persons were
notified by mail.
Present at the hearing were Board Members Bencal, Correnti, Febonio,
Luzinski, Stirgwolt and Associate Plante; Assistant Building Inspector
Harris and Clerk of the Board Sumrall.
Meeting was called to order by the Chairman Richard Bencal at 7:00 p.m. ,
Mr. Bencal Made note that Associate Member Ronald Plante was present
here this evening but would not be a voting member.
1 GREENWAY ROAD a/k/a 101 HIGHLAND AVE. - RICHARD AND MARYANN
• O'SHEA/MICHAEL GIGLIOTTI
Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting Variances to allow a
fence which is in violation of the requirements for fences in the
Entrance Corridor Overlay District and visibility at intersection to
remain. Property is located in an R-1 zone. Mr. Correnti read the
application. Mr. Bencal asked the Clerk how this petition was
advertised, as 1 Greenway Rd or 101 Highland Ave. Ms. Sumrall: both,
the ad referenced both addresses. Mr. Bencal: were the abutters for
both addresses sent notices. Ms. Sumrall: yes, they were sent according
to the Assessors which brought it to my attention that they listed it as
101 Highland Ave. so the proper abutters were notified. Mr. Correnti
read a letter from David Harris, Assistant Building Inspector to the
petitioners, dated August 6, 1991, advising them of the violations (on
file) . Mr. Richard O'Shea spoke for the petitioners, Mrs. O'Shea and
Mr. Gigliotti were present. Mr. O'Shea: when I bought the house, I
intended to put up a fence which I bought it. After we closed March
22nd I went out and had people look at the area, got estimates and
everyone told me on the estimates that I did not need a permit for the
fence. I had three estimates and all said I did not need a permit
unless the fence was over six feet. So I put up the fence. I like to
have cookouts with my family and they have small children. I also like
my privacy. There is a lot of traffic on Highland Ave. , there is a lot
of noise. Speaking in favor. Mary Ann O'Shea, 1 Greenway Rd. , we
received a letter from the neighbors and I would to submit it to the
• Board. Mr. Correnti read the letter from Danette, and David Schrader
and Patricia, Jacqueline and Daniel Conway, 2 Berrywood Lane. On file.
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
• page two
1 GREENWAY RD.a/k/a 101 HIGHLAND AVE. - CONTINUED
Michael Gigliotti, 1 Greenway Rd. , this fence is very attractive and is
much better than the trees that were there before. Speaking in
Opposition. Leon Gagnon, 99 Highland Ave. , the fence obstructs my view
coming out onto Highland Ave. I don't care about the ECOD, just my
view. In Rebuttal. Mr. O'Shea: as far as Mr. Gagnon's concerns, we
have spoke and I believe we can solve the problem. Hearing closed. Mr.
Luzinski: I would like to hear the solution. Mr. O'Shea: We could cut
that corner of the fence down, rounding the side closest to him. Mr.
Febonio: would you mind that being a condition? No. Mr. Luzinski:
how much of a violation is there now? Mr. Bencal: it is in the ECOD
and there is no building permit, this is the only district that requires
a building permit for a fence. Also, the fence is six feet and that is
not allowed at an intersection. Mr. Febonio: I sympathize with them,
wanting tranquility and privacy. This will also act as a noise barrier.
I saw the fence and it is acceptably asthetic. To cut this down to
three feet would make it nonsensical to even have a fence. Ms.
Stirgwolt: I attend the Planning Board meeting and they said it should
be adjusted to fit the ordinance but they did not send a letter. Mr.
Correnti: so they did not take a stand. I was concerned with the
safety issue. The only time I can see the fence is coming from Highland
Ave. on to Greenway Rd. The lot is unique, it curves and the fence
• follows that curve. I am satisfied regarding safety. I understand Mr.
Gagnon and I am happy to hear they are working things out,' his point is
well taken. Mr. Bencal: I find it very strange that this is the first
petition we have had regarding the Entrance Corridor Overlay District
and the esteemed Planning Board has gone south on us again. Would
shrubbery solve the problem. Mr. O'Shea: I think that would take more
of the view and would be a lot Of maintenance. We also need the fence
to keep trash out. Mr. Bencal: if I read you right, because of the
trash and because of being on a major highway this makes this unique.
Ms. Stirgwolt: what were the trees like? Mrs. O'Shea: two large
maples and pine tree that took up the whole yard. Ms. Stirgwolt made a
motion to grant the petition on condition a legal building permit is
obtained and the section of fence adjacent to 99 Highland Ave. will be
altered so as to lessen the obstruction of the view entering onto
Highland Ave. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
•
• MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
page three
53 MASON ST. - KATHY WELLS, JANE VERBANIC, ANDREW AND AARON WEINSTEIN
Petitioners are requesting a variance to allow portion of the property
to be used for exercise classes. The property is located the the BPD
District. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the Fire
Department stating the property has no current compliance relative to
smoke detectors. (on file) Kathy Wells made the presentation.
Submitted copies of the layout of the entire building and indicated on
the plan the section they would be using. Would like an aerobics and
exercise class in this porti=. No one appeared in favor or in
opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: parking is shared? yes,
there is plenty of parking. Mr. Febonio: what are the hours of
operation? Ms. Wells: 7 am. to 8 p.m. Mon. through Sat. Mr. Correnti:
what else is' there? Ms. Wells: warehousing, retail agency and offices.
Ms. Stirwolt: where are the egresses? Ms. Wells showed her on the
plans. Will not have more that 30 per class. Mr. Bencal: one of the
unique things about BPD is it allows a mixed use. Ms. Stirgwolt made a
motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with all
city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations; all
renovations be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, a legal
building permit be obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained and
all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
• safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
28 CLARK STREET - ERNEST AND PHYLLIS DEARBORN
The petitioners, owners of the property are requesting a Variance from
side setback requirements to allow construction of a deck and walkway in
this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the application. There was no
additional correspondence. Mr. Dearborn represented himself. I have a
room and I would like to have a 4 foot walkway go around that. I could
open it up if anyone wanted they could go out without having to go into
the yard. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed.
Mr. Luzinski: just variance from sideline, that's all? Yes. Mr.
Correnti: what would the setback be when this is constructed. Mr.
Luzinski: the walkway will be 4 foot, the setback now is 12 feet so we
are talking 8 feet. We are talking a 2 foot encroachment. Mr.
Correnti: is that right sir? Mr. Dearborn: approximately, 7 or 8
feet. Mr. Febonio: what is on that side of the property? Mr.
Dearborn: just the house next door. Mr. Febonio: he has no objection?
No. Ms. Stirgwolt: it is already nonconforming. Mr. Correnti: no, he
now has 12 feet. Very odd shaped lot. Mr. Febonio: you have no
problem if the decision reads that the walkway be no larger than four
feet. No problem with that. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the
variance requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and
state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations; all construction be
as per the plans and dimensions submitted; a legal building permit be
• obtained, all requirements of the Fire Dept. be adhered to, width of
walkway be no more that 4 ft. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
• MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1992
page four
224 CANAL STREET - DONNA MATCZAK
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to add a second level to a one
family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application
and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating the property is not in
compliance with laws regarding installation of smoke detectors. Ms.
Matcak represented herself. I would like to put a second level on our
house, this was left to me by my mother. I am married now, we have our
own family and the size does not meet our needs. There are only four
rooms as it exists right now. Out of the block of houses on this
street, this the only single level on the street. Have lived there all
my life. Mr. Febonio: will this still be a single family? Yes. No one
appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: Will
this be done by a licensed contractor? Ms. Matczak: yes, my contractor
is here tonight if you have any questions. Mr. Febonio: no, what is
the name? Bonavie Construction, 50 Perkins St. , Ray Bonavie: have all
necessary licenses, State, Salem. Mr. Bencal: I had the opportunity to
speak with an abutter to an abutter about this petition and basically I
was told the same thing that this lady told me. They could not make the
meeting tonight but they had no problem with this at all. In fact,
thought it would add to the neighborhood. If you see it, it is very
small, they thought it would enhance the neighborhood. What does
• something like this cost? Ms. Matcak: about forty to sixty thousand
complete. Mr. Correnti: it seems we could allow this without it
detracting from the ordinances, it would enhance the neighborhood. Ms.
Stirgwolt: I would agree that adding the bedrooms would add more
stability to the neighborhood. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the
petition requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and
state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations; the proposed
construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted; all exterior
finishes be compatible with the existing structure; a legal building
permit is to be obtained; a certificate of occupancy be obtained; all
requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety
are to be strictly adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
64 BUTLER ST. - JOSE PEREIRA (PETITIONER) VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
(OWNER)
Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow conversion to a two family
and to construct an enclosed porch. The property is located in an R-2
district. Mr. Correnti read the application and correspondence from the
Fire Dept. , no objection; the Historic Commission, no position. (on
file) . Mr. Bencal: before you begin your presentation, do you
presently own the property (speaking to Mr. Pereira) Mr. Pereira: no
sir. Kenneth Hill, Real Estate Broker for the Veterans Administration.
Mr. Bencal: ok, is there a Purchase and Sale Agreement? Not at this
time. Mr. Correnti: who owns the property? Mr. Hill: the Veterans
• Administration. Mr. Bencal: without a Purchase & Sale Agreement, not
sure of his standing. Mr. Hill: I can show you a copy the form they
• MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1992
page five
64 BUTLER STREET - CONTINUED
make out to purchase. Mr. Bencal: I want to see a signed Purchase and
Sale Agreement, I think. Mr. Correnti: they under contract? Mr. Hill:
yes, just waiting for this to pass. Mr. Correnti: who owns this and who
is the potential buyer? Mr. Hill: The Veterans Administration owns it
and Mr. Pereira wants to buy it. He owns the house next door and he
desires to buy this, it is a gutted out house and he's going to convert
from a single family to a two family for his two brothers who will be
occupants of the property. Mr. Correnti: we have the owner and the
future owner here, we can proceed. Mr. Pereira made the presentation.
Would like to make two family, I have two brothers and would like them
to live there. Every will be done legal. Mr. Hill: it is zoned for
two family, the abutting homes are two family, most of the homes are two
family. The lot size is sufficient for off street parking. The plans
will meet the historic aspect of the neighborhood. Speaking in favor.
Ed Pereira, 73 Aborn St. , if this goes through, I will live there. I am
married with a family and this will help me out. Eric Pereira, 55
Lowell St.Peabody, submitted a petition with a total of 17 signatures,
in favor. I will also be living there. No one appeared in opposition.
Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: looking at these sketches, that's what
they are, sketches, where are the egress. Mr. Pereira showed Mr.
• Febonio and the rest of the Board, on the submitted sketches, where he
would construct a stairway between 64 and 62 Butler St. Mr. Febonio:
who is going to do this work? Mr. Pereira: my brother, he is in
construction. He helped me with plans and everything. Mr. Febonio: I
was hoping you would have a licensed contractor, this is quite extensive
work. Hate to see it done mickey mouse. Not to demean your brother.
Mr. Bencal: I have questions regarding this stairway which we don't see
on the plans. Mr. Febonio: I have no objections but the plans are very
sketchy at best. Mr. Bencal: I agree, the plans are inadequate, the
petitioner has spoke of a stairway on the exterior and I don't see them
on the plans. Mr. Pereira explained the stairs would be on the outside
of the housed. Mr. Bencal: you don't show them, what we have is
nothing to go on. Mr. Febonio: would it be in the petitioners best
interest to withdraw this and come back with plans that we can
understand and we can make a valid decision. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Febonio
has made a very good, in my estimation, suggestion that petitioner may
consider withdrawing this petition. The plans are clearly inadequate.
Mr. Febonio knows what he is talking about. We hear about stairway
outside, don't see them on the plans. You can go forward if you want,
I'm not telling you what to do, you have the option of withdrawing and
coming back with adequate plans or continuing on this evening. Mr.
