Loading...
1992-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (2) P97 t `b ( 1tu of satem, fflttssadjusetts PnttrD of (�upettl h[..r.rn�PnF' MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - FEBRUARY 19, 1992 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, February 19, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other interested persons. Notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on February 5 and 12, 1992. Present at the hearing were Board Members Bencal, Febonio, Grealish, Luzinski, Touchette; Assistant Building Inspector Harris; Fire Inspector LaPointe; and Clerk of the Board Sumrall. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman Richard Bencal. Mr. Bencal welcomed Mr. Stephen Touchette as a full member of • the Board of Appeal, congratulated him on his appointment. First item on the agenda is the election of the permanent Board secretary. Mr. Luzinski nominated Mr. Grealish. Mr. Febonio seconded. Mr. Luzinski moved the nominationsf be closed. Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board unanimously elected Mr. Grealish as the permanent Board Secretary. 38 CHARLES STREET - EUGENIUSZ LATUSEK Petitioner is requesting variances to construct a two car garage with an apartment above in the R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. Inspector LaPointe: the Salem Fire Department has no objection. Mr. Bencal: is the petitioner or his representative present? Would you briefly explain to the Board what you are requesting here tonight. Mr. Thomas Latusek: I will be representing my father. This apartment will be for my grandmother, she is 67 years old, she lives in an apartment and we would like to have her closer to us. Mr. Bencal: could you explain what the hardship would be. Mr. Latusek: my grandmother is getting old. We would be able to watch her. Mr. Bencal: you have requested a variance, that requires a hardship relating to the land. Mr. Latusek had no response. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Arthur Stavropoulos, I own 34 Charles St. , I do not live there, I live in Topsfield. I hear what he is saying and I cannot understand. I have a copy of the plot plan that was submitted for construction of this building. It indicates he has so much room. • Personnally, and again, I cannot understand how he is putting this up on property that he does not own. It is owned by the State. MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1992 • page two 38 CHARLES ST. - CONTINUED Mr. Bencal: did your family sell it to the State. Mr. Stavropoulos went through the history of ownership of the parcel. I sold portion of my property. This plot plan shows one lot owned by Mr. Kroen but it is my understanding this is owned by the Division of Colleges, there is a parking lot there. Property on the other side (25A) is not 25A, one half that is my property and the other half is owned by the state. The plot plan that is here and was submitted is a fair and accurate plot plan. There are boundary markers on my property and there were markers on his property. Mr. Bencal: the Assessors Map shows a wide discrepancy in the size of the lot, we will get to that. He will have a chance to rebut. Mr. Stavropoulos: I don't know how the original building permit was issued. Mr. Gordon Ryan, 25 Charles St. : Bought house back in 66, bought extra lot of land, it faces Charles St. I was under the impression this was wetlands. 8 or 9 years ago the State asked to buy one half and I sold them one half of my lot. He is going way back into the marsh land and how can he build on wetlands. No one else spoke in opposition public portion of the hearing closed. In rebuttal. Mr. Thomas Latusek: I don't know what to say, when we bought the house they gave us a plot plan and everything was checked out. Mr. Bencal: the assessors map shows a lot size of 6,560 sq.ft. as opposed to the 8,460 sq.ft. your plot plan shows. That is a big discrepancy. Do you have an answer for the Board. No. Mr. Luzinski: is is possible • the plot plan was before it was sold to the State? Mr. Bencal: no, this land was sold quite a few years ago. What the neighbors said about their being a parking lot is quite true and it does border a marsh. This would bring petitioner to the Conservation Commission. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered. Mr. Febonio: If they have to go to the Conservation Commission maybe they should go there first and then come back to us. Isn't that the way to go. Mr. Bencal: is like the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg. Don't think it really matters which one they go to first. Mr. Febonio: I we do allow this variance and it is wetlands, the Convervation Commission will think we are nuts. We should find out and then have them come back to us. Mr. Bencal: I am not comfortable with the petition for more reasons than the wetlands, the plot plan and the assessors map contradict themselves, we are looking at two buildings on one lot. Mr. '1 Febonio: as it is right now, I am not comfortable, we should have them \ withdraw. Mr. Bencal explained to the petitioner and his son about withdrawing the petition, he explained that it would take four affirmative votes to be granted and he did not have the four votes. If this is denied they could not come back to the Board for two years. He suggested perhaps petitioner might want to seek learned advise. There are enough questions in my mind and I don't think this petition will carry. Mr. Luzinksi moved to allow petitioner to withdraw, Mr. Grealish seconded. Under discussion. Mr. Grealish: just want the petitioner to know that no one has a problem with his wanting his mother to move in but should seek learned advise. Mr. Luzinski: talk to Conservation • Commission. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN WITHOUT PREJUDICE • MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1992 page three 38 CHARLES STREET After hearing and the vote the neighbors expressed confusion as to the withdrawal. Mr. Bencal explained to them. Mr. Ryan: what about the foundation that is there and the walls. Mr. Harris, Assistant Building Inspector said there was a building permit for a one story garage, saw nothing on the plans to indicate they were in the wetlands. If this is determined to be a wetlands will you then issue a Cease and Desist. Mr. Harris: no, they would have to file a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission. Martha Stavropoulos, 34 Charles St. , I don't understand how he can build on wetlands. Mr. Bencal explained again about determining whether it is wetlands. 10 FREEMAN ROAD - NANCY AND STEVE PINTO Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow a deck in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Mr. LaPointe, Fire Inspector: No objection. Mr. Pinto represented himself. We built the deck and the left side encroaches on the corner. Need ten feet, only have eight. Submitted a petition with three signatures, all abutters, in favor. I would not have done this had I realized it encroached. Went to the bank to refinance and it was • picked up. Mr. Bencal: is this already built? Yes. Speaking in favor. Edmund Polchlopek, 12 Freeman Rd. , I think you should let it be the way it is, I signed the petition and I am in favor. No one appeared in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: again, the bank catches them for us. Mr. Luzinski: how high up and is there a fence? Mr. Pinto: Yes, about four feet, it is a rail fence. He displayed pictures to the Board. Mr. Bencal: what the pictures don't show is if you are on the deck, all you can see is ledge and tree, his property is lower than others. Mr. Grealish: between the gentleman who spoke and those who signed the petition, is that all the immediate abutters. Mr. Bencal: the Sopers are direct abutters also, but their piece of land is so minute, this would not affect them. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition as submitted and to allow the existing deck at 10 Freeman Rd. on condition petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, codes, ordinances and regulations, deck shall be as per the plans and dimensions submitted and by legal building permit and all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 48 MEMORIAL DRIVE - ROBERT AND CHARLEEN LITTLE Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming front and side setbacks to allow construction of decks in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the applicaiton, there was no correspondence. Fire Inspector LaPointe stated he had no objection to • this being granted. Charleen Little represented herself and her husband. We want to build three decks, one on the second floor 4 x 10 • MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1992 page four 48 MEMORIAL DRIVE - CONTINUED and two on the ground floor. Mr. Bencal: you were just here in November of 91, do you like us that much? Mrs. Little: we took the roof off and found we could see Beverly Harbor and we decided we wanted a deck to sit out on and watch the boats. The deck on the front will be over the driveway, it will be free standing. Mr. Febonio: I have a problem with there being no plans. Mr. Bencal: the plans we are looking at are for placement of the decks, the construction is up to the building inspector. Mr. Febonio: I hear what you are saying but would like to have something to look at. Mr. Bencal: the plans deal strictly with placement not how it is constructed. I don't think it falls under our jurisdiction. Mr. Grealish: I believe you are correct. Mr. Bencal: it is out of the ordinary that we don't have plans. By means of conditions we can make sure it is in harmony. With the petition that was granted in November, one of the conditions was that exteriors be in harmony with existing structure. Mr. Luzinski: just need front and side setbacks. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: will this be the whole length of the front of the building? Mrs. Little: no. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit to allow construction of decks at 48 • Memorial Drive 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 and by legal building permit, petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, exterior finishes be in harmony with the existing structure and all conditions of the previous decision remain in effect and be incorporated into this decision. Mr. Febonio seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 49 CENTRAL ST. - BULLMOOSE REALTY TRUST Petitioner is requesting a variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance as it relates to free standing signs ins the Urban Renewal Development District. The property is located in the B-5 (Central Business District) and is known as Roosevelt's. Mr. Grealish read the petition. No correspondence. Mr. LaPointe, Fire Inspector said he would hold comments until later. Mr. Ken Ivester or Reading, Trustee of Bullmoose Realty Trust, made the presentation. I would like to erect a sign along the Derby St. side of the property. My property sets back from the lot, and I find that is a hardship. I get zero tourist trade, people who know where Roosevelt's is, come there. People who don't know where it is, and especially people, or tourists, on foot, miss it. Mr. Bencal: do you feel that failure to grant this would be a financial hardship? Could you show us on the map where this sign will be? Mr. Ivester indicated on the Assessor's Map. Mr. Luzinski: is this on one • board, wouldn't it be better on two. Mr. Ivester: It will be on one, I questioned the sign company and they said they knew what they were • MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1992 page five 49 CENTRAL ST. - CONTINUED doing. I have one like it at my place in Wakefield. Mr. Luzinski: How is it going to be decorated? Mr. Ivester: will just be a dull black. logo in green and the moustache and glasses pink. Mr. Bencal: because the property is located in the redevelopment district they will still have to go the SRA for approval, they would have the last word as to design, size and colors. I also think they will need approval of the Historical Commission and Design Review. Mr. Luzinksi: so all we are interested in is the location. Mr. Bencal: if you remember, we had a similar petition when the Dept. of Employment Training came to us for two free standing signs. Inspector LaPointe: After listening to what is being proposed, the Fire Dept. has no objection. Mr. Febonio: let me get this straight, if this is granted, they still have to get approval from SRA, Design Review and Historic? Yes. Mr. Febonio: is this going to be on City property? Mr. Ivester: no, it will not be on the sidewalk, he again indicated on the map where it would be located. Mr. Febonio: in keeping with the City's policy on encouraging business, I would have no problem with this. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition petitioner comply with any and all requirements of any other City Board, Authority or Commission having • jurisdiction regarding, but not limited to height, color, size and placement of the proposed sign and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historical Commission be obtained, the sign comply with the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 11 1/2 SUTTON AVE. - RON MCELWAIN(PET) , ROBERT DOYLE(OWNER) Petitioner is requesting a Variance and/or Special Permit to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no further correspondence. Inspector LaPointe: The Fire Dept. has no objection to this being granted, however, the property is not currently in compliance and we would like any approval conditioned upon it being brought into compliance. Ron McElain, 114 Standley st. , Beverly, I am the builder, the owner, Mr. Doyle is here. Mr. Bencal asked Mr. Doyle if Mr. McElwain had standing to represent him. Mr. Doyle responed in the affirmative. Mr. McElwain: we are asking to rip off a hodgepodge addition and to replace with new. It is an eyesore, you can see where it is attached to the structure. This will house a kitchen. Mr. Bencal: Mr. McElwain, you submitted this application for Sutton St. and we had questions as to whether we would be able to hear this. We spoke with the City Attorney and he said that as long as the ad was corrected and the appropriate abutters were notifed of the correct location that he felt it would be okay. Please, should you come to the Board in the future, check your address properly. Mr. McElwain apologized to the Board. Speaking in favor. Robert Doyle, • owner of the property. I am trying to upgrade the house, it is an MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1992 page six 11 1/2 SUTTON AVE. - CONTINUED eysore. I do need that addition. Speaking in opposition, Jane Cunniffe, 11 Sutton Ave. , I am the legal owner of 11 Sutton Ave. , my aunt lives there, she is currently in Florida and she asked me to come here tonight. She is very concerned. This home is now in my name and not having seen any plans and not knowing what is going on caused me some concern. This is a very tricky area, his house is where someone else would have a garage. From my point of view, I have no objection. My aunt is concerned about people parking on her property. I would like to see a condition that they not park there, would like her area to be left alone. Mr. Bencal: that is not a condition the Board can impose. He does not have the authority to park there, the only he has is a five foot easement that is deeded to them. Ms. Cunniffe: I was only here to satisfy my aunt, as legal owner I was concerned with what was going on there. I have no problem with what they are proposing. Inspector LaPointe: under the fire laws, if you have a problem with parked cars and they interfer with fire protection, the fire dept. can have them moved. Mr. Doyle: I grew up there, it was my parents property, my father parked on Kay's land. I will keep the property clean. Mr. Febonio: the aunt seemed somewhat apprehensive. Mr. Bencal: I would say that comes from not knowing. Ms. Cunniffe: I would say that is the • case, I don' t know what the problem is, she just asked me to come. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: will there be a full foundation? Mr. McElwain: no, will be crawl space. Mr. Grealish made.a motion to grant the relief requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, codes, ordinances and regulations; all construction be as per the plans and dimensions submitted and with legal building permit; all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to; a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained and the exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Minutes of the January 8, 1992 meeting unanimously approved as taped. There is no meeting scheduled as there are no applications currently on file, the members will be notified whenever a date is set. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board • `b `': Titu of Salem, { asstttliusetis MINUTES OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL FOR APRIL 8, 1992 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, April 8, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing were duly published in the Salem Evening News on March 25 and April 1, 1992. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present at the meeting were Board Members Bencal, Luzinski, Febonio, Grealish, Touchette; 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 A. Bencal. 55 TREMONT STREET - MARC AND RITA BOUCHARD • Petitioners, owners of the property are requesting a Special Permit to allow roof to be raised so as to construct a dormer in this R-1 zone. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Mr. Bouchard, we have a one floor house and there is an attic that is 616" and I would like to continue the roof on up at the present pitch, about 3 feet would give me another 24 inches in height and then I can put the roof on. I have two children and I want to put two bedrooms up there. Mr. Febonio: this is not for rental. Mr. Bouchard: no, be our own use. This is a two family house, will not increase the use. This will only be bedrooms for my two sons. Mr. Febonio: will not become third family is what I'm concerned with. No, it won' t Mr. Grealish: will this conform with the existing home there, for instance, I know it's a two family, white with black shutters, I assume it's going to be the same. Mr. Bencal: one of the conditions the Board generally puts on decisions like this is that the new addition be, the exterior, in conformance, color wise with the existing structure. Mr. Grealish: and the petitioner intends to do that so okay, thanks. Speaking in favor was Mrs. Bouchard, 55 Tremont St. No one appeared in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: dormer going to run the whole length of the building? Mr. Bouchard: no it's not, if you look the house is shaped like an L, it is only across the back portion. The Board went over the plans with the petitioner. Mr. Touchette: this 18 inches will extend beyond the first floor. Mr. Bouchard: no, the roof comes out to that point, will come out to the overhang. Mr. Febonio: who will be doing this work. Mr. Bouchard: I am hiring a contractor. Mr. Grealish • made a motion to grant the petition as requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes MINUTES - APRIL 8, 1992 page two • 55 TREMONT ST. - CONTINUED 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 be obtained, all require- ments of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to and a Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Mr. Febonio seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 16 GRANT ROAD - JAMES W. GLICK The petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow existing deck to be attached to the existing dwelling in this R-1 zone. Mr. Grealish read the application and a petition in favor of the special permit signed by eight neighbors and abutters. Mr. Glick represented himself. We would like to attach 12 x 16 deck to house approximately 2 1/2 feet high. Our living room runs from the front to the back of the house and we have a sliding glass window and we would like to be able to go out through the window on to the deck. Because of where the windows are in the cellar, if we put it anyplace else it would block the windows. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: I see a deck and then there is another deck around the pool or is that all one. Mr. Glick: currently there is no deck around the pool, we have a pool, it • is above ground. We are planning on adding a deck that will be meet all requirements and will be on the end of the pool. Mr. Febonio: as its shown here, the dotted lines, that what it will eventually be. Yes. Mr. Bencal: which deck are we talking about? Mr. Luzinksi: the one attached to the house, right? Yes. Mr. Bencal: that will lead to a deck that is attached to the pool? Those lines tell me there is something there. Mr. Glick: we are hoping to put that there, we put the pool in last fall and we are planning on adding the deck. Mr. Bencal: asked Mr. Harris if he had seen the plans. They went over the plans. They were determined to be sufficient for the Board as the deck proposed for the pool would meet all setback requirements and therefore did not need Board of Appeal approval. Mr. Grealish moved to grant the petition 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; exterior finishes to be compatible with existing structure, a legal building permit be obtained, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Bencal: we will do item number 5 out of order, that is approval of minutes as transcribed, September 11, 1991, October 16, 1991, November 20, 1991 and February 19, 1992. Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes as transcribed. Mr. Grealish seconded. Unanimously accepted. • New and Old Business - the next meeting will be the 20th of May. Received and placed on file agenda from the Historic Commission. MINUTES - APRIL 8, 1992 page three • Mr. Bencal: We now have three petitions and I know of a fourth one, the House of Seven Gables. I know nothing further regarding the proposed Stop and Shop on the Salem/Peabody line. The Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held May 20, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board • • b (gitu of Salem, 'fflttssadjusetts s x : 3:1 f aura of eal MINUTES OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL - JUNE 3, 1992 A hearing of the City of Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, June 3,1992 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 advertised in the Salem Evening News on May 20 and 27, 1992. Present at the hearing were Board Members, Bencal, Febonio, Grealish, Luzinski, Touchette and Associate Member Plante. Also present was David Harris, Assistant Building Inspector and Brenda Sumrall, Clerk of the Board. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Richard Bencal. Mr. Bencal: I will be excusing myself from the first two petitions, Mr.Plante will be a voting member. Mr. Bencal explained to the assemblage the procedure regarding the meetings. Mr. Febonio will be the acting Chairman on the first two petitions. 12 BOSTON ST. - DPJ REALTY TRUST • Petitioners are asking for a Special Permit to allow the premises to be converted from a sales office plus one dwelling unit into a two family dwelling. The property is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Mr. John Boris, a Trustee, made the presentation. This building is next door to my business at 10 Boston St. , about ten years ago we came to this Board to get permission to turn this into an office building. The present economic climate made it necessary to consolidate our offices. We would like to turn this back to a two family house. There were no structural changes to speak of. Speaking in favor. Kevin Harvey, Councillor of Ward 2 and I would like to go on record as being in favor. They are a couple of fine business men in Salem and have done business in the City for a long time and would like to see this granted. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: this was a residential use before? yes. Mr. Touchette: how many parking? four. Mr. Febonio: he meets the requirement. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the Special Permit 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 and with a legal building permit, all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention Bureau relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to and a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1992 page two 29 BRIDGE ST. - ARTHUR INGEMI Mr. Febonio read the petitioners request for Variances from lot coverage and parking to allow construction of an addition. There was no further correspondence. The property is located in a B-2 district. David Jacquith, Architect spoke for the petitioner, Arthur Ingemi, who was also present. What we are asking for is an 81x18'beer cooler. Will be covered in white aluminum panels, will have a condenser on it, will be no problem with sound. Will not effect the parking situation, will not eliminate any spaces, one will become locked but that will be used by employees only, it is presently used by Arthur. Need more storage. We investigated going on top of the roof but it would be very difficult to do that. Mr. Ingemi has talked to the neighbors and they have no problem, there was concern with the noise but this is very quiet unit. Mr. Ingemi: I have nothing more to add, we will not be losing any parking. A few years ago we put on a solarium for eating, but we have eliminated that, we have taken seats away. Just trying to solve the storage problems. Speaking in favor: Councillor Kevin Harvey, 35 Andrew St. , Ward 2. I am here this evening to check out the plans that are proposed for this variance, my number one concern was the possible loss of parking, but the petitioner has assured me that is not the case. He has been a good proprietor and a good neighbor to the residential neighbors in that area. Also took the time to show what he proposed. Would like to go on record as being in favor. Joanne Bezatti, 2 Waite St. , just want to make sure it looks decent and that it won't make a lot of noise. Mr. Febonio: the Board will address those issues. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: how will the • exterior be camouflaged? Mr. Jacquith: we can put a facade, will blend right in with the existing building. The building had a major rehab about three years ago, this addition will not stand out. Mr. Plante: will there be a security fence? Mr. Ingemi: not necessary. Mr. Plante: would you be willing to put a fence around it, or a barrier, if in fact at a later date there were some complaints regarding noise. Is there some way, if there were complaints on noise, of dealing with that? Mr. Ingemi: will not be any noise. Mr. Plante: but what if. Mr. Jacquith: these are designed not to make any noise, but could be baffled. Mr. Grealish 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; petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety; a legal building permit be obtained, exterior finishes of the addition shall be in compliance with existing structure and noise factor be baffled to avoid any nuisance to neighbors; a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. Mr. Plante seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 3 SCENIC TERRACE - WILLIAM AND CHERYL GALLAGHER Mr. Bencal is Chairing this petition. Mr. Plante is not sitting. Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to construct a second level to this existing single family dwelling. The property is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no further • MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1992 page three • 3 SCENIC TERRACE - CONTINUED correspondence. Mr. Gallagher represented himself and his wife. We would like to build up and square off the ell shaped ranch. We need some additional space and this is the cheaper way to go rather than move out of the area and looking for a larger house. We have two daughters and the house as it exists right now is only a two bedroom and we need three bedrooms, possibly four, one for my mother. We are bursting at the seams. Submitted petition signed by six (6) abutters and neighbors in favor. Mr. Bencal read the petition and it was placed on file. Mr. Gallagher displayed a rendering of what the proposed structure would look like. Mr. Febonio: what is the size of the addition. There was a discussion of the petitioner and the Board relative to the size. Mr. Gallagher displayed pictures of the building as it is now. Mr. Febonio: looks like 12 x 16. Mr. Bencal explained to Mr. Touchette why the petitioner had to come to the Board of Appeal when he was not encroaching on the setbacks. A zoning amendment relating to height requires any increase in height, even though the height is meets zoning requirements, it still needs a special permit from the Board. It is a nonconforming lot. This is unique to the Salem Zoning. Mr. Febonio: this is major construction here, do you have a contractor? yes. You are not going to attempt this yourself? No. This is to be used as a one family, correct? yes. Never to be used as a two family? No, will remain a single family. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: there are three bedrooms downstairs, right? Mr. Gallagher: yes, but middle room has door leading to back. Mr. Grealish 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 and with a legal building permit, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, a certificate of occupancy be obtained, exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE - MARGARET PRESS Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a partial second level in this R-1 district. Mr Grealish read the application and correspondence from the City of Salem Conservation Commission relative to their decision and conditions. (on file) . Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal St. , Salem, represented the petitioner. The issues of this petition are very similar to the previous petition. This is a petition to build a second level on a single family dwelling in an R-1 zone. As with the prior petition, this is a nonconforming structure, namely it was constructed before the City of Salem had dimensional requirements. This will remain a single family, be no change in use. The completed structure will not exceed the height limits of the standards of the present day ordinance, namely 35 feet. This addition does not exceed the boundaries of the footprint of the building as it presently stands on • MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1992 page four • 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE - CONTINUED the lot. I am going to raise a legal point here and I don't like to get into legalisms with the Board but in this case I think it's really necessary. As the Chairman noted earlier the Ordinance was changed to add a sentence to section 8.4 which requires people when they raise the height of a building that it a nonconforming structure to obtain a Special Permit. What I am suggesting to you there is a whole series of cases that have been decided throughout the State of Massachusetts one as recently as February of this year that clearly state that this is an invalid provision of the Salem Ordinance. Mr. Bencal: that case law you cite is not in Salem. Mr. Atkins: no it was not, it is still applicable though. Mr. Bencal: under the broad sense of State law. Mr. Atkins: this is a very narrow point, I don't normally like to raise the legalism because I'm not always so firm in my opinion. This is very clear to me in my experience as a zoning attorney and my experience in handling these types of matter. Very rare we come across a case that is so clear. As I mentioned, the zoning ordinance was changed. What I would like to do is suggest that the petition should have be granted a building permit and not had to have come to this Board at all. None the less, even if you assume that a Special Permit is required, in this case it clearly should be granted, there is a case out of Ipswich which is almost precisely and exactly the same circumstances as you have before you. It was decided in February of 92. Like this case if violated the present day standard of side and front setback. They were denied, it was appealed to a court. It would not have violated height restriction and • would not have changed the footprint of the building. Exactly the same factual circumstances. Mr. Atkins read from this court decision. The standards for the issuance of a Special Permit are not violated by this request. There is not change in use, will not violate the height restriction for an R-1. Most of the homes in that area have second levels. Not a substantial impact. Will have minimum impact on neighbors. Thad Siemasko, Architect, addressed the Board. The petition came to use with idea she needed more space. Would like to have done a complete second level but she wanted to limit the impact on the neighbors and what she really needed was two rooms upstairs and a bathroom. We are adding 2/3rds of a floor to what is the main box of the building. It is a very low slung ranch house. Main part of the addition to the extreme rear of the house. Keeping the low slung roof that runs across the front essentially unchanged. Because it is two thirds of a floor instead of whole floor, it will only add 1 1/2 feet to the height. Think the Board will agree this will be in harmony. Mr. Bencal: what will the total height be? Mr. Siemasko: 25 feet from grade in front and about 27 in the back. It is well below the allowed 35 feet. It will accomplish what Ms. Press wants, two rooms and a bath in an economical way. Frankly, cost wise, to put on a whole second floor would not be significantly more, but that was not what she was after, she wanted minimum impact. Ms. Press, 55 Memorial Drive, as was stated our intention is solely personal use, we would like to live in the house for a long time. We have been very cramped with space. • MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1992 page five • 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE - CONTINUED We have a teenage daughter, basically a small second bedroom has to serve as study, guest room, dining room and everything else in the house. This will not be luxury space. This is necessary space. Before we came to the Board, I went to every neighbor to question them personally one whether there was any impact or objection. Out of the five I was assured there was no impact at all except for one, which is what I would like to address. Mr. Bencal: we haven't heard any opposition yet. Ms. Press: I realize that, but it was a major concern of mine at the onset so I want to express to you what I found. I did visit their home, they are good people. I to would be concerned if someone were going to infringe on my view, that was my big concern. From their house, which is quite high, they have quite an expansive view of the entire waterway, broken up by the other houses. It would have some small effect in my opinion from some portions of their house, other portions had almost no impact. Submitted map of the area. I am sympathetic, but it is not the full view, it is a small segment of the view from a portion of the house and the entire addition would impact on the view. I am the only house on Memorial Drive that does not have a second floor. Other people on the street, including the neighbor that is effected, have been able to build over the years and I am only asking for the same, no more. My primary concern was that it stay low and esthetic and not be an eye sore. Because another neighbor would be directly affected I cannot build over the breezeway and garage, this would take a sizable portion of their view, I couldn't do that. I have suggested that I would do anything in my ability, cut down any tree or shrub on my lot to • try to make up for the loss degrees of loss. We have taken down a row of 30 foot junipers, they were quite high, must have been planted fifty years ago. Mr. Atkins: that completes our presentation, again I would like to emphasize that it is not often I get legal issue so forceful as I have. The case I presented is not an isolated case and is not void from state law. MGL 40A is quite specific in this case, the statue is quite clear in this and I hope this issue is not forced into a court room, this is a clear case for the issuance of a building permit and certainly the issuance of a Special Permit. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Joan Thibeault, 50 Memorial Drive, lived there for 36 years, have been very fortunate to have a beautiful view. Five years ago we enclosed deck so we could enjoy 'the view all year, not just in the summer. Right now we can look right over her house, if this addition is put on it will really block our view. When she first showed us the plans, we have always been friends, would like to go along with this. Suggested cutting some shrubs and that would help, kind of compensate, that was before we went on the side decking. We have a side decking and a pool, we are out there all summer. As soon as we stepped out there we realized that hey, it's going to be gone, all we would be seeing is the addition. Also, the value of our house came into question. We have the sewerage plant in back of us, another one coming in, this view adds to the value of our house and we hate to lose it for that reason also. I called Margaret because I didn't want her to come in here thinking we were not going to oppose her and I tried to talk to her • MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1992 page six • 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE - CONTINUED and I told her that after thinking about this we really couldn't go along with it, we don't want to lose the value we have in this house, which is our view, and I said, is it possible for you to move even halfway over the breezeway, that way, on the decking we would lose a little but on the rest of the house we would be fine. She said she would cut down any shrubs, which we were grateful for, but as it stands now, we feel that our view is very important to us, that is why we are here. We object to the addition as it is, I wish there was some other way we could work it out. Displayed pictures. We are up high which is why we can see over her house. Mr. Bencal: was your house built with two levels. Mrs. Thibeault: really not two levels, we have a ranch and we had added a family room on front with decking on top, then we enclosed the decking. From our upstairs it goes right out onto that room. It is the same height as the day it was built. Mr. Luzinski: did you hear the increase in height was only going to be 6 1/2 feet, did you take that into consideration? Mrs. Thibeault: yes, I know, she told us. Councillor Nowak: difficult time to come before the Board. I am very disappointed with Mr. Atkins, his comments, kind of threatening the Board with court action. I hope the petitioner, along with the neighbor can work something out with the architect to save the peoples property. Compromise is always helpful. Think if the architect went back to the drawing board perhaps they could work out something that would be helpful. Rebuttal. Attorney Atkins, never intended any threat, I just wanted to emphasize how strongly I feel on this legal point. Very rare, as I mentioned that I have that opportunity. Secondly, I really would like to • address this issue of working with the architect to minimize the impact, even after her discussions with her neighbor, she got together again with her architect and they couldn't really address it any other fashion than what they have done. Display picture of the Thibeault house. There is only one portion of their house that is impacted. It is a limited blockage of the view. I understand how they must feel about having the sewerage plant there, we can't change that. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Atkins, you cited what will probably become case law, who was the successful attorney? In the Ipswich case. I know the answer. Mr. Atkins: I'm afraid I don't. Mr. Bencal: Leonard Femino, the Assistant City Solicitor. Mr.Febonio: The picture they displayed is only showing where it would impact on one side on their view, on the other side there is no impact at all. There is another deck-on the other side and there is no impact. Mr. Touchette: asked Mrs. Thibeault, do you know what the height is from street level to those windows that are in the front room? Mr. Thibeault: about 15 ft. Mr. Grealish: the houses to the left, are they two levels? Ms. Press: yes, displayed aerial photos. Mr. Febonio: sensitive to everyone's position. Mr. Siemaski: yes, Ms. Press was very concerned with impact on the neighborhood and the neighbors. She was upset when she new the neighbor was upset and asked me to look at it again. Mr. Luzinski: good design. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction shall be cone as per the plans and dimensions submitted and by legal building permit, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be • MINUTES — JUNE 3, 1992 page seven • 55 MEMORIAL DRIVE - CONTINUED strictly adhered to, a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained, exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing structure, all requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission in a letter dated May 5, 1992 shall be adhered to. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 42 HILLSIDE AVE. - JOSEPH AND JOAN O'NEIL Petitioners are requesting a Variance to allow an existing enclosed deck which encroaches on rear setback requirement in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Attorney James Decoulos, Peabody, represented the petitioners. The purpose of this petition is for variance with regard to rear setback. They have lived there since 1977 and have done many improvements. In 1987 they engaged a contractor to construct a deck, an L shaped deck and at the time they contemplated that as some time this would be an enclosed deck and their contract with Mr. Spyker included sufficient supports for the deck and also to obtain a building permit. The deck was constructed in 1987 and in 1990 the deck was enclosed. When it was enclosed they had an electrician who was going to do some wiring and that was the first time, when the electrician tried to get a permit, they realized there were no permits obtained in 1987. The corner of the deck missed the 30 foot requirement, it is only 25 feet. He comes before you with hat in hand, it has come to • his attention he has violated the rear line setback by 413" . He displayed pictures of the property showing the improvements made to the property. We are requesting a variance from rear setback. The work is all done. Mr. Luzinski: how is it determined to be the rear lot? You have five sides. Mr. Decoulos: good question, the point is, it is less than 30 feet and the Building Inspector would not issue a permit. Mr. Bencal: generally determined by the location of the front door. Mr. Bencal conferred with Mr. Harris regarding how the rear is decided on this type of lot. Mr. Bencal: the rear is always opposite the front. His address is Hillside so that is his rear. If his address was Almeda St. he would not even be here. Speaking in favor. Raymond Letarte, 15 Colby St. , I was the electrician who did the wiring, also an abutter. I would like to speak in favor, he has plenty of land, will have not impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Levesque, 32 Hillside Ave. ,I own the rear property and I am in favor. I have a letter here from my wife. Mr. Bencal read the letter from Lucille Levesque. (on file) Mr. Letarte, 34 Hillside Ave. , I am in favor. I have letter from the Stetsons, 38 Hillside Ave. also in favor. Mr. Bencal read that letter into record. (on file) Mr. Letarte: I also have a letter from my other daughter, which he submitted and again Mr. Bencal read the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Clark, 36 Hillside Ave. into the record. Councillor Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4 City Councillor, in favor. The neighborhood up there is very close neighborhood, they all get along very well and I see no problem with this. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with all city 5 state codes, statutes, ordinances & regulations, construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted, comply with all requirements of the Salem • MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1992 page eight • 42 HILLSIDE AVE. - CONTINUED Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety, legal building permit be obtained, exterior finishes comply with existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 30 SHORE AVENUE - MARK JALBERT The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a deck in this Residential Single family District (R-1) Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Mr. Jalbert represented himself. My family has owned this for sixty (60) plus years. I would like to extend the deck to add to our enjoyment. Have spoken with all the neighbors and they have no issues. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: how high? About 4 feet. The Board went over the plans. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to, a legal building permit is to be obtained. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 77-79 LEACH ST. - ALBERT AND MARY LEVESQUE • Petitioners are requesting variances to allow extension of an existing deck and to convert two family into a three family in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application and a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Jean-Guy Martineau, 89 Leach St. , in favor of granting this petition. Mr. Levesque represented himself and his wife. We have a two family home and over the years my family has used the second and third floor now that our family is reduced we would like to add stairs to the front so as to give it a second egress and have a three family. Mr. Bencal: I would like you to address the hardship. Mr. Levesque: Granting this would allow us to get full value of the house. We have provided parking, two spaces for each level. Without this we would be restricted from getting full value of the house. Mr. Bencal: how long has it been a two family? When you bought it, you bought it as a two family? Yes, we did. Mr. Touchette: what is up there now for rooms. Mr. Levesque: What you see on the plans, that is essentially what is up there now, the kitchen has not been approved because that would constitute a three family. There is bedroom, bathroom, living room. Mr. Febonio: will this be a rental? Mr. Levesque: eventually but we have no immediate plans. Right now my sister is there. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: where do the cars park now. Mr. Levesque showed the Board members where the current parking is and where the proposed parking will be. Mr. Touchette: how many parking spaces will there be? Mr. Levesque: there will be six. Half the homes in the area are three family and four family homes. Mr. Febonio: it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Bencal: one of the conditions the Board puts on a decision like this is that the property remain owner • MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1992 page nine • 77-79 LEACH STREET - CONTINUED occupied, this is a protection for the neighborhood and I would not vote for this without that condition. Mr. Febonio: this will be owner occupied? Mr. Levesque: yes, this is our home, this is where we want to live. Mr. Febonio: would you object to that condition? Mr. Levesque: no, not at all. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition to allow the extension of a deck and to convert a two family to a three family on condition the petition comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and with a legal building permit, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to, a Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained, property may be used as a three family so long as it remains owner occupied and parking must be provided as per the plan submitted. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 0 AND 2 CLARK AVE. - DAVID RUSSO/RUDOLPH AND MARY GROWITZ Petitioners are requesting variances to divide the property. Mr. Russo is the owner of 0 Clark Ave. and Mr. & Mrs. Growitz are the owners of 3 Clark Ave. The property is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no further correspondence. Attorney Richard Torte, 64 Broad St. , Lynn, Mr. Russo bought an undeveloped parcel of land known as 0 Clark Ave. which is situated next to 2 Clark Ave. He began constructing a family residence. A dispute the began regarding the lot lines. The • portion in question is the Growitz's paved driveway which had been constructed but in error on Mr. Russo's land. What we seek to do is convey that portion of the land and it resolve a civil litigation, it does not affect the neighborhood at all, the driveway is there now, it will remain there, the lot is about 156 sq.ft. What is does is take about 6.5 feet of frontage from Mr. Russo's land. Attorney Charles Belmer, Jr. , Salem; representing the Growitz's, if the petition weren't granted and the court case were to end, there would a likelihood of continued trespass on Mr. Russo's land. If the court action were to be continued there is a likelihood more land could be involved. As Councillor Nowak has said, he likes to see agreements worked out and this is what has happened here, we have worked out and agreement and have brought here. Mr. Bencal: the only reason you are here is to convey that small piece and to vary the frontage by that small amount. Mr. Febonio: both parties agree. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: as stated, this will settle the dispute between the two parties? Mr. Torte: this is just one part of the case, but the others have been resolved. Mr. Luzinski: that little triangle that is referred to as lot three? That's it. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioners comply with the plans and dimensions submitted. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1992 page ten • 7 CLARK ST. - PAUL FERRAGAMO This request for Variances from frontage, and lot size to allow construction of a single family dwelling was denied originally in 1987, it was denied again in 1989, this denial was appealed in court and has subsequently been remanded back to this Board. The property is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the original application. Mr. Bencal: we will be treating this as a new case. Attorney Matthew Kavanaugh, Peabody represented Mr. Ferragamo. When this petition was first present we were not representing Mr. Ferragamo. I took the opportunity to prepare a statement in support of the petition which will give the Board a little more information as far as Mr. Bencal interrupted Mr. Ferragamo at that point and explained that except for two members there was a brand new Board. It is a new petition and you have gentlemen here who are not familiar with this so we are treating it as a new case, I think, if you could present it as a new case. Mr. Kavanaugh submitted copies of his statement to the Board, attached to this statement is a plan "Exhibit All showing the lot and the proposed dwelling, "Exhibit B" a list of the variances requested. The land is registered land, established back in 1921 and attached as "Exhibit C" is the original plan that shows it as lot 104, that lot still exists, same size also have as "Exhibit B" a copy of today's Assessor's Map. The neighborhood is mainly single family homes and the lots at least on the northerly side are all the same size. As far as hardship, if variance is not granted this land could not be used as single family in an R-1 zone. Mr. Ferragamo lives in the neighborhood. This will • be in harmony with the neighborhood. We have a lot that is in an R-1 zone and without variances it cannot be used for single family, cannot be used for anything that would be consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Bencal: Did Mr. Ferragamo, the owner of the property, which is Hammond Family Trust, did they at anytime own lot 78? Mr. Kavanaugh: yes, Mr. Ferragamo did own lot 78. Mr. Bencal: is that owned by Mr. Ferragamo as trustee for this trust? Mr. Kavanaugh: I believe that was owned by Mr. Ferragamo as trustee of Ferragamo family trust, I could check the deed. Mr. Bencal: is Hammond Family Trust a successor to the Ferragamo trust? Mr. Kavanaugh: a successor in interest? I believe the title of lot 79 was Hammond Family Trust and 78 was Ferragamo Family Trust and I believe the lots were purchased by Mr. Ferragamo as Trustee at approximately the same time. Some were taken as by the Ferragamo Family Trust and some were taken as the Hammond Family Trust. Mr. Bencal: did Mr. Ferragamo come into the Board and ask the Board to get variance for lot 78 to allow it to be built. Mr. Kavanaugh: yes, I believe he did, I did not represent him in that action, I believe he did receive variance to construct a single family on lot 78. Mr. Bencal: so, what he did was take, what, under merger would be a 10,000 sq.ft. lot and created two 5,000 sq.ft. lots and now has created his own hardship. Mr. Kavanaugh: I have had many discussions with Attorney Femino, we have written back and forth, I have many cases to support our position that we are entitled to grand- father protection for lot 79, we have agreed to disagree on that point. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. • MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1992 page eleven • 7 CLARK STREET - CONTINUED Mr. Grealish: would you refresh my memory on the grandfathering. Mr. Kavanaugh: the grandfather, the argument basically is, these lots were created prior to 1965, they were not held in common ownership at the time the zoning ordinance was adopted, 1965, they always had separate deeds, never part of the same deed. They did subsequently come into common ownership under the name of Hammond, but it was by separate deed. We say that because they were separate at the time of zoning, we contend they are grandfathered. I do want to make it clear that Mr. Femino disagrees with our position. Mr. Febonio: the letter of the law is one thing but in good faith it some how becomes a scheme. You chopped it up, that's the sticky point, respectfully, and I can't say it any simpler, he was playing the edge. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with all city and state code, regulations, ordinances and statutes, all construction be as per plans and dimensions submitted and with legal building permit, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, a certificate of occupancy be obtained and property number be obtained from the City of Salem Assessor. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Voting in favor of the motion to grant was Mr. Febonio, Mr. Grealish and Mr. Touchette. Voting in opposition to the motion was Mr.Bencal and Mr. Luzinski. The motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes fails and the petitioners request for Variances is denied by a 3-2 vote. DENIED • Minutes of the Board of Appeal meeting of May 20, 1992 unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held June 24, 1992, the meeting in July will be held July 22, 1992, on the second floor of One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board • .o>uryy of ialem, Httsstttllusetts I; • Paura of �ppeal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - JUNE 24 1992 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held June 24, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of the meeting were duly published in the Salem Evening News on June 10 and June 17, 1992. Abutters and other interested person were notified by mail. Present at the meeting were Board Members, Bencal, Febonio, Grealish, Luzinski and Touchette. Also present were 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. 8 MADELINE AVE. - RITA AND ANN MANOOGIAN This request for a variance to convert a single family dwelling into a two family dwelling was continued from the May 20, 1992 meeting. Mr. Bencal: We have received a letter from the petitioners requesting they be allowed to withdraw. Ms. Ann Manoogian representing herself formally requested • leave to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Febonio made the motion to allow petitioner to withdraw, Mr. Touchette seconded. Mr. Luzinski did not sit on the original hearing so he will not vote on this. The Board voted unanimously 4-0 in favor of the motion UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN 5 ORD STREET COURT - WILLIAM AND EILEEN HARRIS Petitioners are requesting a Variance from rear setback to allow construction of a deck in this B-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Mr. William Harris represented himself. We just want a deck for cookouts, entertaining, sitting out there and stuff. Mr. Bencal: with a request for variance you must show some type of hardship could you explain briefly what that may be, could it be the topography of the land. Mr. Harris: yes, the back of the house is very uneven, lot of stone. We need rear setback variance. Mr. Bencal: what is the side setback? Mr. Harris: 10 feet plus or minus. The Board members went over the plans. Mr. Bencal: you are showing plus or minus 10 feet, it better be 10 feet. Mr. Harris: it is right at ten at that corner. Mr. Bencal: you haven't asked for it, we can't give it to you and it you need it you will have to come back. Mr. Febonio: if he is minus the ten and we give it to him he has to come back right. Why don't you check your figures and withdraw and come back at another time. Would that be better Mr. Chairman? Mr. Bencal: the petitioner shows plan with plus or minus ten. It is up to the petitioner, we can go ahead if you feel • MINUTES - JUNE 24, 1992 page two • 5 ORD STREET COURT - CONTINUED you have the ten feet or you can ask to withdraw and come back when you are sure. Mr. Harris: I am within inches. If you gave me this variance and I start to build this and the Building Inspector stopped it because he didn't think I had enough, could I still come back and go for the variance on the side line. Mr. Bencal: yes, but you run the risk of not getting it. Mr. Harris: and I would be half way through with it. Mr. Febonio: would it be possible for the petitioner to reduce that. Mr. Harris: come in a little from the end. Mr. Febonio: then you definitely be with the ten feet. Would you be able to draw the plans tonight? Mr. Bencal: one of the problems we run into Mr. Febonio, is attempting to go overboard to help people, they have to do some work to help us. The gentleman has presented his plan, we can certainly try to help him as much as we can but to start redoing his plans for him it totally not within our bounds and I don't think we should be doing that. Mr. Grealish: if the petitioner were to redo his plans, how quickly could he come back to us. In terms of our schedule. Mr. Bencal: we have another meeting scheduled end of July and right now it is available. You have, 1, the option of going ahead and hope you are not within the 10 feet, 2, you can withdraw, the 3rd option is to continue this, I usually don't like continuances, but you can continue until the July 22nd meeting, measure your plans and if you meet the setbacks, fine, if you don't you can withdraw at that time. Mr. Harris requested a continuance. Mr. Bencal explained about waiving of time requirements and the condition that the petition be responsible for notifying abutters of the next meeting date, by certified mail. Mr. Harris • was in agreement. Mr. Febonio made a motion to continue this petition until the July 22, 1992 meeting on condition petitioner sign a waiver of the requirements and the petitioner notified abutters by certified mail and provide proof of said mailing to the Board. Mr. Grealish second. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 22, 1992 229 JEFFERSON AVE. - BROADWAY NOMINEE TRUST Petitioners are requesting variances from density requirements to allow the existing single family dwelling which does not conform to remain as is. The property is located in an R-3 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Attorney Timothy Kavanaugh, Salem, represented the petitioners. Petitioners have P & S Agreement and begun rehabilitating the property when he came to their attention through Counsel for the bank which they applied for mortgage that the Variance granted in 1970 had never been recorded. The bank required the petitioners to come back to the Board and acquire these variances from density. The house has been used as single family since 1910, the petitioners propose no changes to the exterior of the dwelling. They have done substantial renovations to the interior to date. They will install a driveway on the right hand side of the property which will provided for two motor vehicles. I believe that everything that can be done to enhance this property is being done and they are asking they be allowed to use the property as it exists. Displayed photographs of the property. He submitted a petition signed in favor of this signed eight (8) people in the area. (on file) • MINUTES - JUNE 24, 1992 page three • 229 JEFFERSON AVENUE - CONTINUED Mr. Febonio: this is just going to continue the use, for legal reasons. Mr. Kavanaugh: yes, they just didn't record the decision back in 1970. Mr. Febonio: you want it on record. Yes. Mr. Febonio: going to add two parking spaces? Mr. Kavanaugh: yes, that's the only change. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: is someone living there right now? Mr. Kavanaugh: not at this time, the decedent, Mr. Corbin was living there. Mr. Bencal: I hope if this is granted, one of the conditions be that two parking spaces be provided on site as Mr. Kavanaugh stated. Mr. Grealish 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, petitioner shall provided two legal on site parking space. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 6 HAMILTON ST. - LATTA REALTY TRUST Petitioners, owners of the property, are requesting a Special Permit to allow extension of nonconforming rear setback to allow construction of a deck in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Mr. Steve Whittier, 10 River St. , represented the petitioner. Mr. Bencal: what is your standing? Mr. Whittier: I am the contractor. Mr. Bencal: addressed the petitioner, since Mr. Whittier is not noted on the application I would like some assent from you that he is • in fact representing you. Ms. Frothingham, Tr. , Latta Realty Trust, affirmed that Mr. Whittier was representing her. Mr. Whittier: we would like to build a deck as per the plans submitted which will eliminate a vestibule. Mr. Luzinski: the new deck is going where the vestibule is crossed out? yes. He submitted a letter from the Historic Commission dated 5/21/92 (on file) . Been to the historic twice, had to change the stairs from the side to the rear. When we first measured it we thought we had 30 feet but we did not. Went over the plans. Mr. Febonio: how much are you encroaching? Mr. Whittier: three feet. Instead of 30 feet we have 27 feet. He submitted a letter from Alice V.N.Johnson, 4 Hamilton St. , in favor. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: asking for rear setback only? Mr. Bencal: yes, it is a Special Permit so there is no hardship involved. Mr. Febonio: is the 27 feet to the stairs or the porch? The porch. Mr. Grealish 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 and with legal building permit; all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - JUNE 24, 1992 page four • 119 NORTH STREET - GEORGIA PORAZINSKI Petitioners request is for a Special Permit to construct an addition in this B-1 district. Mr. Bencal read a letter from the petitioner requesting leave to withdraw. Mr. Bencal: is the petitioner here? Ms. Porazinski: yes. Mr. Bencal: is there a motion to that effect. Mr. Febonio: I will make the motion to allow withdrawal. Mr. Grealish seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 17 WILLSON ST. - ERLE SOPER (OWNER)/ROBERT CHALIFOUR (PETITIONER) Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow construction of a porch in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Robert Chalifour represented himself. I was called in to replace floor boards on the porch, I started pulling them up and what had happened it was all rotted. Mr. Bencal: what is your standing here? Mr.Chalifour: I am the petitioner, carpenter, the owner is here. So, the post and beams were totally rotted out and we had to tear it down. Want to bring the porch to the end of the house, along the house line. There is no place for a youngster to play on that lot and by having a deck they will be able to sit out there and enjoy the back yard. Since the porch is under construction I wanted to bring the porch to the house line which is less than five feet. Mr. Bencal: what you are attempting to do is follow the house line? Yes. Mr. Touchette: this dark line here, is that what is proposed. Yes. The • Board went over the plans. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Grealish 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, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to and petitioner obtain a legal building permit. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4 LANGDON ST. - WILLIAM MELANSON Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow construction of an addition in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Mr.Mike Bouchard, 110 Bartholomew St. , Peabody, I am the carpenter, Mr. Melanson called me tonight and he is taken ill and cannot be here and he asked me to represent him. Mr. Melanson would like to put a three season porch out the back of his house, looking further down the road, when he gets to the wheel chair stage he wants to be able to get out, open some windows, get some fresh air. Mr. Bencal: what is a three season porch? Mr. Bouchard: it's an unheated space, closed in porch. Mr. Febonio: any electrical going in there? It can be heated? Mr. Bouchard: it can be, it is not going be now. Will be sliding windows. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Santos, 6 Langdon St. , looked at the plans, had no problem. Hearing closed. Mr. Grealish moved to grant on condition petitioner comply with all city & state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, construction • MINUTES - JUNE 24, 1992 page five • 6 LANGDON ST. - CONTINUED be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and by legal building permit; all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, petitioner obtain a certificate of occupancy for the addition and exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing structure and shall be approved by the Building Department. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 14 SCHOOL ST. - JON O'NEIL Petitioner is requesting Variances to extend an enclosed porch in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Mr. O'Neil represented himself. I need to replace the existing porch, it is all rotted and I would like to come out about two feet more. If we wanted to have supper out there or something like that. Mr. Bencal: when someone requests a variance, the issue of hardship comes into it, could you address that? Mr. O'Neil: I just had the whole house vinylized and the porch wouldn't match it and I would like to do everything at once. Mr. Bencal explained the criteria for proving hardship. Mr. O'Neil did not understand. Mr. Bencal explained once again. Mr. Bencal: is it a safety concern? Mr. O'Neil: that's what I'm concerned with, I'm afraid that the footings are going to settle down and the whole thing is going to come down. Mr. Bencal: so, this is a safety issue and we can grant this • without derogating from the intent of the district. Mr. Luzinski: this will enclosed? yes. Mr. Febonio: is the existing porch enclosed? It is screened in. Mr. Febonio: this will enhance your quality of life? yes. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: who is going to build this? Mr. O'Neil: Merridian Construction. The Board went over the plans. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition 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; petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety; petitioner obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector, exterior finishes of the porch be in compliance with existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Febonio moved to approve the minutes of the June 3, 1992 meeting. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held July 22, 1991 on the second floor, One Salem Green. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board • / b Ctg of Salem, {` afloa ljusetts • % _. s pourb of '�kppenl NIStpTI.�'v MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - JULY 22 1992 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, July 22, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. , on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of the hearing were duly published in the Salem Evening News on July 8 and 15. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present at the hearing were Board Members; Bencal, Febonio, Grealish, Touchette, Associate Labrecque; Assistant Building Inspector Harris and Clerk of the Board Sumrall Meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Richard A. Bencal, at 7:00 p.m. , Mr. Labrecque was appointed a voting member. Mr. Bencal explained the proceedings of the Board to the assemblage. 5 CHEVAL AVENUE -..JAMES PICONE Petitioner is requesting variances from to allow existing garage to be demolished and to construct a new garage in this R-1 district. Mr. • Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. James Picone, 25 Beach Ave. , represented himself, he displayed plans and pictures of the property. This garage is a metal four car garage and if you are familiar with Cheval Ave. down the Willows there are twenty two garages all in a row on Cheval, they were built at the turn of the century to house horses that people brought from other communities when they vacationed here. Over the years the stables were converted to garages. Eighteen of the garages were basically cinder block, except for mine, my metal garage is a prefabricated metal unit put up back in the 30's and what happened was, the garage bought as a kit and it came 18 x 36 which makes it much smaller than the other garages. The garage is in a deteriorated state and it really needs to be rebuilt, the October storm we had last year really was quite a blow to the garage. It is rotted at the bottom. Would like to rebuild the garage, a wooden structure, concrete floor and foundation and will expand it 18 inches to bring it in line with all the other garages. I would like to abut the neighbors garage and the neighbor, who was supposed to be here, is very supportive of this. That is why I have petitioned you tonight. Mr. Febonio: these garages will be abutting side to side? yes. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: this will be in harmony with the existing structures? Mr. Picone: the other buildings, with the exception of one of the garages about 12 down, have a peaked roof, all the other garages have flat roofs. I am planning on keeping the same pitch as I have now. Mr. Bencal: these garages, do they abut the playground. Yes, Juniper Playground. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, construction to • MINUTES - JULY 22, 1991 page two • 5 CHEVAL AVE. - CONTINUED be done in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted; petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety; a legal building permit for demolition and construction is to be obtained. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 24 SAUNDERS STREET - W 5 G REALTY TRUST Petitioners are requesting Variances from use, density and more than one building on a lot in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application and referred to previously granted decisions. Attorney John Serafini,Sr. , represented the petitioner. He submitted four (4) letters in favor from; Councillor. Harvey, Century 21, W.D. Little and a letter addressed to Mr. Joseph Jones, 57 Wharf St. , Salem from Mr. Serafini and noted on the bottom that Mr. Jones was in favor. Mr. Bencal read all letters into the record. (on file) . Mr. Serafini displayed plans of the property. This is the site of the old Salem Shoe which was one of Salem's most foremost shoe factories in the area and employed a good many people. It was owned by two partners, conducted a business that was a model of relationships between employees, the community and the city. Unfortunately, the shoe business went down hill, with the advent of imports and with some of the major customers, such as Sears beginning to have their shoes manufactured in Korea, they were not able to continue in a profitable manner. They discussed this with the • union and finally realized that continuing would wind up for them in bankruptcy. They began to phase out the business. Business there for many years, always industrial type use. This is at the very end of Saunders St. and there is a precipitous drop as you get from Saunders down to where you meet the North River, the topography is not level and it is bounded by railroad tracks and on the other side is the North River. Some years ago as some of you remember, the State agreed, in connection with the rebuilding of the Beverly Bridge to widen that roadway. So there has been some activity from the State inhibiting the development of that particular piece of property until such time as the State developed its plan to build the bridge and rebuild the highway. The property could have been developed at that time, in conjunction with meetings it was decided a residential use would be more appropriate for the property. Neighborhood meetings were held. In reliance on the approvals of the City Boards, the owners went ahead and commissioned the demolition of the factory, they obtained the necessary permits, leveled the site, prepared the property and had the property under agreement with a developer who was going to build the units. At the last moment, the developer, after going through many lending institutions, was forced to back out of the situation. Since then they have lived with the fact that developments of this type have to depend on the economy and banks to finance. The climate has been such that it just isn't there at the present time. Hopefully in the next year things will turn around and this project can go ahead. People were are dealing with are people who have been in the City for many years. Unfortunately, at the tail end of their lives they are faced with the prospect of carrying this • property in hopes of recouping some of their investment. The issues, as far as the site, all of that has been carefully and thoroughly gone over. MINUTES - JULY 22, 1992 • page three 24 SAUNDERS ST. - CONTINUED All the agencies of city have been in favor. We feel that all the arguments that were there are present now. What we are asking, in the interest of fairness is that the variances be re-established. Mr. Febonio: re-establish variances, which means what. Mr. Serafini: will be the same variances that were granted before, nothing new, nothing in addition to what was previously granted. Mr. Febonio: your not coming in for a six month extension what does this give you? Mr. Serafini: this gives us a year, like any variance. It's a new petition. Mr. Febonio: so this is new, which gives you a whole year, we gave you three consecutive six month extensions. Mr. Bencal: that's incorrect. Each time the petitioner has come in they have subsequently requested a six month extension. Mr. Febonio: I stand corrected. Mr. Serafini: this is a new petition and under 40A. , after a twelve month period, unless you have done some work, you are entitled to a six month extension without advertising after that you need to go through the new petition process, advertise, notify abutters etc. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Leslie Byrnes, 16 Saunders St. , I agree there should be some income property constructed there but I think the volume being discussed is a little bit large. Saunders is very private street. The traffic on Bridge St. is extremely intense. Saunders St. will be used as the main entrance and exit. Parking is inadequate and with the construction of a 60 unit building there will be double and in some cases triple cars. There are a lot of children in the • area, a lot of children and they play in the street. With the construction and renovations that are going on in Salem, they are using Cross St. and other various streets as short cuts. Children are in the roads playing. Will create an unsafe environment. Volume too intense, think if it were cut in half or even elderly housing but I just think that 60 units is too much. Hearing closed. In Rebuttal. Mr. Serafini: I understand the concerns of the neighbor. I might point out that parking has been approved by the Board of Appeal and the Planning Board and five spaces have been dedicated for the use of the neighborhood. We have on site parking. We have made sure the entrances and exits of that project are such that they will impact in the least way on the neighborhood. It is a self contained project with ample parking. Thank you. Mr. Febonio: I think it says here 95 spaces, five spaces for residents of Saunders St. I notice when this first came to the Board there was not opposition. He asked Ms. Byrnes is she was living there at that time. Ms. Byrnes: no, I purchased the property later. Mr. Bencal: the lady was here the last time the this was heard. Mr. Febonio: it would have been noted. Mr. Bencal: it should have been. Mr. Touchette: you mentioned about entrances and exits, I noticed over here (indicated Pearl St. on the plan) Doesn't look like it exists. Mr. Bencal: it does exist, when you get down further down. Showed him on the Assessors Map. Mr. Touchette: I see, that would give you exit from these parking spaces. Mr. Serafini: the Planning Dept. felt the entrance and exit as is was the best and the Fire Dept. wanted to keep this, Pearl St. , for emergency only. Saunders is the best entrance and exit because of the lights. Pearl is much narrower than Saunders. Ms. • Byrnes: at the last meeting it was requested that the property be maintained and this has not been done. It is becoming very hazardous. Mr. Serafini agreed it would be maintained and it has no been. Mr. Bencal: • MINUTES - JULY 22, 1992 page four 24 SAUNDERS ST. - CONTINUED yes, that is true, Mr. Serafini, the lady has a legitimate gripe. Mr. Serafini: I agree. What we did after the last meeting was to close off the site completely, vehicles were able to get on the property and I believe that is not the case now. I think that as far as maintaining the site and cutting the shrubs, that can be done and would have no problem with a condition. Mr. Bencal: can that be done within the next ten days, the neighbors and seeing the Amazon Jungle there. The lady seems very reasonable. Mr. Serafini: I think she is. We can do that. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition that all conditions of the previous decision be incorporated and innumerated. Mr. Febonio: I think we can put an emphasis on condition number two regarding the cleaning up of the site until the project is developed. This will be the petitioners responsibility until they are legally no longer owners. Mr. Grealish: it would be best to add on to condition 1(1) . Mr. Bencal: no, it should be added to condition number two as that deals with the maintenance of the lot. Mr. Febonio: I just don't want it to slip through. Mr. Bencal: the condition now reads "the site is to be kept reasonably clear of weeds and other debris" , is there something you want to add to tighten that? Mr. Febonio: there was a fall back on that condition, how do we prevent that from happening again? Am I making myself clear enough? Let's put down that it is to be maintained at all time. Mr. Grealish: condition number • two we will add maintained and cleaned at all time. Mr. Bencal: a motion has been made by Mr. Grealish incorporating the conditions from previous decisions and unless someone wants to specifically hear the conditions they will be made part of the decision and will not be read, there are 14 such conditions, is there a second? Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 3 SAVONA STREET - MARY CIVIELLO Petitioner is requesting variances to divide her property which is located in an R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Attorney John Serafini, Sr. , represented the petitioner. He displayed the plot of land. Mrs. Civiello is here tonight with her two sons. If you are familiar with that area in Salem, the original subdivisions that were laid out back in 1928 were all relatively small lots with frontages that were not in accordance with requirements today. She has spoke to people in the neighborhood and people that she knows in that neighborhood and we believe that all of them are in favor. Basically, these two lots remain the same, he referred to lots 356 and 357 on the plot plan dated 2/21/92, the lot where her home is, lot 702, right now, the lot line is being shifted because before it went through a corner of her house and it is being shifted to make this lot, #703, a suitable lot. She has an interest in having her family around her, both her sons are here tonight. The intent being they would be able to build their homes. This would not in anyway affect the tenure of the area. Salem is a small city made up of • eight square miles we have many of these situations and we feel that granting this would be in accordance with at least the spirit of what Salem is. Speaking in favor. Mrs. Civiello, 3 Savona st. , I have a large family. We have been solid citizens of Salem for a long time, my husband • MINUTES - JULY 22, 1992 page five 3 SAVONA ST. - CONTINUED has coached Salem Youth, he has been a Scout Leader, we have been involved in the whole community, I work in Salem, my children love Salem, many of them would like to stay here. Having them near would be a great help to me, my husband is handicapped and we would like to have these kids near us. The houses are not crowded. We like the neighborhood, wonderful place to bring up children and I would like to see my children here. Phil Civiello, this land is for me and my brothers, I work in Salem and I do have some plans for this land me and my brothers, two of my brothers aren't here tonight, I am one of six boys. Plenty of room. Councillor O'Leary, Ward Councillor, I am not only their councillor but I am also their neighbor. Mrs. Civiello has raised nine children. Her husband is handicapped. She has raised a nice family, good neighbors, they have planned for these lots for some of their children, not all nine and through the laws, the lots they thought were divided have been combined. That's why they are here tonight, to divide these and distribute them to the children that want to stay around the homestead. I am all in favor of the variance, they are nice people and they deserve it. No one appeared in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: how long has petitioner owned the property? Mrs. Civiello: since 1950 it has been in the family, it was four registered lots. Mr. Bencal: the unique thing, as I look at the plans, there is over • 33,000 sq.ft. which would be enough for two lots, but, the way they are situated you could not put two legal lots the way the house is situated. The petitioner would still be here. Looking at the Assessors Map many of the lots in the area are the same size. Mr. Febonio: these four lots would be in keeping with the neighborhood? yes. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the variances requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations and the lots are to be divided as per the plans and dimensions submitted. Mr. Grealish: any other conditions? Mr. Bencal: that's fine, if they want to construct they can go ahead unless they were going to encroach on setbacks. I have a motion to grant, is there a second. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 163 LAFAYETTE ST. - LEVESQUE FUNERAL HOME Petitioners are requesting Special Permit to construct two additions to this existing nonconforming structure. Mr. Grealish read the application and correspondence from the Historic Commission offering design review (on file) . Attorney Robert Ledoux represented the petitioners. Most of us are familiar with the site, it has been a funeral home since about 1969. I have with me this evening Paul Levesque, prior to his time his father operated the funeral home. Submitted updated plans, one of the additions, the one in the rear, is smaller. There are a couple of reasons we are asking for these additions, one is, both the federal and state statutes relating to accessibility by handicapped individuals. The addition to the • immediate front is the handicapped access and it would be approximately 28 feet long and 11 feet wide. There are currently in the funeral home, two handicapped bathrooms, those bathrooms would be located here, indicated on the plans, it makes for better traffic flow in the home itself, as well as making the rooms themselves more accessible. This new addition, rear, MINUTES - JULY 22, 1992 page six 163 LAFAYETTE ST. - CONTINUED would require taking down the porch itself. They have maintained the property extremely well, it is a benefit to the neighborhood and the city itself. It is a nonconforming structure, the garage is nonconforming, so any additions at all must come to the Board of Appeal. The first addition is required by statute, we have to do something to make these public rooms accessible to the handicapped. The rear room will also benefit the handicapped as the bathrooms will be more accessible. Will be a better use of space in the funeral home. Will not be detrimental. Speaking in favor. Arthur Marchand, 159 Lafayette St. , this is a well maintained property and I have no objection. Have known Paul Levesque since he has been there. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. The Board members, along with Mr. Ledoux, went over the plans. Mr. Labrecque: will the lots be combined? Mr. Ledoux: no, they will not. They currently are owned by Levesque Funeral Home, Inc. and Paul Levesque and what happened, we were before the Board a few years ago for parking. If anything 167 would be taking down. There will be no loss of parking. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all • requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, petitioner obtain a legal building permit and exterior finishes of the proposed additions and ramp shall be in harmony with existing structure. Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 10 DEARBORN ST. - GAIL AND JAMES SAGRIS Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit from side and rear setbacks to allow construction of a second floor deck in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application and a piece of correspondence from the Historic Commission (on file) . James Sagris, represented himself, am asking for Special Permit to put deck at my home. Believe you have a copy of my plot plan which includes cement slab below my deck. Since what I am doing is extending the foot print beyond the cement porch downstairs. I have to admit that I did start construction before coming to the Board, did not realize I needed one. Displayed pictures of the property. Mr. Bencal: when was the cement slab construction. Mr. Sagris: prior to my purchasing the home in 1986. So was the doorway on the second floor, above the slab. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Shirley Lefleur, 8 Dearborn St. , I have lived there for 35 years. I have no objections to the deck on the bottom level. When he was putting on the downstairs deck, I was comfortable with that, but I was sitting in my new living room and all of a sudden, I looked out my window and there was Jim like he could almost walk into my room. There's very little, I don't even think 10 feet. Mr. • Bencal: it shows 7 feet. Mrs. Lefleur: I know its not very far. When the people originally put the addition on the other side of the house, they put the slab down just to use for the sun, they had no plans to build. They said they were just putting it there to have something solid to sit on. I went up, standing in my room, or even sitting there and I looked across and I know this. I will be able to hear all the conversation. I MINUTES - JULY 22, 1992 page seven • 10 DEARBORN ST. - CONTINUED know I will turn my tv up so I won't feel I am imposing. Mr. Bencal: how long has slab been there. Mrs. Lefleur: previous owners put slab in but they said they would not be adding any more. Mr. Bencal: the gentleman said that when he purchased the property there was a door there. Mrs. Lefleur: there is a door there and I believe it was just supposed to be an emergency door. Mr. Bencal: were there ever stairs there? Mrs. Lefleur: No. Mr. Bencal: the door to nowhere. Mrs. Lefleur: I don't remember just when the door was put in. In rebuttal. James Sagris: We have tried to be good neighbors, we have no plans to move. We are respectful of our neighbors, we have a young son, two years old, work in Salem, just recently refinanced our house all we are looking for is an opportunity to utilize that space and put that door to use and to have that space available to us. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: Would like to ask a question,the question usually comes up for petitions who have started construction, who dropped the dime on you? Mr. Sagris: I believe Mrs. Lefleur. Mr. Bencal: I probably shouldn't put it that way, but generally, that's why people are here. Either the bank has caught them, in this case they didn't, you refinanced before starting construction. Why the two levels? Mr. Sagris: one for the first floor and one for the second, also to be able to use the door, the apartments are upstairs, downstairs. Just not feasible to put it anyplace else, it is very small lot. Mr. Febonio: this is a tough one no matter which way we go. The abutting neighbor, when the first slab was built downstairs, she accepted it in good faith that would be the only • level. Now comes the second story which is encroaching on her privacy, which is very important. What I am trying to find, by listening, is there any kind of a compromise here. Mr. Bencal: that is why I was asking the questions. Do you live on the first floor or the second Mrs. Lefleur? I live on the second floor. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Sagris, how many means of egress do you have from the second floor? Mr. Sagris: two Mr. Bencal: you would not be using the second floor deck as an egress. Mr. Sagris: no, we would not be. Mr. Febonio: perhaps you could put a curtain wall on that side. Mr. Sagris: I was amenable to that. She was not receptive but I am perfectly willing to do that. I would not object if that were a condition. Mrs. Lefleur: I have nothing against him, he has been a good neighbor, a large wall would block out what sun I get. Everything they say, I am not going to want to hear it but I am going to hear it. Mr. Bencal: how far is your house from the property line? Mrs. Lefleur: it is right on the property line. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the City of Salem Fire dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, a legal building permit is to be obtained from the Building Inspector, exterior finishes are to be in harmony with the existing structure and two feet of lattice is to be put on as a sound barrier. Mr. Touchette seconded. Mr. Touchette and Mr. Labrecque voted in favor of the motion. Bencal, Febonio and Grealish voted in opposition. Having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion fails and • the petition is denied. DENIED (2-3) MINUTES - JULY 22, 1992 • page eight 21 EAST COLLINS ST. - PHILIP BEDARD Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to add a second floor in this R-1 district. Mr.Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Mr. Bedard represented himself. The development in the circle in which I live consists of 12 homes, they were built in 1952. At that time mine was the model home which was four rooms, they never put on a second floor. The rest of the circle all have second floors. The prior owners the Eberts from whom I bought the home five years ago, there family was grown and the four rooms were adequate until I bought the home. I have three children under 6 and we need to expand. We like it here, we would like to stay. Mr. Bencal: this would not be used as a two family. Mr. Bedard: no, it wouldn' t. Mr. Febonio: no problem with condition it remain a single family? Mr. Bedard: no, it absolutely will stay a single family. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: the addition will be in harmony? Yes, all the others in the circle have second floors. Will be garrison style. Mr. Bencal: nothing different from many others we have seen. They want to expand. I have yet to see any problem with those we have seen here before. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition 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 dimension submitted and by legal building permit, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety • shall be strictly adhered to, petitioner shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the addition, exterior finishes shall be in harmony with existing structure and the dwelling is to remain a single family dwelling. Mr. Labrecque seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 14 GREENWAY ROAD - STEPHEN BALIOTIS Petitioner is requesting Variance to allow construction of a deck in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Mr. John Germain, representing Stephen Baliotis, I am the contractor and will be doing the construction. Mr.• Baliotis is in the final phase of finishing up a single family residence which he plans to occupy. The abutters are his parents. What he wants is to build deck which would allow egress from the side door and without the variance he would not be able to because he does not meet the side setback. Mr. Bencal: you would not have to be here is there were just stairs, you are allowed three feet. Mr. Germaine: as I said, his parents are abutters and they are in favor. He was hoping he would be allowed to construct this 8 foot wide to give him an adequate deck from side of the house towards the back of the house. Mr. Febonio: which side are his parents abutters? Mr. Germaine: the same side as the deck is going to be. The elevation of the deck on the side of the house would be about 3 feet and as you get down to the very back of the deck the ground drops off substantially in the back to about 9 - 9 1/2 feet. His parents home is about 25 feet from the deck. Mr. Bencal: why wasn't the house constructed with an address on Castle Rd. • as opposed to Greenway.? It would appear the petitioner has created his own hardship but constructing the house where it is. Is there a reason why is was placed there? Mr. Germain: Mr. Baliotis is here and I think he could • MINUTES - JULY 22, 1992 page nine 14 GREENWAY ROAD - CONTINUED answer that better than I. Mr.Stephen Baliotis, 12 Greenway Rd. , owner of the property, there is a pipe, drain pipe, running behind the house, comes from Highland Ave. and runs to a connecting drain just beyond the property and about 15 feet into the back yard. I could not construct the house too close to the drain or over the pipe. Mr. Bencal: so you did not create the hardship. Mr. Baliotis: when I came for the original permit they would not allow me to put the house the other way, it had to be this way. Mr. Febonio: what kind of pipe. Mr. Baliotis: it drains off Highland Ave. , years ago they put in this pipe, it's really inadequate, but it drains Highland Ave. Mr. Febonio: and the City would not let you build over it. Mr. Baliotis: no, I would have punctured it putting in the cellar. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to, petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector and all construction shall be in harmony with the existing building. Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • 108 MARGIN STREET - JOHN OCCHIPINTI Petitioner 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. Grealish read the application and correspondence from the Salem Historic Commission (on file) Mr. Occhipinti represented himself. Would like to convert this back to, it was originally a three family, back to a three family. A few years ago we had to refinance or we would have lost our home. Since them we have had trouble paying off bills. This would make things easier. Submitted copies of the Polk Directory showing it was once a three family. Mr. Bencal: how long have you owned the property. Mr. Occhipinti: been in the family since 1971. Mr. Bencal: How long have you owned it. Mr. Occhipinti: since we refinanced in 1990. My mother owned it since 1971, I just helped her refinance or she would have lost home. It was a three family at that time. In 1972 it became a two family. Mr. Bencal: what years do you have of the Polk. Mr. Occhipinti: 1971 (3 family) , 1969 (3 family) , I don't know what happened in 1972 but it became a two family. Displayed pictures showing three meters. As far as parking, we have a two car garage, we have parking on the side. There are other multi-family in the area. Will not be changing the structure. The 3rd floor already has a bathroom and a bedroom, we will be adding a little kitchenette. Mr. Bencal; how long has the kitchen been out of there? Mr. Occhipinti: between 1971 and 1972. Mr. Bencal: so the use was abandoned. Mr. Occhipinti: I guess so, I don't know how or why or what, could not get that information. Again, would not be changing the • structure, just adding little kitchen area. He showed the Board where the egresses would be. Mr. Bencal: you came to the Board in 1989, why didn't you ask for a three family at that time? Mr. Occhipinti: Because of the financial situation, I refinanced for my mother and we have run into • MINUTES - JULY 22, 1992 page ten 108 MARGIN STREET - CONTINUED problems. That's the only reason I am asking for it now, the income problem. Mr. Bencal: one of the conditions the Board has for these kinds of petitions is that the property remain owner occupied. Mr. Occhipinti: it would be, it will be all one family. Mr. Bencal: you have just opened up another question, what do you mean all one family? Mr. Occhipinti: I live on the first floor, my mother lives on the second floor and another family member will be moving into the third floor. A cousin. Mr. Bencal: I have a hard time voting for this without parking. Mr. Bencal then asked Mr. Harris, the Assistant Building Inspector, if it was necessary for him to be here as it involves a family member. Mr. Harris: our concern is separation between the second and third floor. Mr. Bencal: if there was no door separating them and it is a family member then it would be all right? Mr. Harris: he is allowed to renovate the third floor. Mr. Bencal: he could have a kitchen? Mr. Harris: yes he could. The Board took a brief recess so that Mr. Harris could explain to Mr. Occhipinti about the separation of units and what his options are at this time. The Board reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Occhipinti, Mr. Harris explained your options, what is you decision? Would you like to continue on tonight or would you like to withdraw at this time? Mr. Occhipinti: I would like to • continue this to a later date and maybe seek legal counsel. Mr. Bencal: I think I know what you want to do, you have three options, you can continue this evening, you can ask to continue until a later date which would be the next meeting, which would be August 19th, or you can ask to withdraw. If you withdraw the petition you would not have the August 19th date hanging over you head. Mr. Occhipinti: I think I will be better on August 19th. Mr. Bencal: you think you will be better prepared? Yes. Mr. Bencal: for the Board to do that we require two things, one is the petitioner sign waiver of time requirements under Chapter 40A. , 2nd is that you notify the abutters by certified mail of the date of the new hearing and proving it with the return cards. All that is your responsibility. Mr. Occhipinti: Maybe I should just withdraw this until another time. Mr. Labrecque.made a motion to allow petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Touchette seconded. UNANIMOUSLY WITHDRAWN 5 ORD STREET COURT - WILLIAM AND EILEEN HARRIS The request for a Variance from rear setback to allow construction of a deck in this B-2 district was continued from the June 24th meeting. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Mr.Harris addressed the Board. I was given a list of the abutters to send certified letters to, which I did. (he submitted the return receipts to the Board) Mr. Bencal: we are starting this petition from scratch, could you explain to the Board what you want to do. Mr. Harris: would like to build a deck on the back of the house. The land is uneven there and we can't use if for much right now and what I am going to do is cut the deck down so there will • be no problem with the side setback and all we will need is the rear setback. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Mr. Bencal: If you remember there was some question as to whether or not he had the ten feet on one side, so to erase any and all doubts, he has cut this down. There is no doubt there is ten feet. The plan showed 10 feet plus/minus. Rather MINUTES - JULY 22, 1992 page eleven 5 ORD STREET COURT - CONTINUED than having any problems later on, he cut it back. Any questions or comments. Hearing none is there a motion. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, a legal building permit is to be obtained and all work shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Febonio made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 3, 1992 meeting as transcribed and the June 24, 1992 meeting as taped. Mr. Grealish seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. , next scheduled meeting was tentatively set for August 19, 1992. This date is subject to change, depending on the work schedule. • Respectfully submitted g�ZA' Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board • (gitu of ttlem, Attssttdiusetts • %, _ F Pourb of �kFpeal Nr.nVZ m: MI_NUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - AUGUST 26, 1992 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, August 26, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of the hearing were duly published in the Salem Evening News on August 12 and 19, 1992. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present at the hearing were Board Members, Bencal, Febonio, Grealish, Luzinski, 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. 138 NORTH STREET - DONALD AND LESA HAEFNER Petitioners are requesting a Variance to convert a two family dwelling into a three family dwelling in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, a letter from Councillor Sarah Hayes, expressing her • opposition (on file) and a communication from the Historic Commission along with a building survey, offering design review (on file) . Donald Haefner represented himself and his wife. We would like to put a third apartment on the third floor of our existing two family. We will not be changing the outer structure in any way. Will be basically a kitchen and a bathroom upstairs. We are doing this for family members to basically supplement our income. We have tried to refinance but in todays economy it is very hard to do. Mr. Bencal: when did you buy the house? Mr. Haefner: about five years ago, 1987. I have brought a plan for parking, there is a carriage house on there that holds two, but I can fit seven on the lot. Submitted three letters from neighbors in favor, Marie E. Reardon, no address; Gina Coppola, 134 North St. , Lena's Original and Mrs. Wanda M. Carson, no address. (These were form letters and are on file) Mr. Bencal: can you show me where your driveway is on the plan. He went over the plans with the Board, showed them the driveway. It is off Dearborn St. Mr. Bencal: how many vehicles do you have? Mr. Haefner: I have one personal vehicle, one work vehicle. Mr. Plante: how many vehicles do the tenants have? Mr. Haefner: They have one. Mr. Plante: you mentioned family could you be more specific? Mr. Haefner: yes, it's for my wife's family who are now residing in Peabody. Her mother who is not working as much as she could. We are the part of the family who can do the most for her and help them out a little bit, that's why we're asking. Also, it would supplement our income a little as we are paying about $2,000 a month mortgage. Mr. Plante: what is the third floor currently being used for? Mr. Haefner: an attic. Mr. Febonio: when you purchased this five years ago, you • understood the terms of your mortgage, has that changed? Mr. Haefner: MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1992 page two • 138 NORTH STREET - CONTINUED well, when we bought it when we first got married we expected to be able to rewrite the mortgage into a fixed rate, the economy got bad and we have had some bad times and the banks are freely taking mortgages as they used. It is a strain some months. Mr. Plante: how many additional vehicles would there be if this goes through? Mr. Haefner: two, sir. Mr. Bencal: do you use the barn for parking now? Yes sir we do. Mr. Bencal: you only fit two vehicles in there? yes sir. Mr. Bencal: it is wide enough for three. Mr. Haefner: yes sir but it's an old carriage house, on the right hand side there used to be an office of some type and that doesn't have an opening for a car and there are stairs going up inside to the second floor. Mr. Febonio: what are the heights and number of units in the area? Mr. Haefner: there is a six unit right next to me. Mr. Febonio: how many stories? Mr. Bencal: is it as high as your house? Mr. Haefner: no, it is higher, 6 units, 4 stories. The one behind me is three family and across the street is two family. Mr. Luzinski: who's living in the house now? Mr. Haefner: Myself, my wife, my two children and Art and Mary Pariseau, the original owners. Mr. Luzinski: is there going to be an addition? Mr. Haefner: no, sir. The house is not going to be changed, no dormers, no skylights nothing. The exterior of the house is not going to be altered in any way. Mr. Bencal: I am impressed with his honesty, when I asked him if he could fit three cars into the garage, some people would have said yes, we would not have known, but he was honest about. He has proposed seven parking, I am not convinced he can make the seven, but can make the required five. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. • Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: he is not going to change the structure, he will have the required parking. Mr. Bencal: it should be conditioned that five spaces be maintained on site. Mr. Luzinski : is there going to be a curb cut. Mr. Bencal: the curb cut is already there on Dearborn St. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petition comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction is to be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and with a legal building permit, all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Prevention Bureau relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to, a certificate of occupancy is to be obtained for the third unit, property may be used as a three family so long as it remains owner occupied, a minimum of five (5) legal, on site, parking spaces are to be maintained in perpetuity. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 133 HIGHLAND AVE.-ESSEX COUNTY REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, (PETITIONERS) HELEN CONWAY, (OWNER) Petitioners, who are under a Purchase and Sale Agreement, are requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to allow construction of an addition and a Special Permit to allow the property to be used as physical therapy clinic. The property is currently owned by Helen Conway and is located in an RC district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Attorney Ellen Winkler represented the petitioners. John and Connie Keith are the prospective buyers and they are under a purchase • and sale agreement, she submitted a copy of same to the Board. (on file) MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1992 page three 133 HIGHLAND AVENUE - CONTINUED • Mrs. Keith has been operating a physical therapy clinic in the area for about seven years, in fact, right next door. They are presently renting and are looking to buy. This will be a better space. What we need is a Special Permit to allow the use and Variances from rear and side setbacks. The property is within the 1500 feet from the Salem Hospital so it is a Special Permit that is needed. The addition will be a single story 1,020 sq.ft. Ms. Winkler displayed renderings of the proposed addition and pictures of the existing property. We have the required parking and allow for handicap access. We are surrounding by City of Salem property and what is behind us is undeveloped, in back is the high school, the abutting area is full of medical uses. We have been to all of the abutters and have had no opposition, they wished us luck and everyone seems comfortable with the project. I do have with me tonight, five copies of a plan which I must circulate to you because we have a minor error on the one that was attached to the petition and I want to make sure it is corrected for the Board. The curb cut for this property is a proposed curb cut. We have been in contact with the State as this is a state highway. The Keith's are here tonight as . is the Architect Mr. Coke, if you have any questions. Mr. Bencal: how many employees? Ms. Winkler: three professionals and four nonprofessional persons. Mr. Bencal: does the parking meet the requirements? Ms. Winkler: yes it does, there will be eleven spaces which is just what is needed. Mr. Luzinski: all the landscaping is in place now? Ms. Winkler: yes, as you can see, there's a wonderful buffer, green space, all existing. Mr. Febonio: all the neighbors you spoke to, do you have a petition or a letter? Ms. Winkler: no sir, we do not. Mr. Luzinski: what frequency of • patients do you have? Connie Keith: about three or four an hour. Our patients never have to wait. In fact, the building we are in now doesn' t have a waiting room. We share parking with Aetna, we don't have a problem now and I don' t see foresee one. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I have a concern and I am making the suggestion that there be a right turn only, no left turn on to Highland Ave. Do you have a problem with that condition? Ms. Winkler: no objection. Mr. Bencal: I was pleased to see this was not going to impact on Highland Avenue, this is the least impact possible, I am pleased with the presentation. Mr. Plante: this will strictly be professional, no residential use. Ms. Winkler: yes, just professional. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the relief requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, codes ordinances and regulations; all construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted; a legal building permit be obtained; all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to; egress from the property shall be by a right turn only on to Highland Ave. and suitable signage stating this shall be placed and maintained on the property; all landscaping shall be done as per the plans submitted, property shall be used for profession offices only. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1992 page four is 1 GEDNEY COURT A/K/A 21 GEDNEY COURT - ANDREW BRAUER Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a second story deck and stairs in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Mr. Andrew Brauer, representing himself, he explained he wanted to construct a deck on the second floor and stairs which would provide safe egress. He submitted a letter in favor from Patricia & Richard Pierga, 14R High St. and one from David F. McGinn, 13 Gedney ST. , both are abutters. Mr. Bencal read the letters into the record and placed them on file. Mr. Brauer submitted a more detailed sketch of the proposed deck and stairs. The plans submitted with the application had a window omitted, these plans show everything. Mr. Bencal: what is there now? Mr. Brauer: there is a door there. Nothing else. Mr. Febonio: you mean it just drops off, someone steps out and there's nothing there. Mr. Laplante: was there ever a porch there? Mr. Brauer: not to my knowledge. Mr. Bencal: was the door there when you bought the property? Mr. Brauer: no, there was an interior staircase. We added the door, we had plans to make exterior stairs but we ran out of money. Mr. Bencal: what happened to the other staircase, the one you mentioned. Mr. Brauer: it was removed. It was very narrow. There were no closets and they were using this as a catch-all, we felt this was dangerous. Mr. Febonio: when did you remove staircase. Mr. Brauer: last fall. Mr. Febonio: so you have been without second egress for about a year. Mr. Bencal: have both apartments been occupied? Mr. Brauer: yes. Mr. Bencal: Why couldn't you put stairs in the back? Mr. Brauer: it made more sense to us that if there were a fire in this area here we would want • something further away. Mr. Plante: the staircase that was there originally, where did that lead to? Mr. Brauer: it led to the front door. Mr. Bencal: the work you did to take the staircase out, did you have a permit? No. Mr. Febonio: he has done a lot of work without permits, why are you here now? Any complaints. No. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski : no matter what, he has to put a second means of egress, what was the recommendation of the building inspector? Mr. Bencal: that this would be an appropriate position for it if the Board were inclined to keep the two means of egress separated. What bothers me is the gentleman is here tonight because of his own ignorance in not getting proper permits for doing the work in the first place. How wide was the staircase that you took out? Mr. Brauer: 2 - 2 1/2 wide. Mr. Bencal: code says 36 inches. Mr. Febonio: there are no objections from the neighbors, we can't punish him for sins of the past. What will he do if we deny it. Mr. Bencal: he would have to put it back inside and it would have to be three feet. Mr. Grealish 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 done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements do the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety, petitioner obtain a legal building permit from the City of Salem Building Inspector, exterior finishes of the proposed deck shall be in harmony with existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board voted four in favor, one opposed (Mr. Bencal) By a vote of 4-1, the motion to grant passes and the petition is granted. • GRANTED 4 - 1 MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1992 page five 6 CONNERS ROAD - ROBERT CONNERY • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend nonconforming front and rear setbacks to allow construction of a deck in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Mr. Connery represented himself. Would like to construct a 12' x 16' deck. Have lived on this property 37 of my 43 years. This is a simple straight-forward petition. Mr. Febonio: who designed the deck you are putting there? Mr. Connery: this is a Somerville Lumber kit. I am going to do the work. I am a machine by trade, but I have done a lot of work on the house, I built the two car garage. Mr.Febonio: all with permits right? yes. Speaking in favor. Helen Canty, 8 Conners Road, have know him for years. John Canty, 8 Conners Road, they are fine people, keep property good. No one appeared in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations; all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted; all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to; petition obtain a legal building permit and exterior finishes of the proposed deck shall be in harmony with existing structure. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 142 FEDERAL STREET - TIMOTHY CLIFFORD Petitioners is requesting a special permit to extend nonconforming side setback to allow patio to be screened in and roofed over in this R-2 district. The property is also located in an Historic District. Mr. • Grealish read the application and communication from the Historic Commission dated August 19, 1992 and a Certificate of non-applicability as structure is not visible from the public way. Mr. Clifford represented himself. The house was built in 1804 by Samuel McIntire. Took him seven years to finish it. I suspect it was on a larger lot than we have now. As it stands now, the north wall of our house is on the property line which was not a problem in 1804. After 40 years of fighting the flies and mosquitoes, we decided to screen it. We like to eat lunch out there. Talked to builder about the possibility and he suggested I speak with the Building Inspector. We could have screened it in but as there is going to be a roof on it and the roof will be closer than five years, we need special permit, so here we are. The question is, can we get the permit to do this, it will be about two feet from the neighbors. Mr. Febonio: any objections to this? Mr. Clifford: no, there hasn't been, but it's the law. We have lived there since 1949. The patio is existing and the screening will be removable. Mr. Plante: it is confusing, my plan shows a dotted line which would imply the patio is not there. Mr. Clifford: The house is basically an L shape and inside of the L is the existing brick patio. We are going to build a pressure treated deck over the patio so I can screen it in and put cedar deck down so the mosquitoes and the ants can' t get up through the bottom, it will be made in such a way as to allow the whole thing can be taken apart and put back exactly the way it was originally. Mr. Febonio: portable patio. Mr. Clifford: There is a door that leads out to it, it is ideal for supper on a warm summer night. • MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1992 page six 142 FEDERAL STREET - CONTINUED • No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Luzinski: no problem with historic and those people are hardcore. What kind of roof are you putting on, just out of curiosity. Mr. Clifford: regular rolled roofing, rubber. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to, petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit, exterior finishes of the proposed screening and roof shall be in harmony with existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 78 LEAVITT ST. - PALMERS COVE YACHT CLUB Petitioner is requesting a variance from side and setbacks to allow the construction of locker facilities in this B-4 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Attorney Michael McMann, Nahant St. , Lynn represented the petitioners. I am appearing in a matter that is really the culmination of a project that was in front of you last year, this had to do with the purchase the lot next door for parking and boat storage. The problem is the existing structure that has existed for many years with is essentially locker facilities that the members use. We would like to take the existing lockers and move them to the other lot, along the back of the property, this would be consistent with the Conservation Commission. The locker would be on concrete. The neighbors have no problem as far as we know, Mr. Maguire owns the front property and • is in total agreement. Lot B, the Santisi property is a car repair facility and they have no problem. Will not interfere with the public good, will add an additional measure of security as it will present a solid fence in the back. It will be a row of single lockers, the plans show double lockers but they will be single. The existing single row of lockers that face the parking lot will be swung and will essentially be single lockers that open into the parking lot, the back needless to say will be along the back fence. This will give better access to the lot the transit between the two lots will be accomplished. Our security interests would be accomplished also. The Board went over the plans. Speaking in favor. Raymond LeBlanc, Commodore. This will give us much better security, at the same time we will be able to see what's on that lot. Mr. Robert LeBlanc, Vice Commodore, what we are trying to is when you drive into the lot, right now you see those lockers in front of you and if you parked on the other side and came out at night you don't know what's around the corner. What we are trying to do is get rid of that so we can fence in the property with the lockers on that end of the beach and yet you can drive in the club and you can see your car and you can see who's over there. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: I think we are talking a safety issue. Mr. Febonio: yes, buffer protection. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, work be done as per plans and dimensions submitted with the exception that the lockers be single, petitioner comply with all requirements of the city of Salem Fire • MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 1992 page seven 78 LEAVITT ST. - CONTINUED • relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to and a legal building permit be obtained from the City of Salem Building Inspector. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 18 SOUTH ST. - LEROY AND HILDA BRIGGS The petitioners are requesting Variance to allow the use as a two family to be continued. The property is located in an R-1 district. A decision was granted by this Board on June 20, 1979 granting two family use on condition if the petitioners should ever sell in would revert back to a single family. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Attorney George Vallis, 81 Washington St. , Salem, represented the petitioners. He submitted an updated plot plan. There is no further construction contemplated. My clients talked to all the neighbors. He submitted a petition in favor, signed by 29 neighbors and abutters. This was built over a hundred years ago by Mr. Brigges grandfather, they have lived there all their life. They would now like to retire and sell. There son had an accident many years ago and they built an addition to accommodate him as he was handicapped. The variances granted allowed the addition and allowed a two family but there was condition that if he ever sold it, it would become a single family again. As I said, he would like to retire and sell it as a two family. I have been coming to the Board for many years and have never encountered such a severe restriction. The house is large, it has two of everything, even two heating systems. We would like to have a new variance granted with condition it remain owner . occupied. Mr. Bencal read the petition submitted in favor into the record (on file) He then read a letter from Michael E. O'Brien, Esq. , former City Solicitor, dated September 8, 1987 regarding owner occupied condition (on file) Mr. Bencal: we use the owner occupied condition in trying to stem the flow of absentee landlords. Speaking in favor. Carroll Dickerson, Realtor with Tache. No one appeared in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioners 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 are to be strictly adhered to, the property is to remain owner occupied, should it cease to be owner occupied, it will revert to• a single family, this decision supersedes previous decision of June 20, 1979. Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Febonio moved to approve the minutes of the June 24 and July 22 meetings as transcribed and taped. Mr. Grealish seconded. UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. , next scheduled meeting September 30, 1992. 1e��ectful�e� Brenda M. Sumrall, Clerk of the Board • � 111 t1'Vl Ctg of Salem, �Rttssadjusetts • %�_•��� PnttrD of �kppettl MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 A meeting to the Salem Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, September 30, 1992 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 September 15 & 22, 1992. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present at the hearing were Board Members, Bencal, Febonio, Grealish and Touchette; Assistant Building Inspector, Harris and Clerk of the Board Brenda Sumrall The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Richard Bencal at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Bencal explained to the assemblage that there was only four members present and for any petition to be granted it would require all four votes. He then gave all petitioners a chance to withdraw and come back at a later date. No one chose to withdraw. • 152 BAY VIEW AVENUE - SCOTT AND LAURA CLARK Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to increase the height by allowing construction of a dormer in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application and a letter from Councillor Nowak, in favor. Mr. Clark represented himself. Basically what we are doing is a full rehab of building, it's an 1880 gingerbread Victorian, the only problem we are having is the second floor dormer addition to accommodate the bathroom and vaulted stairway. Explained the plans to the Board. We are here because of the zoning setbacks, we are not changing the footprint of the building at all, and we are trying to maintain the Victorian style. He displayed pictures of the property. It will not block anyone's view. Speaking in favor. Kathleen Picone, Beach Ave. , I am the next door neighbor and I am in favor. Mary Wilson, 148 Bay View Ave. , I live on the other side of the Clarks and I am in favor. - No one appeared in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: are you an architect. Mr. Clark: no, I am an eye doctor. Mr. Febonio: (commenting on the detailed plans) all these for a dormer. Mr. Clark: I think he went a little overboard and charged accordingly. The petition is for where we come in conflict, the second floor, but we are doing a full rehab. • Mr. Bencal: we have two abutters here and the Willows is a community that sticks together and if there were a problem they would be here just as quick. It is just a quirk of the ordinance that brings him here at all. Mr. Grealish 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 done as per the plans and dimen- MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 page two • 152 BAY VIEW AVENUE - CONTINUED sions submitted, all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit, exterior finishes of the proposed dormer shall be in harmony with existing structure, all condition from the previous decision dated June 26, 1991 shall be incorporated and made part of this decision. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 4-0 117 DERBY ST. - JC & DR REALTY TRUST, OWNERS/ROBERT CURRAN, PETITIONER Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to allow the property to be used as an off street parking area. The property is located in a B-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application and the following correspondence: Salem Historical Commission, dated 9/23/92, this property is located in an Historic District and will require their approval; letter from John Serafini, Sr. , Attorney for the House of Seven Gable which abuts the property in question, dated 9/30/92, in favor of the proposal; Gary P. Blattberg, Partner, Harbor Rental & Realty, 111 Derby St. , dated 9/30/92, in favor; Councillor George Nowak, Ward One, dated 9/21/92, in favor and a letter from William Luster, the City Planner, dated 9/22/92, itemizing the concerns the Planning Board has, such as moving the curb cut to the center of the parking lot, removal of the utility pole, and the landscaping and fencing. (all correspondence was read and placed on file) Mr. Robert Curran, 16 Bay View Circle, represented himself. Asking for a Special • Permit for off-street parking for the restaurant and also, we plan to allow the neighbors to park there at night. We have already given some permits out. It's within 400 feet which is, I believe what the zoning requires, actually is about 100 feet. Parking is a problem in the area, not enough to go around. We will be taking cars off the street, make more room for the neighbors. Mr. Febonio: would you be willing to conform with the requests of the Planning Board? Mr. Curran: yes, in fact, it's obvious the curb cut should be in the middle of the parking space but the utility pole is in the way so I got both the telephone co. and mass electric to come done and they have declared the pole in need of repair and replacement and they have already picked the spot. It is going to be done. It will be quite a ways down, so there is a new pole going in, going towards Turner St. , will not interfere with the Gables on the other side because the buses have to make a sharp turn and we obviously are going to put the curb cut in the middle because that is where it belongs. Mr. Bencal: do you own the fence that surrounds the property? Mr. Curran: no, the Gables owns it. Mr. Bencal: in Mr. Luster's letter then, as far as your concerned, that is a moot point. Mr. Curran: yes. As far as planting trees though, that is not a problem. Mr. Bencal: you have shrubs on the property now? Mr. Curran: there are shrubs around the perimeter, some of which are on 117 Derby and some of which belong to the Gables. We have no plans to take them down. Mr. Bencal: if the Board were to put a condition that you be responsible for planting and maintaining a few trees on Derby St. , you would not have a problem with that. Mr. Curran: no. Mr. Bencal: and if it were further worded at the direction of the Planning Board? Mr. Curran: yes, I would definitely do that. Mr. Febonio: you mentioned the fact that • MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 page 3 • 117 DERBY ST. - CONTINUED neighbors would be allow to park there. Mr. Curran: yes, by permit. The Gables does that, we are just going to carry on that tradition. Speaking in favor. David Bystrom, 42 Turner St. : we are in favor of the parking lot, with some restriction, he submitted a memorandum to the Board, dated 9/30/92, outlining the restrictions he would like to see implemented. The memorandum was signed by David Bystrom and Debbie Marcus. Mr. Bystrom: the House of Seven Gables project is under litigation right now and ask that not be considered right now for that reason. Mr. Bencal read the letter into the record and a copy is on file. Councillor O'Leary: Mr. Curran came to the Council for permit parking, the Council voted not to make it sticker parking. He purchased the property and invested a lot of money. I am looking at these conditions and see items he is not responsible for. The City Planner wants to put two trees out on the sidewalk, I don't think it's the duty of any homeowner to water the trees or to take care of the trees, that's why we have the Park Department. I think Mr. Curran has done his job down there. Talking to the Ward One Councillor, this has helped alleviate some of the parking problems in the area. To ask Mr. Curran to take care of the fence, as was suggested, looking into it, Mr. Curran is not responsible for it. I think the Historic commission, is a good commission, but they should get their facts straight. I am in favor and would like to see more participation from businesses looking out for neighbors. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: would like to look at the letter from Mr. • Bystrom and Ms. Marcus and take a look with Mr. Curran. This is a little out of the ordinary. With regard to item number 1. Mr. Bystrom, what type of additional fencing? Mr. Bystrom: I thought the fence there belonged to that property because the inside one is towards the parking area. There are two or three sections of the fence that are missing or that wasn't there when the garage was demolished. Mr. Curran: yes, there is a piece missing, the Gables put up the fence to the garage but they didn't continue it because the back of the garage, it was just as good as a fence. Mr. Bencal: what would you estimate the age of the fence. Mr. Curran: it is relatively new. Mr. Bencal: what could be done to get that in? Mr. Curran: well, it's on the Gables land, not much I can do. I can talk to them and maybe share the cost. Mr. Bencal: with regard to trees. I looked at the property very closely last night and you do have the two foot buffer area from the paved portion to the fence and I didn't notice there was a piece of fence missing. Mr. Curran: that is because it is screened by tall shrubs. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Bryson, can you explain that? Mr. Bystrom: we have noticed that there is more noise of course at that house, we should like to see some kind of greenery that would cut down on the noise. Mr. Bencal: there is shrubbery on the property. Mr. Curran: most of it belongs to the Gables. Mr. Bencal: with the buffer zone that you have I don't know if you have room to put much shrubbery. Mr. Curran: the zoning requires two foot buffer. Here again, I can talk to the gables but I can't speak for them. Mr. Bencal: two could then go with number one. With regard to number 3, Mr. Bryson, the Board cannot limit the use if someone wants to go the Grand Turk to eat and doesn't go to the Gables, we can't have someone going down there and policing that. Mr. Bryson: we • understand that but the way things are right now with the Gables, we just MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 page four • 117 DERBY ST. - CONTINUED was hoping this would just pertain to the restaurant and if something else were to go there then that would be a separate issue. Mr. Bencal: we cannot limit the permit to an individual, the permit goes with the property. If, 10 or 20 years from now, the property were to be sold to say the Gables, this type of condition would be illegal. With regard to item X14, that patrons not park on Turner St. I believe Turner St. is resident only parking. Mr. Curran, you now have notice posted in the restaurant regarding parking. Mr. Curran: that's right, we ask them to respect the residents in the area and not to park illegally. It is illegal for them to park on Turner St. We do have a sign inside the restaurant asking them to obey the rules. Mr. Bencal: that was done at the request of the Board, was it not. Again, with number 5 it would illegal to grant it on condition of ownership. Number 6, again goes with ownership. Mr. Febonio: He is in conformance with all of the requests of the Planning Dept. , he has taken note of the historic commission, it would be hard to quarrel with his request for this Special Permit. Mr. Grealish: am I correct, the petitioner is willing to put the two trees on Derby St.? Right. On the rear of the parking lot I don't think there is room to put larger shrubs. Mr. Bencal: again, what he is required is a too foot buffer, looks pretty close to that, maybe a little more. The shrubs surrounding the area are not owned by the petitioner. Any type of shrub or tree would have to be put, literally, right on top of that fence, then you are talking an overhang into the parking area. Mr. Curran: I will get together with the gables and see what we can do, but again, it is their property. Mr. • Bencal: this is not the first time Mr. Curran has been before this Board, he came a few years ago for this restaurant. He was willing to do almost anything to improve the street scape. I think now, his hands are a little bit tied. I have no reason to believe he won't do as he says, to get fence fixed. With regard to shrubbery, what's there now is not on his property and I am not sure anything can be put there without having to replace it in a few years because of growth. Mr. Febonio: point of information, I was on the Board when he appeared the first time and I only say that because his past history shows he is a man of integrity, when he says he will do something, he did it. When he said he was willing to cooperate with the city and with neighbors he showed good faith effort. With regards to these trees, what is his responsibility, he plants it, he maintains, and they don't even designate what kind, don't be ridiculous, supposing he wants to put two pine trees there, it just says trees. Mr. Bencal: it would be with the approval of the Planning. Mr. Febonio: and who maintains them, I mean, I planted them, now what happens. In perpetuity I have to go out there with pruning shears. Mr. Curran: will plant them and maintain them as long as I own this. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, petitioner shall plant two trees along Derby St. , the types and site to be determined by the Salem Planning Dept. , neighborhood access to the lot shall be by permit only. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 page five 9 SALT WALL LANE - JANET L. BURBA �h Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application and a note from Mr. Tom Tighe, 10 Rand Road, no objection. Mr. Stanley Burba, husband of Janet, 9 Salt Wall Lane, represented petitioner, we are seeking variance from setbacks to allow an addition to the rear of the property. The addition, which is 18 x 21 will encroach about 1 1/2 feet. Mr. Febonio: what is the addition for? Mr. Burba: will be a sun room. Mr. Febonio: your not taking in any additional borders or anything, will be maintained as a single family. Mr. Burba: yes. I have talked to the neighbors and showed the plans and no one really objected to it. The Board went over the plans. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations; all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and by legal building permit; petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety, a certificate of occupancy shall be obtained; exterior finishes shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 6 NICHOLS STREET - BRUCE BORNSTEIN The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to change the use of the property from a machine shop to an environmental testing laboratory. The • property is located in an R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Attorney William Sullivan, Peabody, represented the petitioner. Mr. Bencal: when you filed this you asked for a Special Permit and not a variance, before you get into this, could you explain why. Mr. Sullivan: basically, it is my belief since it is the use of the building we are speaking to rather than a condition of the building, I thought it had to be Special Permit rather than a Variance. If the Board feels it should be a Variance rather than a Special Permit at this time I would move to amend my petition. Mr. Bencal: unfortunately, we cannot do that, we can downgrade but we can't upgrade. We can go from a Variance to a Special Permit but not upgrade. As you know, a Variance requires hardship. I would like you to address this, you have a prohibited use now, you cannot change from one prohibited use to another under a Special Permit. It is my understanding that changing from one use such as this to another would require a variance not a special permit. I might be wrong and I don't take that negatively, believe me. Mr. Sullivan: basically as I going through the zoning ordinance and came to the section dealing with nonconformity on page 21 (Mr. Sullivan quoted that section) he then read Article 9.4 section B on page 54-55 regarding Special Permits. If you feel it best to go for a variance we will withdraw and come with a variance request, my reading of the ordinance suggests we can do this by Special Permit. Mr. Bencal: the term, Environmental Testing Lab. , unfortunately, is not reflected in the zoning ordinance nor are many of today's modern uses. Mr. Sullivan: I thought it might fall under category number 12 in the B-2 district regarding laboratories. (page 12) We wanted • to say Environmental Testing Laboratory so as to disclose fully what Mr. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 page six \ 6 NICHOLS ST. - CONTINUED Bornstein company does, which Mr. Bornstein will be willing to tell the Board. We wanted full disclosure rather than couch the use is with some type of ambiguous terminology. Mr. Bencal: that is in a B-2 district, this is an R-2 district. Basically you are hanging hat on that. Mr. Bencal and the Board went over the sections of the ordinance that Attorney Sullivan quoted. Mr. Bencal read the Special Permit uses for R-2. That goes to a B-2 district and again and in the R-2, following our permitted and Special Permit uses, he listed all the uses. Mr. Sullivan: that building has been there for a long time and it is a nonconforming use as a machine shop and prior to that time it was a tannery, this building is a big three story building and if it doesn't have a commercial use it doesn't have any use in the area whatsoever. Mr. Bencal: I understand that, and again, my question is or to take it one step further, should someone be aggrieved by this decision under a Special Permit, if the Board were to grant this, what would the likelihood of the court, looking at the zoning ordinance, and saying you had no right to grant this as a Special Permit. Mr. Sullivan: is the Board suggesting that if Mr. Bornstein withdrew this and came back at a later date asking for a variance that legally the Board would have better grounds to grant it if they were so disposed. Mr. Bencal: I am not saying that specifically, I would like to hear you expound on why you think it is a Special Permit. When did this get changed to a machine shop. Mr. Bornstein: I think it has been a machine shop about 30 years ago, first it was a tannery. I have owned it since 1987. Mr. Bencal: you have used it as a machine shop. Mr. Bornstein: to be • honest, I have been using it as an environmental testing lab. Mr. Bencal: but it had been used as a machine shop? Yes. Mr. Bencal: Councillor O'Leary, I know your very familiar with the neighborhood, in your recollection would you have now, or have knowledge that this may have been used as a machine shop prior to 1965? Councillor O'Leary: I don't know. Ms. Shirley LeClerc, lady in the audience spoke up: I happen to have worked there in 1965. I happen to be here for another case, I worked in the office of the machine shop. Mr. Bencal: case closed. Mr. Sullivan: in regards to this particular petition, Mr. Bornstein did go out to the neighbors and ask them to sign a petition in approval. He submitted the petition in favor signed by 16 neighbors and abutters. I asked Mr. Bornstein to be here tonight so he could explain exactly what his testing lab is all about. He has given me some information and I have gone over there to review it. He is working solely on the first floor with regards to this lab. There are four employees including himself. Three of which are Salem residents. He will tell you all about the lab and show pictures of the inside and outside of the building. He does small sampling of water or other types of things people want tested, he takes all of them and does the analysis. Everything that comes in goes back out. There is no dumping on site. He has worked for the City, the State and Essex County as well. At this time I would like him to tell you a little bit about his lab. Mr. Bornstein: good evening gentlemen, I founded the lab about 8 years ago and I work for the first several years at 28 Goodhue St. on the fourth floor. After awhile I thought I would rather try to purchase and move my lab into the building and get some equity out of it. Main function is the analysis • of water and soil, I am sure you are familiar, for instance, Salem has had a lot of the MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 page seven 6 NICHOLS ST. - CONTINUED water tested for lead and copper content. My lab is the one that performed that analysis. When tanks from gas stations rupture we analyze the samples to try to determine the degree of contamination. We do 21E work, lot of work for the Army Corp of Engineers for the third harbor tunnel. We work for a lot of cities and towns and we have a good working relationship with them. We are a DEP Certified Laboratory and we are heavily regulated, we are visited at least once every two years to make sure everything is in good working order. We have to perform analysis, two sets, twice a year to maintain our accreditation. He displayed pictures of the property, both inside and outside. We have attempted to make improvements on the property, it was rundown when I first purchased it. Have tried to make it nice, homey and neat. Have tried to be good neighbors. Mr. Febonio: you said you take for environmental agencies. Mr. Bornstein: we have done work for the Army Corp. or Engineers, the State of Mass. , a lot of cities and town. A lot of the work is for engineering firms and many times they don't tell us who their clients are. We have done a lot for regulatory agencies. We employ local people. I have no plans to expand, want to keep it small and focused so I can continue to provide good service for my clients. We are providing a valuable service the community. Mr. Febonio: does this take up the entire building, all three floors? Mr. Bornstein: right now I have all the equipment on the first floor, dead storage on the second floor and at some future date we hope to maybe come back before the • Board to utilize space that's not being used there, maybe doing something with the dead space on the second and third floor, right now I am completely on the first floor. I have dead storage on the second but I have no intentions of working up there. I have computer cable all over, I am firmly entrenched and I have no problem with being limited to using the first floor. Mr. Grealish: has it been an environmental testing lab for the past five years? Mr. Bornstein: yes sir. Speaking in favor. Joel Brother, 12 Hanson St. , since he moved in he did what he said he did and the building fits right in. Happy with what he has done, hope he doesn't leave. Leo Jodoin, S Hanson St. , representing my mother, Yvonne Jodoin, if I was as clean as he is my mother would say I was a clean as she is, he has taken this property and totally turned it around, made it beautiful. Councillor O'Leary: I am appearing here tonight to seek approval of this petition only if the Board narrowly limits the use. The owner of the building next to his owned by Paul Butler, I believe we have the administrative aide with us. I will direct my comments now to my two request, that the granted use be very narrow and the use extend to basement level. The area is surrounded by residential dwellings, including a 40 unit senior citizen public housing facility directly across the street. I would not support a use that would bring added traffic into that area. I am told that use does not generate such traffic, I don't want that to change in the future. Secondly, I am concerned over the health aspects of such environmental testing, I did go through the lab and found it very clean, again, Mr. Bornstein assures me that his current business is not hazardous to human health. Therefore I want the Special Permit to limit the permitted testing to the type Mr. Bornstein has indicated, for example, • soil, water, 21E types. Therefore I would request this Board to draw a very narrow permitted use such as: the conduct of a business for MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 page eight .` 6 NICHOLS ST. - CONTINUED environmental testing that involves no risks, and I mean no risks, to the inhabitants of the city and is limited to soil, water and other 21E types of testing. I further request a condition as follows: The petitioner insure that the Salem Health dept. inspect the premises on a quarterly or semi annual basis to protect the health of the inhabitants of the City of Salem. The petitioner shall agree that the decision of the Salem Health Dept. shall be binding as to the safety of the testing and materials to be tested Mr. Bornstein did take us up to the other two levels, I believe in the future he would probably like to have another Special Permit or Variance for office or whatever. He has done a lot of work in the building, does want lab regulated by the City of Salem and he will take up the other two matters with the neighbors. He discussed with me that he wanted to sit down with the administration, the councillor and the neighbors, I think it's good. It's another case of a business trying to help the neighborhood. Mr. Bencal: it is also a case of another petitioner coming in after the fact. Speaking in opposition. James Barton, 4 Nichols at. , I have a few questions. I have a 7 week old baby and I am concerned with health risks as far as storage of samples, how are samples brought in, what kind of sealed containers are used, what chemicals are used for testing, any toxins, how are they dealt with. In addition to the baby, I have a puppy who plays in the back yard. I am concerned. Mr. Bencal: can you answer these questions Mr. Bornstein? Mr. Bornstein: I think I can. He showed the assemblage a sample of water that was brought • to them so they could see just what it was. This is about 90% of what we get. It is drinking water. The other 10% is stuff we get would be a small amount of dirt with gasoline in it. If you have ever pumped gas into your car, you have been exposed to 10,000 times more gas that I would ever have in one little bottle. It is very closely regulated. DEP is all over environmental testing labs. You don't get your certification, you are not going to be in business if you are doing anything hazardous or not by the book, everything has to be done by protocol, by written protocol, we have gone to great extent to make sure nothing emits from building. Have to have clean 21E before the bank will loan any money. I know what a 21E is, hazardous waste on my property will bring the property value down to nothing, you have to clean it up before you can sell it. To contaminate my property would not be in my best interest. The fire dept. has been there several times. Two types of fire extinguishers located throughout the building. Both hang on, which are use on sensitive electrical equipment, computers, etc. , any other would be extinguished with regular normal type extinguisher. The fire dept. has assured the sprinkler system is functional, also checked to make sure I have the correct amount and proper type located throughout the building. We do work with small amount of solvents, small amounts of acids on occasion. We buy these in a four liter bottle and we might have four or five bottles of each one on hand. In the unlikely event of a spill everyone is taught the proper care in handling these compounds. The proper neutralizing agent or absorbent would be spread on spill to render it harmless. At no time is there a container being handled that contains more than 1/2 gallon of any chemical, acid, • caustic or solvent. If an employee gets splashed with a chemical we have an emergency shower located the lab floor as well as several eye wash MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 page nine .