Hill: is there anyway you can place this on the table and give him
chance to bring plans. My question, in representing the seller, is, if
he withdraws are we talking a couple of months. Mr. Bencal: depends
on when he submits. We have a meeting scheduled for the 16th of
October. Petition has to be in within two weeks. These are the plans we
• are voting on, these are the plans for this petition, I don't believe
you have the option to submit a different plan after these have been
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
page six
64 BUTLER STREET - CONTINUED
advertised, continuing this would not help. Your options are to
withdraw or to go on with it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Correnti:
I believe that is correct. Mr. Bencal: there are setbacks that have
not be advertised. Someone may not be opposed as we received the
petition but they may be opposed to an outside staircase. Mr. Hill: I
can see you point on that. Ms. Stirgwolt: would also like to see
better plans, these plans as presented are not professional and we need,
to be able to rule on this, dimensions on the plans so that a person
looking at them can read them. See where your doors are, where your
stairs are, etc. , do you see what I mean. I could not support this
because I could not be sure your work would be adequate quality or what
you told us without better plans than this. Mr. Pereira requested leave
to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski moved to allow the
petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5 BALCOMB ST. - FERNANDO GOMES
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from use and
parking to allow two family dwelling to be converted to a three family
dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application,
• letter from the City Planner relative to substantial change (on file) ;
letter to the Chairman of the Planning Board from the Assistant City
Solicitor (on file) ; Fire Dept. , no objection; and the Historic
Commission, (on file) . Gina Gomes, what we want to do, when we bought
the house the electricity was in, the plumbing was all done, there was a
permit and we thought it was still valid. The previous owners had a
permit for this. We found the permit was not so we started all over.
Mr. Bencal: Before the Board can go on with the petition you must show
to us where the substantial changes are. He explained to the
petitioners what was meant by substantial change. Mr. Gomes: we
changed the bedroom and living room. Ms. Stirgwolt: made any changes in
the parking plan from the last petition? Mr. Bencal: did the
petitioner ask for a variance from parking on the last application? Ms.
Stirgwolt: was it worded the same? Ms. Sumrall: the last application
read "to convert from a two family to a three family" no request for a
variance from parking. Mr. Luzinski: I am not sure but I thought a
substantial change was for exterior. I am not sure is just changing the
interior is enough. Would like some clarification. Mr. Correnti: I
agree with the planning board and they voted unanimously that there was
substantial and specific change. Mr. Febonio made a motion that there
is a substantial change from the previous petition which was denied
March 20, 1991, Mr. Correnti seconded. The Board voted four in favor,
one opposed (Mr. Bencal) , the Board will hear the petition. Mr. Bencal:
now we can continue, is there anyone in favor, anyone in favor; hearing
none, is there anyone opposed, anyone opposed? Hearing none, I declare
the public portion closed. I would like the first comment, which is
is
unusual, but having sat on this petition originally and written the
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
page seven
5 BALCOMB ST. - CONTINUED
decision back in 1986 (referring to the Special Permit which was granted
to Richard and Linda LaTouch) , one of the conditions was that five legal
parking spaces be maintained on site. Petitioner has submitted parking
plan which is not legal, the proposed spaces, two may be legal at best.
We have piggyback on the corner. Also, in the Zoning Bulletin we
received several months ago, land use, one of the points they brought
out, it that to have garages or parking spaces is reasonably related to
legitimate governmental purposes by removing cars from the in order to
reduce traffic, congestion and enhance public safety. I don't think
there's been a showing of practical difficulty, it has been used as two
family. Now that it requires a variance, I haven't seen any hardship.
It is on a corner lot, there is considerable traffic, I think it's in
the best interest of the City to keep the cars of Balcomb and Bradford
Streets as much as we can. Mr. Luzinski: the petition that was granted
had a condition to maintain five legal spaces? Mr. Bencal: that is
correct. Mr. Luzinski: the five spaces shown are not legal, so the
original petition was not or did not comply with that. Mr. Bencal:
apparently when it was granted in 86, they began some work, they did not
continue and go through with it and the permit lapsed. Mr. Febonio:
how many could they get. The Board members went over the plans in an
• attempt to figure how many parking spaces could be made available. Mr.
Bencal: this is hard, no knowing where the curb cuts are, there is a
large tree on the property. Mr. Febonio: at best, giving him the
benefit. Again the Board tried measuring out the parking, going over the
scale and taking into consideration the required two foot buffer. Mr.
Luzinski: would only work if the curb cut is on Bradford. Mr. Bencal:
the curb cut is on Bradford but there is also a fence and a very high
wall. I see the property every day. Petitioner at best can put two
parking spaces. Mr. Febonio: would there be an additional space if
they could come in diagonal? Mr. Bencal: don't think driveway width
would allow that. Ms. Stirgwolt: there is a garden there, I look at
the site today. Mr. Febonio: could cut the garden down and use for
parking. Mr. Bencal: would involve substantial work, with curb cut and
grading. Ms. Stirgwolt: and you still only get another two. Mr.
Febonio: how many does he need? five Mr. Bencal: I am not even sure
the piggy back spaces are legal and far as size. Even if we could
consider that. Mr. Correnti: asking the petitioner. I know you are
asking for a variance from parking but it appears there could only be
two legal spaces on the lot right now. Would you be willing to remove
some of the garden and concrete to accomodate some additional parking.
Would that be feasible to you? Mr. Gomes: no, because, right now I am
parking three cars. (indicated on the plans how he parks them now) To
put more parking would have to break cement. Mr. Correnti: would you be
willing to remove part some of the fence. You would have to come 20
feet from parking spaces numbered 3, 4, 5 5 and remove the fence so you
can get to the spaces, then you would not need variance from parking.
• Mr. Bencal: if the petitioner is willing to do that, then the Board
could divide the question. Mr. Correnti: back in 86 there was
• MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
page eight
5 BALCOMB ST. - CONTINUED
neighborhood support. The Board found that with the five parking spaces
they could have three family, would there be any difference in the
petition as presented? Mr. Bencal: I don't see any hardship. Mr.
Correnti: if he agrees to the five parking spaces would there be any
difference in your feeling, any difference in the petition you authored
back in 86? Mr. Bencal: I don't see the support, there are different
abutters than there were in 86. 1 don't think it is the same, I don't
think they are able to comply. Now they need a hardship, there is a
big tree and it is not shown, we don't know how close it is, would it
require taking the tree down. Will we have the petitioner coming back
saying the tree is in the way, now it's a hardship. He's asked for a
variance from parking, the other petitioner did not, one of the
conditions was they maintain five parking spaces, maybe the didn't go
through with it because they knew they couldn't provide the five spaces.
We don' t know. Ms. Stirgwolt: we can speculate, the law has changed
regarding going from two to a three since the first petition was granted
so we are really dealing with a different law. Mr. Correnti: how would
you apply that to this, I don't know if it is speculation except the
petitioner is not speaking very much for himself at this point. I think
we are left to speculate. Because of that tree and we don't know if that
• is in the way of spaces or not. Is it? Mr. Gomes: I couldn't tell
you right now. Mr. Plante: he has asked for a variance from parking.
Board went over the plans again trying to arrive at a satisfactory
parking plan. Mr. Bencal: he can't fit three legal spaces going across
where is says porches, it only measures 27 feet at best and you need a
two foot buffer. Mr. Plante has made the comment that the petitioner
has asked for variance from parking and I don't see a solution unless we
grant the variance. Mr. Correnti: I think what we were looking for was
if he could get closer to the five, maybe three or four, might make a
variance more appealing. Certainly he doesn't have to, he can have the
two and ask for the variance. The petitioner is not putting forth a lot
of information here. Mr. Bencal: the Board once again is going above
and beyond. Mr. Correnti: if he has two legal spaces we can go ahead
and vote on that. Mr. Febonio: again, to allow a variance with only
two legal spaces I admit right now I would vote it down, if effort was
put in by petitioner to come up with at least four, I would be more
inclined. Mr. Correnti: are the porches existing. Yes. Ms.
Stirgwolt: when did you purchase the property? Mr. Gomes: January of
91. Ms. Stirgwolt: what is the status of the building now? Two
apartments. Ms. Stirgwolt: some of the work was started, has it been
completed? no. Ms. Stirgwolt: you purchased this as a two family?
yes. Mr. Correnti: what is your intended use for the third floor? Mr.
Gomes: my mother will live there. Mr. Febonio: any other three
familys in the area. Mr. Bencal: across the street is condominiums.
Mr. Plante: he is here asking for a variance from parking, I don't see
• any problem, it is our decision as to whether we are going to grant this
or not. I think it is a justifiable request and we should grant this or
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
page nine
5 BALCOMB ST. - CONTINUED
not. Mr. Bencal: we can split the vote, if we vote against the request
for the parking then he has to provide five spaces or he cannot have
three apartments. Ms. Stirgwolt: would the petitioner address the
hardship, I have heard none. Mr. Febonio: when you purchased this did
you feel the permits were there? yes. Ms. Stirgwolt: he knew it was a
two family when he purchased it. Mr. Correnti: on the deed it would
have said there was a Special Permit stating he could have a three
family. Mr. Bencal: How did you purchase the property? Mr. Gomes: as
a two family. Mr. Bencal: at any time did a Real Estate Agent indicate
this was a three family or that you could put a three family? Mr. Gomes:
yes, he said he had all the permits. Mr. Bencal: who said? Mr. Gomes.
Mr. LaTouch. Mr. Plante: in 1986 a Special Permit was granted for a
three family, obviously the condition that has not been met is the one
for the five legal spaces. Mr. Gomes is here tonight requesting a
variance from parking. Since the Board has already approved of the
change to a three family. Mr. Bencal: that was a special permit, we
are looking at a variance now. Mr. Plante: the hardship is pretty
obvious, the fact that this was secured, these people saw the permits,
probably didn't fully understand, bought with the intent that they would
be able convert to a three, then this problem has confronted them. The
• here this evening requesting a variance from the legal requirements of
five parking spaces. Seems like a sincere attempt on their part to
comply. I frankly don't see anything wrong with the Board granting
their request. Mr. Bencal: any more comments from the Board, if not is
there a motion. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition
required on condition petitioner comply with all city and state
statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction be done as
per the plans and dimensions submitted, a legal building permit be
obtained, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and
fire safety be strictly adhered to, a certificate of occupancy be
obtained, four legal parking spaces be maintained on site for the free
and open use of the residents of 5 Balcomb St. Mr. Febonio seconded.
The Board voted two in favor (Mr. Febonio and Mr. Luzinski) , three
opposed (Mr. Bencal, Mr. Correnti and Ms. Stirgwolt) Having failed to
garner the required four affirmatives to grant, the motion fails and the
petition is denied.
DENIED 2-3
72 LEAVITT ST. - PALMERS COVE YACHT CLUB (PETITIONERS) GEORGE MAGUIRE
(OWNER)
Petitioners are requesting any and all variances necessary to allow the
property to be divided, to demolish the existing garages and to
resurface the lot to allow use as a parking lot and boat storage. The
property is located in a B-4 district. Mr. Correnti read the
application. Additional correspondence from Councillors Gaudreault and
• Nowak, Fire Department, and correspondence from Attorney McMahon to
Inspector Lapointe, Salem Fire Dept. (all on file)
• MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
page ten
72 LEAVITT ST. - CONTINUED
Mr. Bencal: I spoke with Inspector LaPointe and I was informed that if
there was any problems with any petitions at all this evening that he
would be here. I think his letter speaks for itself. Attorney Michael
McMann, represented the petitioners, I am also a member of the Yacht
Club. We would like to divide a portion of this property identified as
lot B from that portion which is identified as lot A. They currently
consist of property located at 72 Leavitt St. I believe we can do this
and I suggest you may do this without affecting the intent or the
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this division is to
enable the sale of lot B to the adjoining Palmers Cove Yacht Club which
is identified on the plan. The resulting lot A will be consistant with
existing area. The area in question, which is B-4 district, and as I
look at the ordinance, there is nothing in it that specifically provides
or allows for the storage of boats. It could be used for automotive or
wholesale and I think even boat sales. I thought it appropriate to
specifically identified this use, boat storage which would be
accomplished in the winter, in the summer will be parking for club
members. The reason I'm here tonight, and we do have a hardship,
changes have occurred in the area over the past few years which have
required us to acquire that property for not only the betterment of the
• club but would aid the neighborhood and the traffic patterns in the
neighborhood. Went over the plans with the Board. That particular area
of Leavitt St. essentially deadends at the Shetland property gate, the
main road they use for all the truck traffic comes in through gate.
Palmers Cove for many many years, going back to 1930's had access
through the gate located midpoint at the properties so as to gain access
to the Shetland property road. This was used not only for boats but for
parking as well. I would estimate in our own lot we only have about 28
spaces, so the Shetland property was essential. Property is Shetland
has gone through heavy duty improvement, built up shore front berm
almost 8 to 10 feet high and as result they sealed up the gate, we can't
have that access. This has impacted on the club, our people are parking
on. The club is strict on membership, no more than 300. Lot B has
always been used as rental garages, concrete commercial garages, even
oil trucks, so I don't think this will vary the intent what so ever.
The abutters, I think it's important to comment, is an Edward Santisi,
he operates his auto care business, years ago was the original
Gauthiers, and he is also the owner of the lot out front, I have spoke
to him and he indicates he has no objection. Have spoke with Fire dept.
and there only concern is access and we will provide them access on both
sides and there will be special walk installed and only fire would have
access. In general I think this will improve the neighborhood, will
eliminate an eyesore. The garages will be torn down and replaces with
linpack material for the parking and boat storage. The owner of both 70
and 72 Leavitt St. , George Maguire is here tonight, he has recently
acquired these properties and he's doing, if anyone has been down there,
• a great job improving it. Mr. Luzinski: with the loss of the entrance
from Shetland you have only one exit? Mr. McMahon: currently we have
• MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
page eleven
72 LEAVITT ST. - CONTINUED
the access that comes in from Leavitt St. to Palmers Cove, we are
opening up another gate which was formerly open, those will be the two.
Mr. Bencal: before going on with this I would like to recognize Mr.
Plante as an expert consultant, if you have any questions feel free to
ask him. Mr. Febonio: how parking spaces will be made available?
About 35. Mr. Febonio: How many boats in the winter? Mr. McMahon:
that would depend on the size of the boats, 12 to 20. Mr. Febonio: why
are you using lynpak as opposed to hottop? Mr. McMahon: if you use
hottop there are several problems, number one, the heat beating down on
the hottop reflects up and on the wood boats especially, it acts like an
oven and dries them out. Speaking in favor. Mr. Callahan, the
Commodore, I would to add a little more. Shetland took away the gate
and we have a small gate going out to Leavitt St. , we also lost a couple
of parking spaces and if we do get this variance we are going to lose a
couple more, we have to take and leave that space open for our travelers
to get from the water to the new parking lot, also, we have gone through
very expensive wiring. We had to put wiring underground. We touched
all bases, went to Fire Marshal and everything else, he gave us good
response and everything. Would appreciate your consideration in
granting this. Mr. Ron LeBlanc, Vice Commodore, it would be a big help
• to the club, we need the space and it would look a lot better than it
does now. George Maguire, 4 Moffat Rd. , owner of the property, this
will improve the area. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed.
Ms. Stirgwolt: I several questions, will it also be for boat
maintenance? Mr. McMahon: by virtue of there being there in storage, I
am sure there will be. Ms. Stirgwolt: concerned about the running of
engines and the exhaust fumes for the adjacent residences. Mr. McMahon:
the engines are water cooled, in other words they need an outside supply
of water, but also many of the moving parts are also water cooled. If
there were any runnings to be done what-so-ever it would be only be
temporary. Ms. STirgwolt: how many residences are in those two
residential buildings next door? Mr. McMahon: two and two, commercial
space here (indicating on map) and there is another residence here
(indicating on map) which I believe is two family. Ms. Stirgwolt:
lighting? Mr. McMahon: not necessary this area is, essentially, and
when I say not needed, we aren't planning on an extensive lighting
system. We currently have one that illuminates this entire lot so I am
sure we may be placing one or two flood lights, we intend to fence it
off, that is the reason for the discussion with the Fire Marshal, as to
the special locked gate. Also the back end of this building runs on the
lot line which is a commercial building. Mr. Stirgwolt: would you mind
a condition that exterior lighting situated away from abutters. Mr.
Bencal: we can make condition. It is part of the Zoning Ordinance that
no exterior lighting create a nuisance. Mr. Correnti: How is this
going to be divided? Mr. McMahon: Lot B is being separated from Lot
A. , A & B is currently one lot. We have already received permission to
• raze the buildings. Mr. Correnti: are going to lease this property?
Mr. McMahon: we have a purchase and sale agreement. We are buying lot B
• MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1991
page twelve
72 LEAVITT ST. - CONTINUED
Mr. Correnti: Mr. Maguire, you currently own this, are you under
agreement? Mr. Maguire: yes, it is contingent on this being granted.
Mr. Correnti: I would like to commend the attorney for an excellent
presentation. We've had at least one petition where we have had all
aspects of a variance addressed, we have hardship addressed, special
conditions were addressed, not have to pull teeth so to speak, even
though he is an attorney from Lynn and has done an excellent job.
Ms. STirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition on condition the
petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations; all construction shall be in accordance with plans and
dimensions submitted; a building permit for the demolition be obtained;
all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to; petitioner obtain all necessary permits
and approvals from any other city board or commission which has
juridiciton, including, but no limited to the Planning Board Approval
for subdivision, exterior light comply with the zoning ordinance and not
create a nuisance for adjacent property. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
OLD/NEW BUSINESS; Mr. Luzinski: in our ordinance, we went through this
• one before, with a local yacht club and it concerned me that there is no
limitations how far away a boat can be parked from the lot line and I
think somewhere in our zoning that should be addressed. In my on
neighborhood there are boats right up to the lot line and the houses are
right on the lot line, they scares me. If one of those boats go, there
goes the whole of Turner St. Mr. Bencal: unfortunately the Board has
no power to write the ordinance. Perhaps next January someone would
propose it to city council.
The Agenda received from the Historic Commission was noted and placed on
file.
The Board of Appeal adjourned at 10:05 p.m. , next scheduled meeting to
be held October 16, 1992.
Respectfully submitted,
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
•
b (fitu of Salem, 'fflttssadjusetts
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - OCTOBER 16, 1991
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, October 16,
1991 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing
were duly published in the Salem Evening New on October 2 and 9, 1991.
Present at the meeting were Board Members Bencal, Correnti, Febonio,
Stirgwolt, Associate Member Plante, Assistant Building Inspector Harris
and Clerk of the Board Sumrall.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman Richard
Bencal. Mr. Plante was appointed a voting member.
Mr. Bencal: I have an announcement to make before we begin the meeting.
Tonight unfortunately is the last meeting of Mr. Correnti. He has
decided to go on to bigger and better things. One of the conditions of
• his employment was that he move on from this Board, unfortunately. I am
going to miss him and his judgement, as has been the habit of this Board
over the past few years, we tend to protect our own and recognize our
own. Joe, on behalf of the Board thank you very much. Mr. Correnti was
presented with a placque. Mr. Bencal: this being your last meeting I
will give you the option of chairing this meeting. Mr. Correnti: thank
you very much but I would like my last meeting to be chaired by you.
156 BRIDGE ST. - JOSEPH SKOMURSKI
Petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert a two family dwelling
into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. This petition was
originally heard on June 19, 1991, it was continued until August 21,
1991 and again continued until this evening, October 16, 1991. Mr.
Bencal: is the petitioner or his representative present? Mr.
Skomurski: yes, I am here. Mr. Bencal: I have a letter from you Mr.
Skomurski indicating your desire to withdraw without prejudice. That's
correct. Mr. Bencal: I have a couple of questions for you. Two of the
conditions to allow you to continue were that you sign a time waiver,
which you have, the second one being that you provide this Board with
documentation that you notified the abutters. Have you that with you?
Mr. Skomurski: no, I don't have that with me. I thought that was only
if I was going to continue. Mr. Bencal: no sir, the petition is
continued till tonight, this is the second time you have failed to do
this. Mr. Skomurski: I notifed them once. Mr. Bencal: we were never
• shown copies of the return postage card. Mr. Skomurski: I thought it
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page two
156 BRIDGE ST. - CONTINUED
was done the first time, I did not do it this time because I knew I was
going to withdraw. Mr. Bencal: we have a request from petitioner to
withdraw are there any questions of comments from the Board. Mr.
Febonio made a motion to allow petition to be withdrawn. Mr. Plante
seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN
40 & 42 CLARK STREET - RALPH SALVO
Petitioner is requesting variances from frontage to allow construction
of single family dwelling on each lot. Property is located in a
Residential single kfamily district. Mr. Correnti read the application
and a letter from the City of Salem Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr.
Thomas Salvo represented his father Ralph and his mother Katherine
Salvo. The petition is for variance from frontage. Each lot have
frontage of about 75 feet. One hundred feet is required. Both lots are
over 20,000 sq.ft. and will meet all other density requirements. Reason
for the request is so my parents can construct a single family on one
lot and my sister can construct on the other lot. My parents have
already spent over 40,000 dollars in meeting the requirements specified
• by the planning board which was required by the original variance which
was unanimously approved on July 16, 1986. If they could not continue
they would face substantial financial hardship as well as the hardship
of not being able to use to land to build housing for them and my
sister's family. The Variance previously granted created two separate
lots. The only way to build a house on these lots is to get a variance
from frontage. This special circumstance, the lots already being
divided but still requiring variance is why my parents petitioned the
Board tonight. If granted would allow my parents to build housing that
is right in line with the surrounding neighborhood. Houses on Clark St.
have frontages varying from a minimum of 40 feet to a maximum of 100
feet. As stated before, my parents lots have about 75 feet of frontage,
the granting of this variance would not derogate or be detrimental to
the public good, would not nullifying or derogate from the purpose of
the ordinance. I respectfully request this petition be granted. Mr.
Correnti: this will meet the setbacks. Yes. Mr. Bencal: he is not
asking for any dimensional relief, he would have to meet all the
requirements or he could not build. No one appeared in favor or in
opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: having sat on this back in
1986, I don't remember it, but looking at the decision, written by me, I
don't see any change. The petitioner did not exercise the variance and
build the dwellings and now he wants them. Ms. Stirgwolt: no impact on
wetlands. Mr. Salvo: have gone through the planning board and the
conservation. Mr. Bencal: any other questions or comments, hearing
none is there a motion? Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the
petition on condition all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative
is
to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, petitioners shall
obtain the approval of any city board or commission that would have
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page three
40 & 42 CLARK ST. - CONTINUED
jurisdiction, the division of the lots shall be as per the plans
submitted. One lot to have square footage of 22,894 plus/minus and one
lot having square footage of 20,553 plus/minus. Each lot having front
of 75.6 plus/minus. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
7 WALL STREET - LYDIA KING
Petitioner is requesting a Variance to convert a single family dwelling
into a two family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Correnti read the
application, referred to previous decisions. He read communication from
the Salem Fire Dept. which stated the property had no compliance but
that they had no objections to this being granted under certain
conditions (on file) Lydia King represented herself. I would like to
convert from a one family to a two family permanently, the two family
was approved and has been in existance for ten years, plenty of parking,
no opposition from the neighbors. No one appeared in favor or in
opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: In 1981 the decision stated
the petitioner would comply with all applicable fire codes, this was
renewed in 1986, yet if I heard correctly tonight, you still don't have
• smoke detectors. Ms. King: I have smoke detectors. Mr. Bencal: the
fire department doesn't know about it. Ms. King: they inspected them.
Mr. LaPointe: there was no follow-up, just a matter of a phone call.