� 6 NICHOLS ST. - CONTINUED stations located around. Contaminated samples are returned to the client, we don't keep them, we don't want them. We received them in the laboratory several different ways, we receive them UPS or Federal Express. They come in little coolers with icepacks to keep them cool overnight as per regulations. Another way is, they are brought into the office, we process the work and hand them back the samples. Mr. Bencal: what is the longest you would have a specimen on site? Mr. Bornstein: 30 to 60 days, at no time do we want a backlog. We look for something bad, that doesn't mean we find it. Normally what we find is gas and oil, those are the most prominent things we come across. We have compressed gases, most are not flammable, they are strapped, they must be strapped by regulations, they are very highly regulated. All employees must be familiar with all safety protocols and all safety procedures are handled by protocol. We handle a 100 to 150 samples a month on average. Will not be any more traffic than we have now. Mr. Bencal: are you satisfied with Mr. Bornsteins answers sir? yes, thank you. No else spoke in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Grealish: when he indicated there was 1/2 gallon being tested at one time, is that 1/2 gallon at most or are there other people working on others. Mr. Bencal: the item he was referring to would be chemicals used for the testing process. Mr. Grealish: so the maximum at one time, that would be the most involved. Mr. Bornstein: the things we have you have to worry about is not the samples, if we have a gallon of sulfuric acid and that falls on the floor, that you have to worry. Mr. Grealish: I • guess that's what I'm getting at, you are doing a lot of testing with a lot of those chemicals could there be more involved than that 1/2 gallon? Mr. Bornstein: 1/2 gallon would prepare five hundred samples. You take 6 drops of acid per 1 liter of water. Mr. Bencal: in a typical electronics lab, there's a variety of chemicals, but not in mass quantities. Your looking at a pint, a quart, a gallon is a large quantity for a lab to have on site. They measure by the eyedropper. Mr. Grealish: Mr. Bornstein said too there might be 50 to 150 samples so again we are talking a small amount of material. Mr. Bencal: again you have your bottle sample. Mr. Grealish: and that is typical of your samples? Mr. Bornstein: yes, I don't want to have a lot of it around. Mr. Bencal: Councillor O'Leary, could you please repeat your conditions? Mr. Febonio: I have them written down. Mr. Bencal: I would like to have these incorporated into the conditions. Would like to limit it to environmental testing only at this time but not limit them from coming back for other uses. Testing be limited to soil, water and other 21E testing. Another condition to be the Salem Health Dept. inspect the premises maybe quarterly, or semi-annually and their findings be binding. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, testing be limited to the basement level only and that it be environmental testing only, i.e. soil, water and 21E. No testing that is considered hazardous to human life is to be done. This decision is not intended to prohibit further use of the building. All requirements of the Salem fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, there be semi-annual inspection by • the City of Salem Health Dept. and the results are to be binding on the petitioner. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 page ten 1 BUENA VISTA AVENUE - SEAN T. CURTIN Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit from rear & front setbacks and to increase height to allow construction of a deck, addition and second level in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. Mr. Curtin represented himself. Basically we are adding on 6 feet to the structure as it stands right now, and a second level. On the driveway side of the house we are adding a deck. Will conform better to the neighborhood because they are all two story houses in the neighborhood. I spoke with the neighbors and none have had any objections. I have brought the contractor with me to answer any questions you may have regarding construction. Speaking in favor. Councillor O'Leary: I have had no complaints and I am in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Febonio: the addition, how big? Mr. Curtin: 241x6, will only add 6 feet to the footprint of the house. Will be a bedroom and living room. The house will remain a single family dwelling. Mr. Febonio: there are four brand new houses in the area that are 2 stories? Mr. Curtin: yes. Mr. Touchette: right now you only have a one story house. Mr. Curtin: yes, I was recently married and there are only 4 rooms. We are built on ledge so we can't go down, we have to go up. I grew in the house and I would like to stay but unfortunately I have to expand the house. Mr. Febonio: you consider that your hardship. Mr. Bencal: This is a Special Permit and does not require a hardship. This is not an unusual situation, we have at least one of these at every meeting. People building up and it is not an inexpensive project. Mr. Grealish: you talked about • there being a lot of 2 story homes in the area, are there any on your street? Mr. Curtin: almost all my neighbors have enlarged. Most have dormers. They extended the street and now there are four houses that are garrisons, two stories. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction be as per the plans submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, a legal building permit be obtained, exterior finishes of the proposed construction be in harmony with existing structure and a Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 79 MARLBOROUGH ROAD - DEBORAH AND ARTHUR ALEXANDER Petitioners are requested a Special Permit from rear setbacks to allow construction of an addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Mr. Alexander represented himself and his wife. We would like to add on to the kitchen, we moved into the house about 8 years ago and we've been making continuous improvements to the house. Our family has grown and it's tough to fit us all into the kitchen, it is very small. We plan to re-side the whole house with cedar or clapboards. This will stay a single family. We have parking for six cars. We have secured financing. Mr. Grealish: I apologize Mr. Chairman, there was correspondence. He then read correspondence signed by four abutters in favor of the project, Maria Pallera, 80 Marlborough Rd. , • K. Emerline, 81 Marlborough Rd, Mr. & Mrs. Theriault, 88 Marlborough Rd. , and Mr. 5 Mrs. Joseph Ingemi, 80 Marlborough Rd. Speaking in favor. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 page eleven •� 79 MARLBOROUGH RD. - CONTINUED Councillor Leonard O'Leary: I want to thank the Chairman for having all the ward 4 constituents here tonight. Seriously, for the record, I am in favor of this petition. I have know them for the 8 years they have been there, they have a lot of parking, have done a good job there, kept property in good repair, their kitchen is small. They put in their own sidewalk. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition requested on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety are to be strictly adhered to, petitioner obtain a legal building permit and exterior finished shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 10 DEARBORN ST. - JAMES AND GAIL SAGRIS Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow construction of a second story deck in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read correspondence. First from Sarah Hayes, Ward 6 Councillor, opposed. Letter from Walter B. Power, III, Chairman of the Planning Board, dated September 18, 1992, stating the Planning Board determined there was substantial and material change by a vote of six in favor none opposed. Last was a letter from the Historical Commission taking no position but offering design review. (all • on file) Mr. Bencal: Mr. Grealish, your the one who is writing this decision and in that decision it should reflect what we will be doing next. It will reflect two votes, first the Board will hear from the petition on the specific and material changes to plans and if in the Board's mind it decides there is such changes, it will require 3 rather than the 4, secondly, if the Board votes there is such change then it is the regular Special Permit decision. Councillor O'Leary: I have a question on that. I notice the letter from the Planning Board it was a six to 0 vote and I believe in the rules to come back to you they need a 2/3rds vote of the whole Board so it is 8 votes they need to come back to the Board of Appeal. Mr. Bencal: was the six a quorum. Is it 2/3rds of the members present? Mr. O'Leary: it is 2/3rds of the nine member board. Correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Bencal read MGL 40A Section 16. 1 am incorrect, we will need 4 voted from this Board to re-hear this instead of 3. This reads "unless all but one of the members of the Planning Board consents thereto and after notice is given to parties of interest" So, reading this Councillor, it says unless all but one of the members of the Planning Board. Mr. O'Leary: there are 9 members of the Planning Board. We had a similar case back a few years and they couldn' t vote on it because they did not have 8 members there. It says all but one, so that would be 8 of the 9. All is 9. Unless you read it differently. Mr. Grealish: I don' t know, are they saying all but one of the quorum or all but one of the full Board. I am just not sure. You could be right Councillor, I don't know. Councillor O'Leary: if they mean all but one of the quorum, five is a quorum, they could go there and get five or six votes and bring it right back to you. • The point that was made to me was that it took 8 of the 9. Mr. Bencal : looking in the guide book it is 4 of the Board of Appeal members, I am MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 \ page twelve �^ 10 DEARBORN ST. - CONTINUED inclined to think the Planning Board should have had more members present. Mr. Grealish: the last sentence says all but one of the Planning Board Members, doesn't say whether it is members present or the entire Board, I couldn't say for sure but it would seem to say all the members. Mr. Touchette: it is my impression, just reading it here that it would mean 8 of the 9 members, but that is without any further research. Mr. Grealish: I would agree that it is 8 of the 9. The Board took a brief recess to try to reach the City Solicitor for his opinion. The Board reconvened at 9: 10. Mr. Bencal: spoke with Mr. Femino, the Assistant City Solicitor, we caught him off guard, naturally, what he suggested that the Board continue this to him time to research the question as to the number of Planning Board members needed and whether or not their vote was proper. Ms. Sagris: respectfully, Mr. Chairman, we went before the Planning Board twice, first time it was unanimous but they failed to send out public notice. Mr. Bencal: I am not comfortable with hearing this petition tonight. The question is whether six votes of the Planning Board conforms with MGL 40A with regards to this type of petition, repetitive. If it is, fine, you may then bring your case to the Board. Is there any preferred date for the next meeting. Mr. Febonio: I have no preferred date but let's do it as soon as possible. Mr. Bencal: The earliest we could have it is October 21st. Mr. Febonio made a motion to continue this until October 21, 1992. Mr. Touchette seconded, UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED • Mr. Febonio made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 26, 1992 as taped and transcribed. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. , next scheduled hearing to be held on October 21, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 9X4(-;A1Z0W Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board • (.91ty of Salem, 'Mttssadjuscite MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL - OCTOBER 21, 1992 A hearing of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, October 21, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News on October 7 and 14, 1992. Abutters and other interested parties were notified by mail. Presented at the hearing were Board Members Bencal, Febonio, Grealish, Luzinski, Touchette and Clerk of the Board Sumrall. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Richard Bencal. 10 DEARBORN ST. - GAIL AND JAMES SAGRIS This request for a Special Permit to allow construction of a deck is a repetitive petition and has been continued from the September 30, 1992 meeting. Mr. Bencal explained that Mr. Luzinski would not be sitting on • this petition this evening, this is a continuance, the hearing had been opened so there will only be a four man Board. Attorney George Atkins, addressed the Board, I have just recently be retained by the Sagris' so I am new to this and I understand there is a history on this property. I respectfully request to withdraw at this time without prejudice. I need an opportunity to examine the history and the proposal. Would like to research and review the plans, I would like opportunity to discuss this with the neighbors and the Ward Councillor. Also, I understand there are only four members that can hear this and I would like the opportunity to present this petition to a five man Board. Mr. Bencal: before the last meeting was opened, everyone in attendance was given the opportunity to withdraw or continue and your clients chose not to. As far as history of the proposal, I would be more comfortable with continuing this until the next available meeting and having it heard before a four man Board. I get the sense that you are Board shopping and I am not comfortable with it. Mr. Atkins: I take offense, I am not in any way Board shopping. As we are all aware, if I lose one vote this evening, I lose the case. My clients were not here at the beginning of the hearing and did not hear you explain about the four man board. There is no intent on their part or on my part to shop for a board. This is not an unfair request. Mr. Bencal: the Board can grant withdrawals at any time, at no time did your clients request to withdraw. Mr. Febonio: this is a repetitive petition and the petitioners have been given ample time. This could go on forever, what are you trying to achieve? Mr. Atkins: the law allows repetitive petitions and my clients have gone through the process. Mr. Febonio: I know I am not as eloquent as you are Councillor, but first they come to us with • MINUTES - OCTOBER 21, 1992 page two • 10 DEARBORN ST. - CONTINUED consent from the Planning Board, first there is six votes, there is a question as to the correct number of votes, law does not mention a quorum, we continue this for an opinion, they go back to the Planning Board, now they have eight votes, what are you trying to circumvent. Do we keep going back and forth, how many times. Mr. Atkins: We are not trying to circumvent anything, I assure you there will be a petition here next week with all that is needed. I am just asking for fair treatment for my clients. Mr. Febonio: are you saying your clients were not given a fair hearing. Mr. Atkins: not at all, this Board is always fair. I just want an opportunity to present this in a new and learned way. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Atkins has requested to withdraw without prejudice, I am ready to call for a vote, it will take three of the four members to vote in favor for it to be allowed. Do we have a motion. Mr. Grealish: I do have one question, Mr. Atkins, did you say your clients were late and did not hear the Chairman's announcement regarding withdrawing? Why? Mr. Atkins: I don't know. Mr. Bencal: it is moot, it doesn't matter. Mr. Grealish made a motion to allow the petition to be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Febonio seconded. The Board voted unanimously 0-4 against the motion, motion does not carry, petitioner is denied request to withdraw. Mr. Atkins: Mr. Chairman, could we recess until the end of the meeting to give me a chance to confer with my clients. Mr. Bencal: we can do that Councillor. We will hear the next petition and continue this till the end. 8 ALBION STREET - PATRICIA RENNICK • Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to extend the height of the existing roof in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read application and a • communication from the Historic District (on file) . Ms. Rennick represented herself. All I want it to raise the roof three (3) feet to make the rooms legal height. There are three (3) bedrooms up there, they have always been there as far as I know. I have owned this property since March. We are raising the peak three feet, will still be well under the allowed 30 feet. The Board went over the plans. Mr. Bencal: this will not become a two family dwelling? Ms. Rennick: no. Mr. Febonio: you won't have a problem with that being one of the conditions. Ms. Rennick: no Speaking in favor. Councillor Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4: this is in my ward and I have had no calls from anyone opposing it and I would be in favor. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the Special Permit requested on condition petition comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations; all construction be in accordance with plans and dimensions submitted; all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to; a legal building permit to be obtained; 'dwelling is to remain a single family dwelling;, exterior finishes are to be in harmony with existing structure. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • MINUTES - OCTOBER 21, 1992 page three • 10 DEARBORN ST. - CONTINUED Mr. Atkins: Mr. Chairalan; I have conferred with'my clients and we would like to continue this until the next available meeting. Mr. Febonio: would you please explain to me what is going on, how long will this go on, what does it mean if we continue this again will they then have a five man board? Mr. Bencal: no, if we allow this to be continued until the next meeting they would still be faced with a four man board, the hearing was opened. At the very beginning of the last meeting I explained to all petitioners that there was a four man board, I explained to everyone in attendance that it would be necessary to carry all four votes in order to have their petitions granted. These petitioners also had the same option, they could have withdrawn at the beginning of the last meeting. They chose not to. We did allow them to continue because of questions regarding the vote of the Planning Board. Mr. Atkins having just been retained by the petitioners is not familiar with the petition and he would like to have some time to get familiar with it. I certainly can understand that, he would like to research this. He can ask withdraw it at any time or he can ask to continue at any time, he has already asked to withdraw and we denied that request. Mr. Touchette: if we continue this till the next meeting, will he still have a tour- man Board? Mr. Bencal: yes Mr. Touchette : are, they allow unlimited number of continuances? Mr. Bencal: it is- not addressed, it is at the discretion of the Board. Mr. Atkins'., Chapter 40A limits the length of time you have to make a decision but by signing this waiver we get around the time limit set. Mr. Febonio: if we had met few days after we did, this would all be moot because the Planning Board meets • more often that we do, it is a case of trying to get to the Board at the right time I am not as eloquent as the learned Councillor, but first the vote is one way, then the Planning Board meets again, then it is a different vote, then there is another meeting, now they have the right vote, what are we doing, I don't know if I am saying right or not, seems like managing the Boards. Mr. Atkins: I resent that, but you are right, if the vote was 7-1 we would not be here. There has been no attempt on my part or on the part of my clients to manage the Board's practices, all we are trying to do is get another meeting, my client's, and I am not trying to excuse them, just have a lay man's prospective on all the legal ramifications of this type of procedure. They thought it was just a deck and they would walk through it, they don't realize the legalities involved. Mr. Bencal : your clients took a very fast track approach after the denial. Mr. Atkins: I apologize, I realize they started building without a permit, they should have sought help, but it is costly to hire an attorney, as I said, they figured it was just a deck and did not call for that. At this point I think it is unfair not to give us a hearing where we can make a fair presentation. Mr. Grealish made a motion to allow the petitioner to continue this until the November 18th hearing. Mr. Touchette seconded. Mr. Bencal: again I would remind the Board it will only take a 3-1 vote to allow this to be continued. Mr. Grealish and Mr. Touchette voted in favor or the motion to continue, Mr. Bencal and Mr. Febonio vote against the motion. The motion fails, the continuance is denied. CONTINUANCE DENIED 2-2 • Mr. Grealish read a letter from Councillor Sarah Hayes, dated 10/15/92 and MINUTES - OCTOBER 21, 1992 page four • 10 DEARBORN ST. - CONTINUED addressed to Mr. & Mrs. Sagris (on file) , a letter from the Planning Board dated 10/19/92 (on file) , letter from Mary D. Horton, 15 Dearborn St. , in favor (on file) . Mr. Atkins submitted letters in favor from Norman & Donna Cheney, 18 Upham St. , a petition with 52 signatures and a letter from Maureen Grocki, 19 Upham St. , all in favor, all were read into the record and placed on file. Mr. Bencal: if you could address the substantial change Mr. Atkins and I would remind the Board that we are hearing the case for change and that is what we will be voting on, at this time. Mr. Atkins: I think the substantial change was dealt with in the letter from the Planning Board better that I could deal with it. The deck has been cut back and an entire section removed. The Board went over the plans, compared them with the original plans. Mr. Bencal: there is still an area extending out. Those stairs we see are there now? Mr. Atkins: correct, they are already existing. He displayed plot plan showing the stairs. Mr. Bencal: as I viewed the site, there is a part of the deck that has been built outside the house line. Mr. Atkins: conferred with his clients. Mr. Chairman, again, if I had a chance to properly prepare. Mr. Bencal: I understand. Mr. Atkins display pictures of the property. We will conform the structure to the line of the house as shown on the plans submitted. Mr. Bencal: the issue before us at this time is to determine specific and material change, it will require a 4-0 vote. Mr. Febonio: as far as I am concerned, what I was opposed to was the invasion of privacy. I see no change in that, perhaps a substantial change would have been if they had lowered it. The crux of the matter is visual privacy, as it is now, this • porch is level and you have a constant look into my room, that is the problem, visual privacy and that has not been changed. Mr. Atkins: that is not an issue at this time, that should be addressed during my presentation, the question right now is whether we should be allowed to be heard by this Board, this is a procedural issue. Mr. Bencal: that is the objection Mr. Febonio had at the last meeting and he does not feel there is substantial change and substantial change is the issue. You have submitted a petition signed by some people who are not affected by this deck, it is easy for them to say, sure put up the deck, it doesn't bother them. Mr. Atkins: I would like to address this before you vote on substantial change. This is a procedural question, if you are going to address the larger issue of privacy, I should have chance to address it. But it should be addressed in my presentation. The Planning Board voted there was substantial change and that we could be heard, that is all you should be dealing with at this time. Specific and Material change. We have reduced the size of the deck by 16.33 sq.ft. , the original deck was only 116.36 sq.ft. , I submit that is a substantial and material change and that is all you should be concerned with. Now is not the time to deal with the issue of privacy. Mr. Febonio: Planning Board says X, you come back here and I say Y, they say there is substantial change and I say there is not. I am telling you now there is no substantial change as far as I am concerned, maybe the other members feel differently. Mr. Atkins: you did not hear any presentation as to screening this, I just want the opportunity to make a presentation. Mr. Febonio: why submit a petition with over 50 signatures. Mr. Atkins: that is our right, we can present a petition • signed by neighbors. Mr. Febonio: these are not neighbors, some live MINUTES - OCTOBER 21, 1992 page five • 10 DEARBORN ST. - CONTINUED clear across town, what do they care if there is a deck there or not. Mr. Bencal: I disagree with you Councillor as far as privacy not being an issue, it was an issue at the last meeting and I am ready to call for a vote. I take offense to your constant referral to the Planning Board. Mr. Atkins: you have already denied us twice on procedure. Mr. Grealish: in terms of substantial change in the plans, what exactly would be considered substantial change? Mr. Bencal: It is up to each individual members determination, if they feel it is changed to their satisfaction, by all means vote that way. Mr. Atkins: it is specific and material change in the original petition, I submit that 116 sq.ft. is a substantial change. Mr. Bencal: that is open to interpretation. He explained to the members that if the vote was in favor of hearing this, we would proceed with Mr. Atkin's presentation. Mr. Grealish made a motion that there is substantial and material change in the petition. Mr. Touchette seconded. On a vote of one in favor of the motion (Mr. Grealish) and three opposed (Mssrs. , Bencal, Febonio and Touchette) the motion fails and the petition to re-hear this repetitive petition is denied. PETITION TO REHEAR DENIED 1-3 Mr. Grealish made a motion to accept the minutes of the September 30th meeting as taped. Mr. Touchette seconded. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Mr. Bencal: you all received a letter from the City Clerk regarding 24 Norman St. , I spoke with Mr. Luster and they are working on something. • This Board is re-active, not pro-active, there is nothing we can do. The Board discussed this issue, which has to do with the variance granted there, one of the conditions being they purchase parking stamps for Reilly Plaza, which currently undergoing construction. Mr. Bencal: the condo owners are concerned, I don't know what is behind this, I do have a letter from a former City Solicitor, there is nothing this Board can do. Mr. Febonio: we are not in a position to do anything. The Board congratulated Mr. Bencal on his new appointment as Parking Commissioner. Mr. Febonio: if it is decided that Mr. Bencal cannot sit on this Board, I want to make it clear that I do not want to be Chairman, I think one of the younger fellows should be. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. , next scheduled meeting will be held November 18, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board • Ctv of "iWem, �fflttssttdjusetts • %, _ F Pourb of (�ppeal hi..pmtvS'� MINUTES OF THE CITY OF'SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL - NOVEMBER 18, 1992 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal was held on Wednesday, November 18, 1992 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 November 4 and 11. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present at the hearing were board members Bencal, Febonio, Grealish, Luzinski, and Touchette; Inspector of Buildings Leo Tremblay and Clerk of the Board Brenda Sumrall The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Richard Bencal. Mr. Bencal welcomed Mr. Tremblay the new Inspector of Buildings and commented on how the Board would miss Mr. Harris the Inspector who used to attend the meetings. He also said goodbye to Mr. Febonio who has served with the Board for over three years. He thanked him for his efforts with the Board and wished him the very best. He gave Mr. Febonio the opportunity to Chair the • meeting, Mr. Febonio. declined. 336 Lafayette St. - St. Joseph's Credit Union Petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to enlarge the existing nonconforming structure by constructing two small additions and a change in the facade of the existing structure, also a special permit to extend an existing nonconforming use. Mr. Grealish read the application and letters from Councillor Mark E. Blair, Ward 7, in favor. Theodore Vrettos, Royal Design Builders , Inc. , New Hampshire, we are the architects and the general contractors representing the petitioners: Mr. Pat Warren, the president of the Credit Union is here to answer any questions the Board may have. Displayed plans to the Board and the Assemblage. There are three positive outcomes for the expansion of this credit union, the first being, they are really squeezed for space, as far as there asset size, way below average. We will be expanding operating space to make it more efficient. Second positive thing will make handicap accessible under the American's With Disabilities Act we will providing handicap toilets, revised booths that will be wheelchair accessible, sit down teller stations that wheelchairs can get access to, renovating entrances to make them accessible. third positive outlook is the new look for the community. He displayed renderings to the assemblage and the Board. Will be big improvement for the area. Besides the facade, which is a total make over of the exterior, will be additions to the buildings, keeping the 15 foot setbacks also adding about 300 sq.ft. to the basement level to • accommodate a new Board of Directors room which they are in great need of. Mr. Bencal: you are going to increase the frontage on the Lafayette ST.? Mr. Vrettas: very minutely then the building curves around on the driveway side. MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1992 page two • 336 LAFAYETTE ST. - CONTINUED What we are doing is keeping the fifteen foot setback. Mr. Bencal: so you would not be encroaching? no. Mr. Luzinski: the building will be facing Lafayette St.? yes, that will be the main entrance. Mr. Febonio: you have a note saying will be reconfigured later, what does that mean? Mr. Vrettas: That is at the drive-up area in the rear. That's a note the surveyor put there. The canopy right now comes out and architecturally we would like to drop that lower. The Board went over the plans. Mr. Febonio: will not extend into setback? Mr. Vrettas: no, that is just elevation. Mr. Febonio: it has nothing to do with what we are doing here tonight? No. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant petitioners request on condition the petition shall comply will all City and State statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety be strictly adhered to, petitioner obtain a legal building permit. Mr. Luzinski seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 19 JAPONICA STREET - SHERRI AND FREDERICK CALLOR Petitioner is requesting a Variance from rear setback to allow an existing deck in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. He read a letter from David Silvey, 17 Japonica St. , in opposition due to condition of • 19 Japonica St. , he also enclosed two pictures. (all on file) Sherri Callor represented herself and her husband. We would like to refinance the house and we need this variance to get loan. I have only lived there two years myself. Mr. Bencal: were you there when the deck was built. Ms. Callor: as it was being finished. I knew we were going to hear from neighbors, we have had problems with them right along. I just married not only a year ago, but since we have been married I fixed up the back yard painted the deck did all the work in the back yard, all myself. There is only one car and that is mine, the only reason the car is there is because it is standard and I am handicapped, I have multiple sclerosis and I can't drive it. I had a hard time getting hold of the contractor who built the deck so I could get a drawing, this is all he could give me. Submitted a drawing of the deck, submitted copy of a Certificate of Compliance from the Fire Dept. I don't understand the plot plan, it shows the deck coming out further than the lot line but it doesn't. Mr. Bencal: this is what you submitted, if you are saying this is incorrect it is up to you to submit correct drawings. Ms. Callor: It just didn't look the same to me. The Board looked at the pictures and went over the plan. Mr. Febonio: your looking to refinance? yes. Mr. Bencal: they did receive a building permit for this deck, whether it was given in error or not, they did get one. Mr. Febonio: They are not asking to build anything? They are not going to take this down and build something else? No. Mr. Luzinski: this was done in 1990? yes. Mr. Bencal: it is possible that the deck they built was not the same as what they got the permit for. Mr. Febonio: are you saying it could have been built bigger than the plans given to the Building Inspector? Mr. Bencal: in any event, that is why • they are here tonight. Mr. Luzinski: This deck was in place when these pictures were taken, isn't there something about trucks being parked in the City limits? Ms. Callor: it is just the cab, it is not the whole truck. Mr. Bencal: if I read you neighbors letter right, his quality of life is being impacted by the truck being there. Is it possible there is some place the MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1992 • page three 19 JAPONICA STREET - CONTINUED truck could be parked. Ms. Callor: since then he has been parking the truck by the overpass on North St. I think there is a City Ordinance that referred to commercial trucks being parked in a residential area. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: the petitioner obtained a legal building permit, the question is, at least in my mind, was it for the work performed, if not, how does this differ from other petitions where people have built- decks with no permits and they are caught by the banks. Because they had a legal building permit the neighbor didn't drop a dime on them, the neighbor did not know the construction was going further that what the permit allowed. At least that is the impression I get. Mr. Febonio: the only objection is the vehicles. That isn't our jurisdiction. Mr. Bencal: it could if the deck took away from area where the truck and car were parking, then it becomes a self made hardship. Mr. Luzinski: was the truck there before the deck? Mr. Bencal: not having the original plot plan, we really don't know. I can't tell if a truck could fit back there or not. The lady has told us she has done a lot of work. Ms. Callor: I have, did a lot of work all last summer, the place looked like a junk yard when I moved in, I agree with that, looked terrible. My husband has owned this property for 13 years. Mr. Febonio: so it was your husband who took out the building permit. Mr. Bencal: knowing Mr. Harris and his efficiency I find it hard to believe he would issue the permit knowing there were setback violations. It is my feeling the deck was probably enlarged. Mr. Touchette: if the truck can be • parked in the driveway legally then I don't see what we can do about it. Mr. Bencal: if it was parked in the back and they built the deck preventing it from being able to park there then they have created their own hardship. Mr. Touchette: If it is a legal driveway they can park their truck any place the want and it is not our jurisdiction. Mr. Bencal: perhaps, but we don't know what the property looked like, did they impact negatively by building this deck. If Mr. Callor parked the truck further down and by building the deck it resulted in his not being able to park the truck further back, then he has created his own hardship. Mr. Touchette: the problem is the truck and not the deck. Mr. Bencal: right, they don't have an objection to the deck, they are opposed to the truck, the indirectly the deck may have caused this problem. Mr. Febonio: If there was no deck and he came up and object because the size of the deck interfered with parking the truck properly we could ask if they would be happy if the deck was made smaller. If the driveway was 50/60 feet long, couldn't they pull in an entire trailer truck. I thought it was their property and they could park there. Is there a City Ordinance that says you can't park a truck on your property overnight? Mr. Touchette: I don't know if that is our concern. If the deck wasn't there, these people could park the truck next to the bedroom window, if that were legal. The fact that the deck is there has no bearing on where the truck is parked. If they chose not to park the truck in the back yard on their lawn they could park it anywhere on their driveway. I can take my car and park it anywhere on my driveway and the fact that the deck does not allow them to drive in back is not relevant to the petition that is here, they could still park the truck there. Mr. Bencal: I disagree. Mr. Febonio: One or two things, not that • this is the way I am thinking, what if we were to reject this, they would have to tear it down, tear the whole thing down. Mr. Touchette: what affect would that have on the parking of the truck or the quality of life? Mr. Febonio: no, lets make a deal here. I won't make you tear down the deck if you give the neighbor some relief. This is what a variance is all about. He's saying his quality of life is being affected because of the truck, they MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1992 page four • 19 JAPONICA ST. - CONTINUED say their quality of life is being enhanced because of the deck so let's make both things equal. Let's compromise. They don't park the truck there, they keep the deck. They both have their quality of life. I am not opposed to the deck but I want to see a compromise. It would be irritating to me if I were living there to have that truck there, and I don't know, is it legal to have it there? Mr. Touchette: if it is illegal to have the truck parked there then there is a different format for them to go. Mr. Grealish: if we were to have a condition that no commercial vehicles park on the property. What if the petitioner sells the property and the next owner has a small commercial van, they would not be able to park their van in their driveway. I sympathize with the neighbor and I am willing to compromise but I would not want to stick that property with something like that. Mr. Bencal: They would have the opportunity to come back to the Board. Mr. Febonio: if they came in and objected to the deck itself because it was illegally built then he's got a lot of legal ground, he could force us to take it down. Mr. Bencal: any more comments? If not do I hear a motion. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted, petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit, petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire safety, no commercial vehicles shall be parked on the property. Mr. Luzinski seconded UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED • 5 DUNDEE ST. - DAVID & JEAN LAPHAM Petitioners are requesting variances to allow an existing deck and shed in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application, there was no correspondence. John Crean, esq. , Peabody, represented the petitioners. They purchased the property in 1973 from the builder, brand new house. 1986 the back stairway and small deck which had been approved in 1972 was deteriorating and Mr. Lapham called Building Inspector on the phone and told him he was replacing existing stairs and deck. No mention about any distances or changes in the size of the porch and the inspector was evidently under the impression the dimensions were going to be the same and he said he would not require a permit. They went ahead and built the deck as shown on the plan submitted. Now they are moving and they want to sell and as is the old story, a plot plan was obtained and this problem presented itself. The requirements in 1973 for lot size was 7,000 sq.ft. , the hardship here is the location of the house as it is and the shape of the lot which makes it virtually impossible to comply with 30 foot setback requirement if anything is built in the back and that is basically the legal position they have to take regarding hardship. They have contacted all their abutters and I have letters from four abutters in support. The abutter to the rear where the encroachment is the greatest is an undeveloped lot, there is nothing there. Mr. Bencal read the letters from: Mary Melin, 12 Dundee St. ; Nancy Savageau, 38 Calumet St. ; Elizabeth Faria, 2 Aberdeen St. ; and, Mr. & Mrs. Paul J. Adario, 10 Dundee St. , all in favor. Mr. Grealish: one of the letters from lot #7? Mr. Crean: yes, that was Faria. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Philip Reddy, 31 • Calumet St. , the lawyer said my land was undeveloped. I don't know if I am against the petition or not. My back yard abuts their back yard. I am concerned with future use of my property as far as setbacks go, if I choose to. They mention a shed that is going to be built, there is a shed presently MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1992 page five 5 DUNDEE ST. - CONTINUED there. I am not sure it is on their property itself, it may be on City property. I know in the past it was on city property. There is a dead end road there and the city still owns the land where the road may go through. It is my plan in the future to develop that land for my children. I guess those are my concerns. Mr. Reddy showed the Board members what land was his. They all went over the plans. Mr. Reddy: I believe the shed is on city land. I don't believe it has the setbacks it needs. Mr. Bencal: that is one of the things he is asking for, permission to allow the shed. They have asked to put it about 13 feet from the house and that will put it about 4 feet from where the street will be. In rebuttal. Mr. Crean: the shed was on Calumet and I told them to move it and they put it where it is now. I had them push it over. Mr. Reddy: I was told by another abutter who lives on the other side of Calumet he at one time told me what the property lines were there as far as bringing the street through, said it was 50 feet beyond the telephone poles and the poles are, if you are coming up Calumet from the Peabody side on the left hand side, he said it was 50 feet from that point. Now, that shed is not 50 feet from that point. What I would like is to have someone from the City go up and see if these people have the required setbacks. Mr. Bencal: They have asked for two types of relief, one for the deck and two for the shed to be placed there. It is my feeling that the shed is a self created hardship and could be moved. As for your concern as far as the possible development of you land. We look at all petitions on an individual basis. It would be • viewed on its own merits. The fact that they have built a structure within 12 ft. of your lot line I don't believe will have a negative impact on you. Mr. Reddy: They are using my yard and throwing trash, they use my land as a back yard. I would be willing to bet he is 15 feet into my back yard. Mr. Bencal: the plan he has submitted tonight shows the deck off the rear of his house 16 feet which gives him 12 feet to the property line, your saying he does not have 12 feet to the rear. Mr. Reddy: oh, he has that but he also has encroached on my property. My point is if you do allow this variance, he has a garden there. Mr. Luzinski: that is a different case, if they are using this man's land without permission, that is trespassing. Mr. Reddy: you are going to grant him a variance. Mr. Luzinski: just to within 12 feet of your lot line. We can't grant him any further, or grant him anything on your land. Mr. Bencal: the petitioners at this point in time have no right to your property, this is not the forum for, what is the term, adverse possession, I don't think that is an issue this evening, not would they meet the time requirement to claim it. I understand you have a concern that if there were granted it might have a negative impact on your future development and again, each petition is looked at on an individual basis. Mr. Reddy: Would like the Board to take my interest into account as well as the petitioners. Mr. Luzinski: I don't think any future building he may do will come close to this deck. Mr. Bencal: we don't know the topography of Mr. Reddy's property. Should put condition that granting this shall not have a negative bearing on the development of Mr. Reddy's property. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition on condition petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations, all construction be as per plans & dimensions with the exception the shed shall be at least • five feet from property line on Calumet, petitioner shall comply with fire dept. requirement, a building permit be obtained, granting this shall not have a negative bearing on the development of the property shown as lot 57 on the Assessors map, also know as 31 Calumet St. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1992 • page six 14 LAUREL STREET - MICHAEL CORMIER Petitioner is requesting Variances from rear and side setback to allow a deck in this R-2 district. Mr. Grealish read the application and a letter from Gloria Talbot, 23 Hazel St. , stating she had no objections as long as there was going to be no new construction, that the Variance was for the existing deck only. (letter on file) Michael Cormier represented himself. Back last summer I had to address the problem of a retaining wall so I built a two tier retaining wall. Basically there is no access to the back yard. The deck is the access out of the kitchen, my daughters room is right off the kitchen and if there was any emergency where she had to use that door she could now gain access to the back yard. Talked with the direct abutter and she had no problem with it. Ms. Talbot, the one who sent the letter, I talked to her a couple years ago and I told her I was thinking about putting a deck in the back and that is when she got concerned and when she got the letter from the Board of Appeals she assumed I was building another deck. It should have stated an existing deck so she was thrown for a loop there and got panicky. Mr. Bencal: your petition says to allow a deck, it does not say existing deck. Mr. Cormier: yes, but Mr. Harris filled it out for me. I apologize for not getting a permit, it is flat on the ground and it doesn't even attach to the house, it is up against it. I have 4 x 4 rail going along the fence and I attached it to that. I am on a hill and basically have no access. The back yard was an eyesore. He display pictures, before and after. The abutter • thought I was going to build another deck. Mr. Febonio: all you want is what is already there. Mr. Bencal: she is clear in her letter about building a deck in the back yard and that is not what he is here for. Mr. Cormier submitted a petition signed by six neighbors in favor. Mr. Bencal read the petition and it was placed on file. Mr. Febonio: how did you realize you needed a variance. Mr. Cormier: someone saw me doing some work and thought I was going to do more work. Was the same lady that wrote the letter. Mr. Febonio: from now on you know you have to get the variance first. Speaking in favor. Lynn Bluen, 15 Laurel St. , I think it should be there, if there was a fire and they couldn't get out the front door, they would at least have a back door exit. Mr. Luzinski: the retaining wall keeps the back land from washing down, so it is an asset. Mr. Al Lunt, 22 Hazel St. , I live across the street, been there 30 years and I think what he did was very good, did a good job and improved the area and I think he should be approved. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petition 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, petitioner shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety, petitioner shall obtain a legal building permit from the Salem Inspector of Buildings. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED 35 HANSON ST. - GEORGE & PRISCILLA O'DONNELL Petitioner is requesting a Variance from side setback to allow construction of • a single story addition in this R-1 district. Mr. Grealish read the application. There was no correspondence. Mr. O'Donnell represented himself. We would like to put a 4 x 6 addition, would be an entry way on the side of the house from the kitchen door. The steps are there and we are going to remove them, they went directly outside. The stairs will still be directly from the kitchen door, but will be enclosed. • MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1992 page seven 35 HANSON ST. - CONTINUED Speaking in favor. Robert Muse, 40 Hanson St. , I live across the street and I think this should be granted. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Bencal: did you talk to any other neighbors. Mr. O'Donnell: yes, they had no objections. Mr. Grealish made a motion to grant the petitioners request for a variance on condition the petitioner comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations; all construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted; petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety; a legal building permit be obtained, exterior finishes of the proposed addition shall be in harmony with the existing structure. Mr. Touchette seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Mr. Luzinski made a motion to accept the minutes of the September 30 and October 21, 1992 minutes as transcribed and taped. Mr. Febonio seconded. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Received and placed on record the agenda's from the Historic Commission and the Licensing Board. Old/New Business - Mr. Luzinski: Have a letter from Attorney Sheehan regarding a deposition and I have a problem, I don't drive any more. Mr. • Bencal: call Mr. Femino for a ride, just explain to him what the situation is about. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. , next scheduled meeting to be held Wednesday, December 9, 1992. Respectfully submitted, " Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board •