Mr. Febonio: I don't understand this five years business. Mr. Bencal:
what the Board did, in 86, if memory serves me, because this was an R-1.
The Board, in an effort to see if there would be any problems with the
neighborhood. The petitioner has asked to make it permanent tonight. I
would think after 10 years if there were any problems we certainly would
have heard about it tonight. But this is not unique, there were not
many of them. Mr. Febonio: the Board has the right to do that? Put a
five year condition? Mr. Bencal: yes, the Board just did with the
gentleman down the willows with his boat. It is not a common practice.
Mr. Correnti: what do you need, what is your need for this variance.
Is there a second apartment, tenants there now? yes. Mr. Febonio: do
you have parking? yes. Ms. Stirgwolt: how many parking spaces. three
to four. Mr. Correnti: this has been an ongoing thing? yes. Mr.
Plante: I am confused. Why was this done this way? Mr. Bencal: to
allay the fears of the neighborhood in case there was a problem. Mr.
Plante: you are here tonight to make it permanent. Is this usual. Mr.
Bencal: it is not usual, we have done it in rare instances, this is one
of probably a handful. Any further questions or comments. Mr. Plante
made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with
any and all conditions in the prior decisions with the exception of the
five year restriction, Petitioner comply with all requirements of the
Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety, petitioner comply
with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, the
• property shall remain two family so long as it remains owner occupied.
Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page four
1 EMERTON ST. - CLAIRE CASTONGUAY BLANCHETTE
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to construct an enclosed deck
in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the application and letter from
the Fire Dept. , no objection however, the property is not in compliance.
Ms. Blanchette represented herself. I am attempting to replace the
existing approximately 5 ,x 7 deck to an 8 x 10 for purposes of keeping
in weather tight and to improve appearance. No one appeared in favor or
in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: reason for Special Permit
is that it is on an undersized lot, it is not going to be interfering.
There's no encroachment there, just the fact that it is all
nonconforming. Mr. Correnti: yes, it is an existing nonconforming
structure. This is the type of thing that its a shame the petitioners
have to come to the Board, however, she does. Again, we are talking
about addition of 2 x 3. It puts her two feet closer to the lot lines
but shes still plenty of distance away. I can't imagine any objection
from anyone, it's too bad she had to give up an evening and go through
the expense of coming before the Board. It was the smart thing to do,
will avoid any future problems, maybe in the future we could get the
ordinance changed to eliminate this type of appeal so people won't have
to come for minute things like this. Mr. Plante: seems to me it would
make more sense for something like this to go to the Building Inspector,
• as long as there is no encroachment. Mr. Bencal: if they were putting
on the same size she would not have to come, but she is enlarging. Ms.
Stirgwolt: she is encroaching further of the rear setback, if I am not
mistaken. One inch equals ten feet so she is already encroaching in the
rear. Will the exterior match the house? yes. Ms. Stirgwolt made a
motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition the petitioner
comply with all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes and
regulations, all construction be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted, a legal building permit shall be obtained, petitioner shall
comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke
and fire safety, and all exterior finishes be in harmony with the
existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
1 & 3 SUMNER RD.- MICHAEL CONNOR AND ELEANOR SANDERSON
The petitioners are requesting variances to allow the property to be
divided so as to allow the transfer of approximately 2589 sq.ft. of land
in the rear of 1 Sumner Rd. , which is owned by Sanderson, to 3 Sumner
Rd. , which is owned by Connor. Both parcels are located in an R-1 zone.
Mr. Correnti read the application and letter from the Fire Dept. stating
the fire dept. had no object but that the property was not in compliance
are requesting that any granting of this be conditioned upon property
being brought into compliance. Mr. Connor made the presentation. What I
have now is a driveway, goes up and curves to the back of the house. He
pointed out on the plans. The driveway has sharp curve, all this land
• up in here (indicating on plans) is ledge, it drops off about 50 feet
from right about here down to the house. (Again, indicating on plans) .
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page five
1 AND 3 SUMNER ROAD - CONTINUED
Up on top I have asphalt and some of the asphalt is on Mrs. Sandersons
property now. It has been there for I don't know 35/40 years. I just
bought the house so in order to straighten things out, this is what I
propose. Referring to plans. As long as she agrees with everything. I
don't intend to build anything. Mr. Febonio: so you will become the
actual owner of the property. Mr. Connor: right. Ms. Stirgwolt:
won't be any change to the two structures? Just changing the lot line?
Yes. , it is unbuildable. Speaking in favor. Mrs. Sanderson: went over
the plans with the Board, are they going straight across. No, will be
at an angle. Mr. Sanderson, son of the petitioner: this is your house
here mum, what they have is over here. You signed the agreement with
Mike to sell this section of the land. They all went over the plans
again and explained to Mrs. Sanderson. Mr. Sanderson explained to his
mother that her land would be squared off. No one appeared in
opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Correnti: I am familiar with this
property and it is unbuildable, it is all ledge. He is going to pick up
additional land. Asked Mr. Connor what he was going to use land for.
Mr. Connor: just to straighten out lot lines, will put parking spaces.
It is already paved. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition
as presented with the following conditions; petitioner comply with all
• city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations; all
requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety
be strictly adhered to and that the approval of any other Board or
Commission that might have jurisdiction is to be. obtained. Mr. Febonio
seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
372 HIGHLAND AVE. - CHARLES PULEO
Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Variance from use to
allow batting cages, office booth, token machines and vending machines
in this B-2 district. Mr. Correnti: Through a conflict of interest on
my part I will have to excuse myself. Mr. Bencal: before we continue,
Mr. Correnti has excused himself, which is his right because of a
possible conflict. You are faced with a four member Board which
requires you to obtain four votes. You have the opportunity to
continued or to withdraw and come back at a later time. Mr. Puleo: I
will go on with this tonight. Ms. Stirgwolt was appointed acting
secretary, she then read the application. and a letter from the Fire
Dept. , no objection. Mr. Puleo made the presentation. He displayed
plans. This property abuts the Animal Rescue League property and is and
has always been a separate lot. This lot meets the frontage and the
lot size. The only other thing is to get permit from state DPW to
continue to use an existing curb cut which is right on the corner of the
property right now. We had a party interested in doing the same thing
last spring and we had Fred Harney from the state DPW come up and look
at the situation and he said it is usable but may have to move or
• enlarge the opening, possibly even make it smaller whatever they would
require, depending on some type of configuration of traffic flow.
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page six
372 HIGHLAND AVENUE - CONTINUED
We haven't gotten that far as yet but he said it was usable. The batting
cages themselves will be situated in the rear of the lot, which abuts a
paper street. Displayed pictures of the property. There is ledge cut
of about 20 feet. Felt it would be less intrusive to have it in the
back corner. The fence height of these cages will be about 15 feet, 10
feet of which will be chain link and the remainder will be nylon net.
This is a seasonal operation will run probably between March or April
through this time of the year, depending on weather. As far as any
structure, they are only going to put a booth for dispensing of bats and
storage of stuff, there is a token machine. Will not take money, will
take tokens so it is a machine that will change dollar bills and coins
and such. Will be a couple of vending machines for soda. We also have
to get a building permit. The use does not comply, that is why we are.
Mr. Bencal: one of the quirks of zoning that this is not specifically
addressed, that's the only reason you are here. Mr. Puleo: actually
this in their opinion it falls under the recreation. Originally we were
hoping to put in a miniature golf course and you do have to come before
the Board for that so they are kind of viewing this in the same respect.
There is no sewerage or water connections planned for this, on electric
and phone. The lighting will be around the parameter of the batting
• cage structure. These plans are drawn by a company that actually comes
in and sets them up and the lighting is designed to reflect into the
cage and will be aimed somewhat downward. Mr. Febonio asked to to
indicate on the plans just where the cages would be. They went over the
plans. Cages will not encroach on setbacks. Ms. Stirgwolt: I would
like the dimensions of the booths. One of the conditions is always
according to plans submitted. These have no dimensions. Mr. Steven
Greaves, 20 Lynn St. , Peabody, will be operating the batting cages, will
be about 10 x 10. Excuse me, 10 x 15. Mr. Febonio: couldn't we say
what the size is and they will have to make it that size. Mr. Plante:
we could do that. Board Members went over the plans again, confusion as
to the size of the building. Ms. Stirgwolt: could I again as what the
size is. Mr. Greaves: have not scaled it, when we talked to the
building inspector that did not seem to be a problem considering the
size of the lot. Ms. Stirgwolt: again, one of the conditions will be
as per the plans submitted, you are going to be restricted to this size
and I would like to know what it is. Mr. Plante: why not say 10 x 15.
Mr. Bencal: it is unfortunate it is not on there. Mr. Febonio:
couldn't we say as per the plans submitted except for. Mr. Bencal: we
could, it is not the Board's history to do that. Mr. Plante: if they
needed a larger structure would they have to come back. Ms. Stirgwolt:
I don't mean to restrict you, this just isn't clear. Mr. Plante: will
10 x 15 be adequate for your needs? Mr. Greaves: that is over
estimated. Mr. Plante: then why don't we just say 10 x 15. Fine.
Inspector LaPointe: I have a question about the xmas trees you have for
sale, you will be restricted now, I just want you to be aware. Ms.
• Stirgwolt: what are your hours of operation. Mr. Puleo: don't think
they will exceed 10:30 p.m. Mr. Bencal: almost goes hand in hand with
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page seven
372 HIGHLAND AVE. - CONTINUED
the ice cream place. Mr. Puleo: don't think we can be open past 11:00
p.m. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Ms.
Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition
petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations; all construction be done as per the plans and
dimensions submitted with the exception that the office structure shall
be no larger than 10 x 15; a legal building permit be obtained; the
facility be open no later than 11:00 p.m. , the petitioner obtain
approval of any and all state and city boards, commissions and
departments that may have jurisdiction. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
96 ESSEX ST.- DANIEL AND SUZANNE CRYAN
Petitioners are requesting a variance from use and parking to allow a
three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Correnti read the
application and a letter from the Fire dept. stating they had no
objection. Mr.& Mrs. Cryan represented themselves. We are here to get
relief from zoning to obtain a variance for three family. One of the
reasons it thats it been assessed, I don't know how they did it but they
• did it, it was assessed as a four family for tax reasons up until 1990.
Suzanne Cryan: 1973 up until 1989, theres a letter from Peter Caron,
Chief Assessor, dated November 20, 1990 (on file) Mr. Correnti read the
letter into the record. Mr. Cryan: the house has been occupied as a
three family continuously since the 1900's. It was recognized on the
first appeal, we brought evidence by the Polks address book and the
voters registration. Mrs. Cryan: those years begin in 1932 through the
sixties, we have various years, 70's 6 80"s and then 1991 it is also
listed as three family. (data on file) We concentrated on the years
that zoning came into effect which was 1963, according to building
inspector. Ms. Stirgwolt: 1965. There are many three and four family
dwellings in the area. The building next door is a bed and breakfast
and they have street parking. Mr. Correnti: read letter from the gas
co. which stated there have been three meters at the property since
1975. (on file) Mr. Cryan: we tried the get something from the
electrical company but they did not have records. Referred to
affidavits from previous owners, attesting to it being a three family
(on file) . He displayed floor plans. We have hardwired smoke detec
brought the property up to code. He displayed photographs of the
property. We have owned this for two years. Ms. Stirgwolt: how many
units when you bought it? Mr. Cryan: three Mr. Bencai: this petition
was denied in 89, the petition appealed that decision. Aren't the two
years frozen while this is in court? Mr. Correnti: I know the decision
was in 1989, I know this has been in Land Court well into 1990. Mr.
Bencal: Decision of the Court is April 10, 1991. Mr. Correnti: It is
• two years from his initial application, does the two years run from the
end of his Land Court, I am not sure. Ms. Stirgwolt: It is my
opinion the two years start to run upon the judgement.
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page eight
96 ESSEX STREET - CONTINUED
Mr. Bencal: have you received a legal opinion that the two years have
in fact expired. Mr. Cryan: from our attorney, yes. Mrs. Cryan: from
two attorneys, John Christopher and John Kennen. Mr. Cryan: Attorney
John Christopher brought this to land court, I actually protested it
because he was going under this appeal, Special Permit versus Variance
and I said to the gentleman, when I am there shouldn't I state that the
house has been used as a three family and we have proof of this, he says
no, we are going in for something different. I released him from duty
because the first decision on the Judge's thing says it was never
brought to my attention that this had been used; so it was just another
heart break and he told me if we didn't win down this avenue we would go
to the City Solicitor, well, after this, I released him and went to the
City Solicitor and he said I can't over turn a Judge's decision. So I
have just been lead down the wrong path, time after time. I believed in
the attorney which was a mistake. Mrs. Cryan: Attorney Daly does know
we are coming tonight. Mr. Bencal: he may not have been aware of the
two years, why don't you continue, Mr. Correnti is looking it up. Mr.
Cryan: We have a petition that was signed, actually there was only two
people opposed to this last time, one was an abutter, Mr. O'Donnel from
the funeral home, he said to me they I had worked so hard and I deserved
it, had him sign today. Appreciate getting him on my side. Mr. Bencal
read the petition in favor signed by seven (7) individuals. The
Petition read that they were in favor of a Special Permit. Mr. Bencal:
you misrepresented this, this is a variance. Mr. Segal, one of the
signatees, is an attorney and knows the difference between a special
permit and variance. Mr. Cryan: I see, so this is no good. Mr. Bencal:
I don't think it is. Ms. Stirgwolt: it shows me there is support from
your abutters but there is a big legal difference between the
justification for a Variance and a Special Permit. Mr. Plante: what
about the intent? Mr. Febonio: I was just going to say, the spirit of
intent hangs on one word. I would like to favor the petitioner, not to
get hung up on special permit or variance. Give him the benefit of the
doubt, that there is this kind of support. Mr. Cryan submitted a letter
dated 10/4/91 from the Jones Company owners of the Flint House, 96 Essex
St. , no objection (on file) Mr. Cryan: we bought the house back in
late 1989 and since then we have done extensive work on the place,
renovated it and brought it up to good standard. Paid nine thousand and
some change in back taxes. We feel we enhanced the neighborhood. The
third floor gas lines were hooked up, when I came to get heating system
for first and second floor, I got the gas line run in in January of that
year, the gas compancy put the meters outside, which is much better.
However, the gas meter for the third floor they just dropped it on the
ground, hooked up the first and second as the status of this was not a
three family, we could never get it hooked up. That's where we plan to
live, on the third floor. The second & first are too small. The new
owner of the place across the street, 97 & 97 1/2 Essex ST. , he's a
• contractor himself, has parking for seven, rents to three students who
usually park in front of my house, no problem, and the same goes for my
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page nine
96 ESSEX STREET - CONTINUED
next door neighbor at 94 Essex St. , Mr. Amand, he opened up his yard so
that's a four family and three family where they are now no longer
parking on the street. So the only ones parking on the street will be
the Bed & Breakfast and us. On one appeared in favor. Speaking in
opposition. Jeremiah Burns: I live at 15 Chestnut St. , my mother owns
38 Washington Sq. , it is a very strange case. These are the same people
who came to get a permit in 1989, is that correct? At that time my
mother wrote a letter to the Board objecting to the use of 96 Essex St.
as a three family, I thought it would be in your folder, it evidently is
not (would be in folder for 1989) may I read it. Mr. Bencal: Please.
He read the letter into the record and it has been placed in the 1991
-file folder. My mother has since moved and we are selling the property,
I am her agent. We are selling it as a single family house in the
Historical District. It is one of the few houses in this area in the
historic district, on that side of the street. We are abutted in the
back by an R-2 district. We have a purchase and sale agreement signed
by people who are intending to use it as a single family. This house is
small, this lot is tight, just miniscule. There are a lot of houses in
Salem that are in R-2 districts that could be made into three, four,
• five family dwellings. This one is the poorest examples of a possible
three family that I have seen. Rebuttal: Mr. Cryan: I know his mother
and I don't think she would be opposed to this. I spoke to her many
times, the fact of the matter is I understand that you were bragging
that you know someone on the City Boards and you made so I couldn' t have
a three family last time. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Cryan, please address the
Board and address your rebuttal to his remarks. Stick to his remarks
without personalities. Mr. Cryan: I think that this letter should be
notarized and stamped because I don't believe it, it is that simple.
Hearing closed. Ms. Stirgwolt: Could I ask how he acquired the house.
He says it was a three family when he purchased it, I am talking about,
I don't want to know how many kitchens were there or how many meters, to
me that is not important, what, if it was a three family, why did you
come to the Board in 1989 to get it legalized as a three family. Mr.
Cryan: because the attorney on the foreclosing, that attorney,
representing that bank, dropped the ball. It was even brought up at
that meeting that I could go after that attorney. Ms. Stirgwolt: this
is not the information I am seeking. So it was not a legal three
family. Mr. Cryan: yes it was, I bought it as a three family. Three
months into, well it was July of that year, the parking variance did
not run concurrent with the building variance and it expired. The
attorney said he would file the papers and get it renewed. He did not,
he dropped the ball, therefore it had to come back to appeals. Mrs.
Cryan: when we bought it it was a three family, three months later we
could not occupy it as a three family. Ms. Stirgwolt: was the work you
did done with proper building permits? Mr. Cryan: Yes, when I first got
. in here I was doing demolition and the building inspector advised me you
need a building permit for that, I was unaware. Since then I have had
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page ten
96 ESSEX STREET - CONTINUED
permits. Mr. Bencal: who did you purchase the property from? Mrs
Cryan: the bank, it was a foreclosure. Mr. Bencal: when was that?
Mrs. Cryan: January 89. Mr. Bencal: in 1987 when this was originally
granted I say on that decision, that petition. We voted four to nothing
to grant the parking variance a condition being that the petitioner
obtain parking from the Salem Off-street parking facility nearest, have
you approached them? No I haven' t. Ms. Stirgwolt: This is an
uncomfortable petition to deal with because the basis of your argument
is not hardship or uniqueness of your parcel but the fact that you are
representing it has been a three family all along. If it has been a
three family all along then I question whether this Board has
jurisdiction. If you can make that valid argument that it has been a
three family all the way along I don't see why we would have to grant
you a variance. Now the question of granting a variance to me is very
different, there has to be a substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise. Mr. Febonio: you bought this property assuming it was a
three family, subsequent to you purchase, what happened? Would you
explain that again. Mr. Cryan: the attorney, two months later advised
me that there was a parking variance that was about to expire in July,
he said I will file the papers, I will take care of it, don't worry.
• July comes rolling around, I called the man, he says, Oh, I forgot. I
said, what does this mean, he said, you have to go to the Board of
Appeal. Which was a total shock to me. Mr.Febonio: it was a three
family so he doesn't need from use, only parking. Ms. Stirgwolt: he is
here for Variance from use and parking. Mr. Febonio: Through all these
years it was not a legal three family. Mr. Bencal: in 1987 petitioner,
Ms. Benoit came asking for a three family and a variance from parking.
A Special Permit to use it as a three family rather than a Variance,
that requirement has now changed and it requires a variance. The Board
granted the Special Permit and a second vote was taken to grant the
parking variance, with conditions, that parking spaces be obtained from
the off-street parking commission, the question asked the petitioner
was, with their knowing this condition, have they approached that Board
and the answer is no. Mr. Plante: I think it has been a three family
for many years and I think there is a hardship based on when these
people bought the property they bought it as a three family. It was
their intention to use is as a three family, they have put a lot of time
and money into it. It is a an improvement, should be given
consideration. Our responsibility is to try to control abuses of
property that create difficult circumstances for the neighbors. But
under these circumstances I feel this is a valid request and the Board
should take those considerations seriously. Mr. Correnti: the petition
before us today is the exact same petition decided in housing court, in
land court, excuse me and the facts are the same. We can't ignore the
fact that in our packet we had a decision from a Land Court justice
dated April 10, 1991 which says "no substantial hardship has been
• found""the Board was correct in denying the Variance" . Of course, this
is a new petition and there may have been facts presented tonight that
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page eleven
were presented in 1989. So, while this is not necessarily binding on
us, this decision from the land court, I find it compeling. Also, I
think that this petitioner has presented compeling evidence of three
family. He has come in with everything you could see. The Assessors
say it wasn't a three family, it was a four, then went to three. The
gas company says there are three meters there, these are criteria this
Board looks at. It seems that he has presented evidence that this has
always been. The parking the Board addressed, parking is a legitimate
concern, it is very crowded in that area, if this were to be granted I
think certainly the Board must address it again, perhaps with similar
condition. I would like to ask the petitioner a question, Mrs.
Stirgwolt already asked but I don't think she got an answer.
Substantial hardship is something you have to show in order to be
granted a variance. Are you arguing that your hardship is the fact you
bought the house as a three family with all the intent to use it as a
three family and that at some point you found out it was not and you are
not being allowed to use it, is that your hardship? Mr. Cryan: yes,
financial. Mr. Correnti; will you be collecting rent from this? Yes.
Mr. Plante: if it were a one family or a two family for all the years
that have been documented and they were before us trying to expand it to
three or for a one to a two, I would have reservations, but under the
circumstances, speaking for myself, there is some hardship there.
• Frankly I intend to support it. What are you contemplating with regard
to parking, do you have a plan? Mr. Bencal: they have asked for a
variance, they have no parking. Mr. Plante: so you have no plan. Mr.
Cryan: no, it is too soon to tell right now. There is a gentleman
across the street we have approached but I can' t guarantee anything.
Mrs. Cryan: went to Mr. Ahmed, we approached him to remove his fence
and pave and we would both pay for it and then we could pave our back
yards but he was not willing. Mr. Plante: if that fence is removed you
would have access to your property. That is right. Mr. Plante: the
fence belongs to Ahmed. Yes. Ms. Stirgwolt: all the money you have
put into the house, you have done a good job, was at your own risk. You
knew you had to have this variance and you knew you had been denied. Mr.
Febonio: has a hardship. If there were any other options they would
have taken them. This is what the Board of Appeal is about. He does
have hardship. He has done an excellent job, he has taken what was once
a blight and turned it into a beautiful home. Mr. Correnti: I agree on
that except, and I would like to take the petitioners to task, to come
in here with a Land Court decision judge that is six months old, which
says you did not meet your burden of proof, that you did not show
hardship to get variance from parking. The language of the judge's
ruling is very strong. You have come back here and you still are not
putting forth any remedies, that I can hear anyway, to this. I don't
think you are showing any hardship. I didn't hear you address anything
about parking. You are no offering anything. The Chairman has to go
back to previous decision, four years ago, and ask if you went to
parking commission. We have to sit here and keep asking you about
• parking, asking you what your hardship is, pull it of you. I don't
understand how anyone can go through this whole appeal process, be
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page twelve
96 ESSEX STREET - CONTINUED
denied, go before land court judge, full trial, exhibits, witness, get a
decision in April then come back here like you did two years ago. Mrs.
Cryan: it has been two years. Mr.Correnti: is that your hardship. I
don' t want to read the judges decision, let me read one thing on page
five of the land court decision and it says "the fact that the land
owner is unable to put the premises to a more profitable use is a factor
to be considered but alone is not an adequate cause for a Variance" . In
other words, just because it is more profitable to you, that is
something that can be considered but it is not enough of a reason to
grant a variance. Normally I wouldn't expect you to be held to that
level of knowledge but for the fact that you went through all this and
you recited to us all you went through and you still come to us with
what I consider a weak argument. I would like to give you the benefit
of the doubt and that you are presenting things here tonight that
weren't presented before but if you are telling me the only think
different is that you have gone two more years without rent. Thats the
same argument that the judge said is not enough, do you have anything
else. Mr. Plante: when you went before the land court did you have all
this documentation, that the property was a three all those years? Mr.
• Cryan: not at all, not even brought up in court. Mr. Plante: is this
the reason you dismissed your attorney. Ms. Stirgwolt: how much of
this information was brought to the last Board of Appeal meeting in
1989? Because really, the judge's job is to deal with that decision.
Mr. Cryan: in 1989 he thought it was just to renew it and nothing was
done. Mr. Plante: did I hear that there had been a variance granted on
this property. Mr. Bencal: a variance from parking and a special
permit to allow three family. Conditioned that the petitioner obtain
three parking spaces from the off-street parking commission or it's
successor, that was never accomplished. That is the only reason that
variance lapsed. Mr. Febonio: in order to give the petitioner to give
the petitioner some kind of relief, if he had gotten together with the
parking commission there would be no objection to making this a three
family house. Mr. Bencal: that I can't answer. Mr. Febonio: if he
had gotten those spaces he would have met that burden. Would it be
permissable to give him relief by allowing him to withdraw, if we shut
him off now then he is gone for another two years is that correct? Mr.
Bencal: there is some question, at least in my mind, whether the
petitioner has standing here now. Mrs Febonio: give him the benefit of
the doubt, assuming he has standing, if he withdrew now and purchased
those parking spaces he then return to he Board. Mr. Plante asked the
petitioners if they would like to withdraw at this time to try to get
the parking spaces. Mr. Plante made a motion to allow the petitioner
to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board voted
four in favor one opposed (Mr. Bencal)
WITHDRAWN
• Statement from Mr. Jeremiah Burns regarding this petition on next page.
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page thirteen
Mr. Jermiah Burns: I would like to speak on the record. I noted the
clerk is trying to take down everything she hears and the petitioner
made what I consider a serious charge, that I may have fixed the Board
the last time. Mr. Bencal: that is on tape. Mr. Burns: I would like
to speak to his charge. Mr. Bencal: we can address that at the end of
the meeting. Mr. Burns started to leave. Mr. Bencal: agreed to let
him speak and instructed him to be brief. Mr. Burns: I think that
discusting attempt to influence the Board and having lived in Salem all
my life, I know a lot of people and I would not make any attempt to
speak to anyone a the Board about how they should vote, including things
that I am interested in and I would never influence the Board in this
case except what I publically said. Mr. Bencal: thank you sir.
64 BUTLER STREET - JOSE PEREIRA (PETITIONER) , VA (OWNERS)
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert a single family
dwelling into a two family dwelling and to construct an addition in the
rear of this nonconforming structure. The property is located in a
Residential Two family district and is owned by the Veterans
Administration. Mr. Correnti read the application and a letter from the
Fire Department, no objection. Mr. Pereira represented himself. Mr.
Kenneth Hill, Broker for the Administrator of Veteran Administration,
• owners of the property. He presented a copy of a Purchase and Sale
Agreement between the VA and Mr. Pereira. Mr. Pereira: I would like to
make this into a two family, I have two brothers and would like them to
live there. It is an R-2 zone, plenty of parking. He submitted a
petition signed by 17 neighbors and abutters, dated September 8, 1991.
Mr. Febonio: is there a kitchen on the second floor. Yes. They went
over the plans with Mr. Bernard Almacher,who did the plans for Mr.
Pereira. Mr. Febonio: this petitioner was here a short time ago, what
happened. Mr. Bencal: yes, he was, he withdrew that petition. Mr.
Febonio: yes, he didn't have adequate plans. Mr. Correnti: is the
sale of this property contingent on this being granted. Mr. Hill: the
VA has no problem selling it as is, it needs work. The bank won't
finance it. So, it is contingent on this. Speaking in favor: Edward
Pereira, Peabody, I am his brother and I would rent one of the
apartments. Mr. Pereira, 60 Lowell St. , I would like to rent one of the
apartments from my brother. We don't have yard now and this has yard.
No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Correnti: 62
Butler St. , one or two family? Two. Ms. Stirgwolt: this building is a
real blight. Mr. Correnti: I think this is a Special Permit rather
than a Variance, it is an allowed use. Looking at it as a Special
Permit it will enhance the neighborhood. Will not be detrimental, will
be in harmony. Mr. Pereira showed pictures of his property at 62 Butler
St. , he explained he did all the work. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to
grant the petition on condition petitioner comply witha 11 city and
state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations; all construction
shall be as per the plans and dimensions , a legal building permit be
• obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, all requirements of
the Salem Fire Department be stictly adhered to.
• MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1991
page fourteen
64 BUTLER ST. - CONTINUED
Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
Mr. Febonio made a motion to accept the minutes of the September 11,
1991 at taped, Ms. Stirgwolt seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED
The Board discussed the possibility of starting the meetings a half
house earlier. Mr. Plante and Ms. Stirgwolt both had difficulties with
this.
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. , next scheduled meeting to be held
November 20, 1991 at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully ��b�mpitted,
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
•
•
e (91tu of Salem, 7fflttssadjusetts
• _ Pottra of �k"eal
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - NOVEMBER 20, 1991
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, November
20, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of
the hearing was sent to abutters and other interested persons by mail.
Notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on
November 6, and 13, 1991.
Present at the hearing were Board members Bencal, Febonio, Luzinski,
Stirgwolt and Associate Member Plante. Also present were Assistant
Building Inspector Harris and Clerk of the Board Sumrall.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Richard
Bencal. Mr. Plante was appointed a voting member. Ms. Stirgwolt was
appointed Acting Secretary. Mr. Bencal informed the Board that the next
meeting would held, because of the holidays, Tuesday, December 17th.
• Mr. Bencal congratulated Ms. Stirgwolt on her election to the Salem City
Council. He presented Ms. Stirgwolt with a plaque from the Board of
Appeal and thanked her on behalf of the Board and the City of Salem.
87 MASON ST. - SANTO COLLORONE
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of an
addition in this R-2 district. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application.
Correspondence from Christopher Carr, 85 Mason St. , Donald & George
Bates, 1 Oak St./87 Flint St. , stating they had no objection provided
certain conditions were met. (on file) Also a letter from the Salem Fire
Department stating they had no objection to the granting of this Special
Permit, it was noted in the communication that the property was not in
compliance relative to smoke detectors but Mr. Collorone will make an
appointment for an inspection on this. Mr. Collorone represented
himself. Well, I don't mind doing the retaining wall. Mr. Bencal: we
are interested right now in the merits of your plan. Mr. Collorone: my
plan is to build an addition at the rear. I have a back entrance, tear
that down and extend it 14 more feet. Addition will be an additional
room, might be a kitchen, will not be an additional unit. Mr. Febonio:
are you willing to meet these conditions that the abutters have asked.
All five. Mr. Collorone: I don't mind doing the retaining wall for Mr.
Carr's property. Mr. Bencal: can you add anything to the merits of
this petition? What is there now? Mr. Santo: there is a very small
opening. There is a foundation there, it was there when I bought the
• place. Speaking in favor: Donald Bates, 1 Oak St. , I am in favor, we
have been neighbors for many years. Would like to see the conditions in
• MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1991
page two
87 MASON ST. - CONTINUED
our letter met. It is a very small lot and will invade the abutters
privacy. Would like to see a fence put up. Ms. Stirgwolt: if the
petitioner will not abide by the conditions, are you still in favor?
Mr. Bates: without these conditions, yes, I would be opposed. Mr.
Febonio: Mr. Carr, without these conditions would you object to this
being granted? Mr. Carr: yes I would be. No one appeared in
opposition. Mr. Bencal: I declare the public portion closed, no need
for rebuttal althout you heard Councillor Bates state a qualified
statement as to being in favor, could you tell us if you are in favor of
these. Mr. Dominic Collarone: would like to speak for my father.
AFter the addition is done we still have 30 feet to the rear, 32
actually. Why we need the special permit is the left side which is 85
Mason St. , we thought that was the only concern. We talked to Chris
(Carr) before and he said it was okay as long as we put little fence up
where the addition would overhang. His back yard will still look like
it does today. We thought with the 30 foot rear and the 10 feet on 89
Mason, that would be fine. Mr. Luzinski: is there a retaining wall
there now? Yes. Mr. Febonio: any structural failures? Mr. Bencal:
they have asked that the Building Inspector look at it, if this is
granted, for structural integrity. Mr. Bencal: do you have anything to
• add. Mr. Collarone: just that I thought as long as we had the 30 feet,
we wouldn' t have a problem. Mr. Bencal: you have come here asking for
relief, you have neighbors and abutters who under Chapter 40A. MGL have
standing, they have concerns, we have been presented with those
concerns. They have conditional approval of your petition if those five
conditions are met otherwise they are opposed. The Board takes this
letter as testimony, under advisement. The question again, and I will
ask you is, of the five items, is there a problem with any of them? Mr.
Collorone: What my father said about the fence, he shouldn't have to
pay for the whole thing. They should pay for at least half the fence.
We will pay for the wall. We will pay for fence at 85 Mason but after
the addition ends, from there down, they will have to split the price
with us. Mr. Bencal: is there a fence there now? yes. How high.
From there side roughly six feet, from our side, three to four feet.
Mr. Bencal: One of the reasons abutters request fences is for privacy.
I notice you are putting in a picture window. Do you not feel that will
be imposing on the privacy of the Bates family on Flint St. Mr.
Collorone: what is there now is all glass. We are looking at 1 Oak
St. , he's got a chain link fence with stockade. so we don' t really see
much. They went over the plans. Mr. Febonio: I have a question, how
do the feel that is encroaching on their privacy, the abutters. Does
seem to be plenty of room. Councillor Bates: I don't agree with the
plenty of room. Mr. Bates and Mr. Febonio again went over the plans.
Mr. Bates: when he builds there will only be 32 feet. The outside
activity will move closer. Mr. Febonio: you realize that 30 feet is
legal. If he was encroaching on that 30 feet you could say he was
• encroaching on your privacy. Mr. Bates: I agree in the legal aspect of
it as far as the 30 feet. Mr. Febonio: he's only asking for sideyard.
• MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1991
page three
87 MASON ST. - CONTINUED
Mr. Bates: want to point out that they are up two feet, they are
looking down at all the neighbors. Ms. Stirgwolt: Would you be willing
to make a contribution to the fence? It seems that, although I
understand your concerns with privacy, this gentleman is facing a
financial burden that might seem a little bit harsh to him and it is for
both parties benefit. Mr. Plante: isn't there a fence already there?
Mr. Bates: it is only 4 feet. Mr. Plante: I really don't see the
concern. Ms. Stirgwolt: it is a density issue, I am only asking if the
cost could be shared, I am looking for a compromise. Mr. Bates: I
don't have a problem paying for part of the 14 foot section that abuts
my parents. Mr. Collorone: I will pay for the section that abuts the
Carrs. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition on condition
the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinance, codes
and regulations; all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to
smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to; all construction is to be
done with a legal building permit, a certificate of occupancy is to be
obtained; exterior finishes shall conform with existing structure; all
conditions, as amended, submitted to this Board as follows, shall be
complied with: a. The existing retaining wall to be inspected by the
building inspector for strength and integrity. This wall abuts 85 Mason
• St. and is about 28 feet in length and about 2 feet high. If the wall
fails requirements, it is to be replaced. b. A new retaining wall to
be constructed abutting existing retaining wall at 85 Mason ST. to
property of 87 Flint St. and 1 Oak St. , this wall is to be about 14 feet
in length. C. A 6 ft. stockage fence to be placed on top and secured
to the entire length of the retaining wall(s) approx. 42 fet. ) . The
front of fence (picket side) is to be facing 85 Mason St. and 87 Flint
St. Fence is to be of high quality. d. All plans for construction of
addition, retaining wall(s) and fence to be approved by the Building
Inspector prior to construction. e. All cost of construction,
including retaining wall(s) and fence to be paid for by the applicant
for the Special Permit, except that only one half of the cost for the
stockade fence abutting 87 Flint St. shall be borne by the owner of 87
Mason St. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
•
• MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1991
page four
7 LOCUST ST. - Libero Cimini
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a
deck in this R-1 district. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application and a
letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection. Attorney George Vallis, 81
Washington St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. We are here under
Article 5, 5-3j . You have a plan in front of you and you see this
building is only 4 1/2 feet from the sideline on the north and the rest
conforms. The Cimini's have been living in this house for about 31
years and decided they wanted to put a screened in deck. Spoke to the
immediate abutters, presented petition signed by five (5) abutters and
neighbors, in support. They have been good neighbors, really nothing
major here, nothing much of an issue. Mr. Febonio: how is going to
build it? Mr. Vallis: the Mackey's, they are building contractors. No
one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed Ms. Stirgwolt:
what material? Pressure treated wood. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to
grant the petition on condition the petition comply with all city and
state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all requirements of
the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly
adhered to, all construction shall be done as per the plans and
dimensions submitted, a legal building permit is to be obtained. Mr.
Luzinski seconded.
• UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
225 JEFFERSON AVENUE - DIANE AND JAMES RICHMOND
Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow construction of a single
family dwelling on Lot C, 225 Jefferson Ave. which is located in an R-3
district. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application, referred to a previous
decision granted in 1970 (on file) . Attorney George Vallis, 81
Washington St. , Salem, represented the petitioners. They are under a
Purchase and Sale Agreement. He submitted copies of the Assessors Map.
The lot contains 6500 sq-ft. , it is substantially larger than the
abutting lots, the lots that have houses on them. Basically under
Article 9, section 5, rights authorized under a variance not exercised
within a year shall lapse. Well, the variance had been granted back in
1970. All these lots belonged to the estate of Henry Corbin. The
beneficiary was Leo Corbin and I suppose, not being familiar with the
law, he thought the lots were all separated. What could or should have
been done at that time was to put the lots in separate ownership, then
we would not be here. Nothing was done. The petitioners, if this is
granted, will be purchasing the property. They will go to a bank for
mortgage and I am sure the bank's attorney will say there has been a
remerger because you have one owner owning these over the past twenty
years and nothing was done within the years. It is a technicality. I
am trying to avoid this for the Richmonds so that when they go to the
bank this issue will not come up because they will have a brand new
variance. My clients are a young couple, been married about 8 years,
• have a child and are presently renting at Horton St. , which is in the
immediate neighborhood. This is a big opportunity for them, they are
• MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1991
page five
225 JEFFERSON AVENUE - CONTINUED
thrilled. They are already familiar with the neighborhood, they have
lived there. Father lives on Brooks Rd. , Mrs. Richmond's father. He
submitted a petition signed by immediate abutters (8 signatures) in
favor. This is an R-3 district (multi-family) , they are asking for a
single family cape. He displayed pictures of the proposed dwelling.
Mr. Luzinski: will this meet setbacks? Yes, we need variance from lot
size. Speaking in favor: Victor Corbin, Executor of the Estate, back
in 1970 they couldn' t settle the estate because the house was on two
lots. This has been in the family for many years. There was a garage
there but that was torn down so there is nothing of the property now. No
one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: the
neighbors are in favor so I certainly have no objection. Ms. Stirgwolt:
is there any problem with water runoff? Mr. Vallis: Should not be a
problem, I suspect we may have to go before the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Bencal: we can put in condition that they get approval of any and
all Boards and/or Commissions that have jurisdiction. Ms. Stirgwolt
made a motion to grant the Variance requested on condition the
petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes
and regulations, the petitioner obtain the approval of any city board or
commission that has jurisdiction over the proposed construction, all
• requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to, proper street numbering be obtained from
the City of Salem Assessors Officer, a legal building permit be
obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
11 RIVER STREET - ANN KNIGHT
Petitioner is requesting a special permit to extend existing porch in
this R-2 district. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application and a letter from
the Fire Department, no objection. Ms. Knight represented herself. The
existing porch is rotting and it needs to be replaced. It is simply not
usable. Would like to extend it about 8 inches one way and 7 inches the
other way. My neighbors have no objection. Speaking in favor. John
Carr, 7 River St. : we can quite easily live with the 8 inches and 7
inches. She has been a good neighbor. No one appeared in opposition.
Hearing closed. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition
requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state
statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all requirements of the
Salem fire dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered
to, all construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted,
a legal building permit be obtained, the approval of an city board or
commission having jurisdiction be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
•
• MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1991
page six
48 MEMORIAL DRIVE - ROBERT & CHARLEEN LITTLE
Petitioners are requesting a special permit to add a second story
addition. Property is located in a residential single family district.
Ms. Stirgwolt read the application and a letter from the Salem Fire
Dept. stating the property was not in compliance with laws relative to
smoke detectors. Robert Little represented himself. This will be a
simple addition, three bedrooms and a bath directly over the existing
structure. Will not jut out on any side or back at all. Will not be an
addition unit, will remain a single family. The house is small and with
the four of us, myself, my wife and two children we have a tendency to
bounce off the walls. Mr. Febonio: when there is possibilty of adding
a unit, we have a problem. Mr. Little: no chance, this will strictly
be single family, that's what it is zoned as. We need more room. Many
of the capes have had dormers put on, some have had complete second
levels put on. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing
closed. Ms. Stirgwolt questioned the dimensions. They went over the
plans. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the petition requested on
condition all construction be in compliance with city and state building
codes, construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions
submitted, a building permit is to be obtained, a certificate of
occupancy be obtained, exterior finishes be in harmony with existing
• structure, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke
and fire safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
27 BECKET ST. - SKIP AND JANET DAURAY
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend and enclose porch
in this R-1 district. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application, letter from
the Fire Dept. stating the property is in compliance; letter from Debra
Hurlburt and Russel Lawton, 25 Becket St. , in favor; and a letter from
the Salem Historical Commission stating the Commission takes no position
on this application but is hopeful the Board will be sympathetic to the
historic architecture. Mr. Dauray represented himself. We need the
extra room, this will be a family room. We are only extending the
existing footing by one foot. Have lived there and owned this for 6
years. Will leave plenty of room. Have had no complaints from the
neighbors. The Historic Commission, I had no idea of that, I looked at
the map and thought we fell out of the district. Mr. Bencal: you do
but because you are in such close proximatey, they haven't taken a stand
but they have asked the Board to be aware of this and to have some
sensitivity. Mr. Dauray: I understand. We will have everything done
by a contractor, the lines and the shingles, materials will comform with
the existing, the windows falling in with the circa. Did some research
for that particular period. Mrs. Dauray: Dee Cote will be the
contractor. Thats really it in a nutshell. Went over the plans. Mr.
Plante: I lived in this house many years ago and it is small. Speaking
• in favor. Eileen Masters, 78 Derby St. , no objection. No one appeared
in opposition. Hearing closed. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to grant the
• MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1991
page 7
27 BECKET ST. - CONTINUED
petition as requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city
and state statutes,ordinances, codes and regulations; all construction
be as per the plans and dimensions submitted, a legal building permit be
obtained, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, all requirements of
the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly
adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
21 BUENA VISTA AVE. - JEANINE AND HARRY OFILOS
Petitioners are requesting a Variance from side setback to allow a porch
to be enclosed in this R-1 district. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application
and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating they had no objection. Wayne
Perkins, Summer St. , I am their contractor. When they came to me, I
looked at the plot plan and knew they needed a variance. He displayed
pictures of the property. Submitted a petition in favor signed by 12
neighbors and abutters. This will not be any larger, we are just
enclosing what is already there. Speaking in favor. Ricci Hacker, 7
Ugo St. , have been neighbors for 7 years and they have done a lot of
improvement to the property. This will be an asset. Councillor
• O'Leary:I have received no opposition, this is a nice area and they keep
up the property. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr.
Febonio made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner
comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and
regulations; all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Dept. relative
to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to; all construction be
done as per plans and dimensions submitted; a building permit be
obtained; a certificate of occupancy be obtained, there be no storage of
propane gas or other combustable materials in the crawl space under the
addition. Mr. Luzinski seconded
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
72 HIGHLAND AVE. - DR. AYRES D'SOUZA
Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to add a second story to rear
addition in this R-3 district. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application, a
letter from the Fire Dept. which stated the property had partial
compliance, a letter from the historic commission asking the Board to be
sympethic to architecture. Mr. Bencal: I spoke with the Doctor and he
had a conflicting meeting and asked this gentleman to represent him. He
read a letter from Dr. D'Souza (on file) . Mr. Steven Chaisson, the
Contractor, represented the petitioner. The scope of the work if very
simple, the work we are going to do is going to match the existing. Mr.
Bencal: Mr. Chaisson, before you go further with your presentation, it
would appear that this property is in violation of a previous decision
this granted on August 19, 1981. This petition allowed the property to
• be used for professional office but one of the conditions was that there
be no more that three doctors. Clearly looking at the letterhead on
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1991
page eight
72 HIGHLAND AVENUE - CONTINUED
this letter from the doctor, there are at least four doctors. Mr.
Febonio: now there is four next there will be five. Mr. Chaisson: I am
not sure how many doctors there are. Ms. Stirgwolt: there are four
doctors on the letterhead and one nurse practitoner. Mr. Bencal:
The petition is clearly in violation. The prior decision says three,
the first condition. He read the condition to the assemblage.
Councillor O'Leary, Ward Four Councillor who was present to speak in
favor of this petition asked what could be done for the doctor. Mr.
Bencal: I can see only one option, he is in violation. Ms. Stirgwolt:
there are four doctors on the letterhead with the same initials
M.D.F.A.A.P after their names, I don't know what that stands for. Then
there is an additional person which I would say is a nurse practitioner,
a professional person. According to what has been presented today, the
letterhead. Mr. Febonio: that's what I though when I read this. Mr.
Plante: would that matter in this case, he is only asking for
additional space for files? Mr. Bencal: that condition was put on for
good reason. Mr. Febonio: we ignore this and allow of a sudden we have
a big operation. Ms. Stirgwolt: that is my concern to, then you will
have more patients. Mr. O'Leary: does it state three doctors at one
time? Mr. Bencal read the condition again. Mr. O'Leary: I don't think
he was aware of it. Mr. Bencal: there are three options, you can go
• ahead, but I will tell you right now, I am not going to vote for this
because of the apparent violation, the second is to withdraw, the third
option would be to ask for a continuance so Dr. D'Souza can clarify
this. It could be done at the next hearing. He would be required to
notify all abutters by certified mail. Ms. Stirgwolt: would he have
time to file for the next meeting if he withdrew. He could then ask
permission for the fourth doctor. Mr. Bencal: if he continues, then
files for the fourth doctor, he would then have two petitions on the
December meeting. We would here this one first. Mr. Febonio: I think
it might be better to withdraw, by his own admission he has pick up a
couple of hundred more patients. (see letter on file from dr.D'Souza)
Ms. Stirgwolt: i think I would like to more information on this before
voting on it. Mr. Chaisson: all we are asking for is small addition to
move the records up stairs. Mr. Chaisson: I would ask the Board for
permission to withdraw. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to allow petitioner
to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Plante seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN
Mr. Febonio made a motion to approved the minutes as taped for
0ctoberl6, 1991. Mr. Plante seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED
Next scheduled meeting will be Monday, December 16, 1991, second floor,
One Salem Green. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Remit9 tpd,
• Brenda M. Sumrall, Clerk
,.�aaurtiM
01itu of Salem, �fflttssadjusetts
'., Paura of �"eal
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - DECEMBER 16, 1991
A hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, December 16,
1991 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 December 2
and 9, 1991. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by
mail.
Present at the hearing were Board members Bencal, Febonio, Grealish,
Luzinski, Stirgwolt, Associate Plante and Clerk Sumrall.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman Richard Bencal.
It was noted that Mr. Plante was present but would not be a voting
member. Mr. Bencal wished everyone a happy holiday. Said goodbye to
Ms. Stirgwolt and welcomed Mr. Francis X. Grealish Jr. , Esq. who was
appointed to finish the seat left vacant by Mr. Correnti. Ms. Stirgwolt
was appointed acting secretary.
8 CHESTNUT ST. - DR. JANICE LEBEL
• Petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a variance from side
and rear setbacks to allow construction of a deck in this R-2 district.
Mr. Stirgwolt read the application and a letter from the Salem
Historical Commission informing the Board that a Certificate of Non-
Applicability for the deck was approved by the Commission at their
December 4, 1991 meeting. A letter from Norman LaPointe, Fire
Inspector, was also read. It stated the Fire Department had no
objection to this variance being granted. Dr. Richard LeBel made the
presentation. The stairs leading to the house were deteriorating and
needed to be replaced and as that had to be done, felt it was a good
time to put on the deck. The deck does not meet setback requirement
which is why we are here. There is a sunken garden there, it is not
visible from the street. We are asking to be allowed to construct this
deck. Speaking in favor. Robert Busteed, 6 Chestnut St. , this is very
suitable, I am very much in favor. Mr. Dube, 4 Chestnut St. , in favor.
Ms. Busteed, 6 Chestnut St. , in favor. Speaking in opposition. Joan
Kelley, 3 Cambridge St. , Dr. Lebel talked to all these people but never
talked to me and I am the most affected by this deck. Its quite tall
and overlooks my pool. There is a deck there now. Came home and saw
work being done. Came down to the building inspectors office and found
there was no permit. It overlooks my sunken garden. Takes away the
enjoyment I get from my yard. If he had talked to me maybe we could
have worked something out, could have talked about it. John Cambridge,
3 Cambridge St. , this imposes on our ability to use our back yard. The
deck is basically complete, it would be complete if we hadn't come home
that day. It's a case of someone doing as they please. When they get
caught they come here and ask for a variance. The City, for whatever
reason, said this can't be built closer than 30 feet to someone's back
MINUTES - DECEMBER 16, 1991
page 2
• 8 CHESTNUT STREET - CONTINUED.
yard. The fact that the deck is within a few feet of the side yard
doesn't matter to me, the problem is the back yard. It imposes on my
yard. Putting the deck in raises the grade. In rebuttal. Dr. Lebel:
the height was specifically designed to give us access to the garden.
The contractor decided where to put it. Would be glad to add to the
fence. There privacy is imposed on by my second story windows, by
everybodies second story windows, as well as this deck. I have no
interest in looking onto their pool. Mr. Bencal: you petition says to
allow construction of a deck and now I hear what the Kelley's are saying
and what you have admitted, and I don't like what I am hearing. To ask
for variance to allow construction when the construction is being done
and is almost complete, well, it just isn't nice. You have the right to
address the hardship. Dr. Lebel: the hardship would be the access to
my house, there wouldn't be any without it. The deck is replacing the
stairs. Mr. Bencal explained to Dr. Lebel the criteria for granting of
a variance. Would you address the hardship within those parameters.
Dr.Lebel: access. Would add to the property, the enjoyment of the
property. Access to yard. Would extend living space. The house is
divided into two uses, living and office. Would to use the garden in
conjunction with my practice. Need this to get a permit. Mr. Bencal:
getting the permit was self inflicted and is not an issue. Dr. Lebel:
I am trying to improve my property. Did not think there was a problem.
Ms. Stirgwolt: when did construction start? Dr. Lebel: about a month
ago. Mr. Febonio: you must have had a bonafide contract, he should
• have known you needed a permit. What was there before? Dr. Lebel: a
bricked patio that was overgrown. Mr. Febonio: could you drop the deck
down? yes. Mr. Febonio: Mr. Chairman perhaps you could ask the
neighbors if they would be opposed if the deck were lowered, perhaps we
could reach some agreement. Mr. Bencal asked Mr. & Mrs. Kelley if that
would be acceptable. Mrs. Kelley: it should be lowered and it should
not be as wide. Mr. Bencal: you would not be adverse if this was
lower. Mr. Kelley: should be lowered to ground level. Mr. Febonio: I
am not clear on your response. Mr. Bencal: Mrs. Kelley would like it
lowered, Mr. Kelley would like to see it ground level. Mr. Febonio: I
would like to see some compromise, trying to make both parties happy.
Mr. Bencal: how high is the fence? About five feet. Mr. Bencal: Mr.
Febonio, when you were in construction, how high were decks generally?
Mr. Febonio: I have made them all heights. I am annoyed at the
contractor, he should have known he needed a permit. Mr. Bencal: the
structure could be built 8" above ground. Ms. Stirgwolt: would you be
willing to do that? Dr. Lebel: I would be willing to lower it, would
want to go over it with my contractor, would like the deck to be
aesthetic, could perhaps lower it so there are only two or three steps
from the deck to the yard. We do have steps from the house to the deck.
Ms. Stirgwolt: Dr. Lebel is willing to lower it to two feet and to build
a six foot fence. Mrs. Kelley: it would have to be narrower also. It
is too wide. He should have spoke to us to begin with, this is a
classic case of I'm going to do what I want and if I get caught then I
will come here and it will be all right. They think it's alright to
break the law. Mr. Febonio: I think Dr. Lebel may have done this out
• of ignorance, but not deceipt. Mr. Bencal: I disagree because of the
wording of the petition. The construction has already been done.
MINUTES - December 16, 1991
• page three
8 CHESTNUT STREET - CONTINUED
Ms. Stirgolt: what material? Dr. Lebel: redwood and pressure treated
wood. The part that is visible will be redwood, the part not visible
will be pressure treated. Will not be painted, I've been told it's
better to let it age naturally. Ms. Stirgwolt: it may not be visible
from the street but it is certainly visible to the Kelleys. Would you
be willing to paint it. Originally intended to have walkways but after
talking to the building inspector that does not seem feasible. Ms.
Stirgwolt: I have a problem with it not being painted and would like to
see that put in any motion. Mr. Bencal: would you be opposed to it
being 18" above ground. Dr. Lebel: I don't know. Ms. Stirgwolt: how
deep is deck? 10 ft. Mr. Bencal: are the stairs going to be built
right into the deck? Yes, one of them is. Mr. Bencal: then you
encroachment will be more than what is showing. Your plans are no good.
Do the stairs extend beyond the deck? Yes they do. Mr. Luzinski: I
think a lot of changes need to be done. Mr. Bencal: there is at least
one member of the board that is not comfortable with this plan or with
your rendering, you haven't talked with your abutters to try and work
this out. We can keep right on going or you can request leave to
withdraw and come back at a later date. The neighbors have a legitimate
concern. It is up to you, you can continue on or you can ask to
withdraw. Dr. Lebel requested leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr.
Luzinski made a motion to grant petitioner leave to withdraw without
• prejudice. Mr. Febonio seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
143 CANAL STREET - CANAL REALTY TRUST
Mr. Bencal read a letter from Attorney John Serafini Sr. , Esq.
requesting leave to withdraw this petition for a Special Permit to
construct an addition. He explained that an error had been made in the
address of the application, that it was intended for the property next
door. Mr. Febonio made a motion to allow this petition to be withdrawn
without prejudice. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN
•
MINUTES - DECEMBER 16, 1991
• page four
72 HIGHLAND AVENUE - DR. AYRES D'SOUZA
Petitioner, owner of the property is requesting a Special Permit to
allow construction of an addition to a portion of the premises and to
lift a restriction on a decision granted by the Board of Appeal on
August 8, 1981. Said restriction limited the number of doctors allowed
to practice on the premises. The property is located in an R-3
district. Ms. Stirgwolt read the application and a letter from the
Historical Commission dated November 20, 1991 (on file) . Attorney John
Serafini, Sr. represented the petitioner. The reasons for this petition
are self-evident. the addition in the rear will provide room for records
and will allow more room in the waiting room. The building as it is
now, cannot accomodate the existing uses. Since the original variance
was granted, the property adjacent to this property has been purchased
by the shopping center and the building that was on it has been torn
down and a parking lot made. The Doctor has made arrangement with
neighbors for parking. He submitted letters from the neighbors. Mr.
Bencal read the letters into the record. The first letter from Kenneth
Anderson, 84 Highland Ave. , states that the patients of the medical
offices have permission to use the parking lot, a second letter from
Elaine Verrette, office manger, Salem Village Associates, 12 Heritage
Drive, states that employees of Dr-D'Souza have been issued stickers for
parking on the abutting property and a third letter from Barbara Byrne,
68 Highland Ave. , in favor of the granting of this petition. One of the
• things that has happened that has led to the increase in business in the
closing of the Lynn Hospital and the increase in the North Shore
Children's Hospital facilities. That has required the presence of
additional doctors. The actual physical hours, because of the
scheduling, there are never more than three doctors there at one time
seeing patients. Dr. D'Souza addressed the Board. First, I must
apologize to the Board, the addition of a doctor was not done to
intentionally bypass the Board's previous decision. Since we elevated
our service to Salem Hospital, we are required to have someone always
there, on site. There are only three doctors there at any given time.
Believe me, the doctor was not added out of any disrespect to the Board.
We are obligated to the Hospital and Special Care Nursery. Dr. Higgins
is the Associate Director of that Nursery. He submitted a letter from
Tai Tran, the Director of Neonatology at the Salem Hospital attesting to
the number of hours the doctors spend in the hospital. (on file) Mr.
Bencal: how many hospitals in the area have reached the level Salem
Hospital has? Dr. D'Souza: Beverly is trying but Salem is the only
one. Mr. Bencal: your practice contributes substantially to the
upgrading of the hospital and to the community in general. Dr.
McAuliffe: The Special Care Nursery could not operate if we did not
operate. We have to be across the street from the hospital to be on
call. Speaking in favor: Councillor Leonard O'Leary: I have known Dr.
D'Souza for over 25 years. He has a nice practice and we are very
fortunate to have him in Salem. I think there is a definite hardship to
him, he needs to expand. Inspector LaPointe: I go along with Mr.
O'Leary, Dr. D'Souza's cooperation has been great. It is a public
• safety issue. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Ms.
Stirgwolt: I think it is wonderful. The Board briefly discussed the
MINUTES - DECEMBER 16, 1991
• page five
72 HIGHLAND AVE. - CONTINUED
the parking. Will keep the condition relative to the seven parking
spaces that is on the previous decision. Ms. Stirgwolt made a motion to
grant the Special Permit requesting allowing the construction of a
second story addition to a portion of the premises and to lift the
restriction limiting the number of doctors allowed in a decision of the
Board dated August 8, 1981 on condition the petitioner shall comply with
all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all
construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, a
legal building permit be obtained a, certificate of occupancy be
obtained, all requirements of the Salem Fire dept. relative to smoke
and fire safety be strictly adhered to and seven (7) on site parking
spaces be maintained. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
Mr. Bencal : Mr. Serafini would like a few minutes of the Board's time
to discuss the Canal Street petition. Mr. Serafini: We had to withdraw
because of an error on our part. The petition should have been for the
Gauthier Motors property across the street where they have a Suburu
franchise. Like all dealers who operate a franchise, they don't have
much to say, Suburu has insisted they have a second facility. They have
agreed to allow this, we have indicated to them that there is a problem
• but they are willing to wait if we can get a meeting as soon as
possible. Mr. Bencal: everything Mr. Serafini has said is true. A
petition was granted for a building across the street, they have changed
in mid stream because of financial constraints. It is my feeling that
we should attempt to hear this as soon as possible, we are talking about
a business. In my estimation this is one step we can take to help a
Salem business. Clearly they made a mistake. The reason I am speaking
at length about this is because we don' t have any other applications and
I would like to schedule this for the eight or the fifteenth, if we get
another petition before the close of the business day on Thursday, we
will have to meet on the 15th, if this is the only one, would like the
8th. Does anyone have a problem with the 8th? No one did.
Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 20,
1991 meeting as taped. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Members will be notified of the date of
the next meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
•