Loading...
2006-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS R i' . 3Nar,{b CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CI I Y' 01-- CALLM, �A • " 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR- CLER1� S OFFICE ' ro• SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL OEC 13 P ^�, MAYOR I' CU AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING December 20, 2006- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Continued Petition of AAA Enterprises & Services requesting a Special Permit to allow a portion of the premises to be used for earth processing activities for the property located at 15 ROBINSON ROAD—BPD DISTRICT. 2. Continued Petition of Lewis Legon requesting a Special Permit to allow existing non-conforming offices to be converted to six (6)residential units for the property located at 48 BRIDGE STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 3. Petition of Peter and Cheryl Bagarella requesting a Variance from maximum height of fences and boundary walls to allow a six (6) foot stockade fence to be constructed on top of a newly constructed stone wall for the property located at 28 • MARLBOROUGH ROAD—R-1 DISTRICT. i 2. Petition of Michael.Viola requesting a Special Permit to change the use of the existing non-conforming structure from a two (2) story commercial structure to a three (3) story residential structure with five (5) dwelling units, and Variances from the maximum density and parking requirements for the property located at 17-19 SALEM STREET—R-3 DISTRICT. 3. Petition of Antonio Nogueira requesting an amendment to the previously granted variance for a twelve (12) by sixteen (16) foot deck to be expanded to a sixteen (16) by sixteen (16) foot deck for the property located at 13 FAIRMOUNT STREET— R-2 DISTRICT. 4. Petition of Diane McGlynn requesting a Variance to convert a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling for the property located at 11 MASON STREET—B-1 DISTRICT. 5. Petition of Mary Mubum requesting a Variance from off-street parking regulations to allow an office use for the property located at 118 NORTH STREET—B-1 DISTRICT. 6. Petition of Shannon Englehardt requesting a Variance to the side setback requirement of ten (10) feet to three and one-half(3 '/2) feet to allow construction This notice posted on "Official Bui tin Board" City Hall Aye , wx?t m, mass. an /3 '2 006 at >:a8" vm In accordwm with . e9 of a two (2) story deck for the property located at 11 WILLIAMS STREET—R- 2 DISTRICT. 7. Petition of David Cote requesting a Variance from off-street parking regulations to allow a second curb cut for the property located at 14 GARDNER STREET— R-2 DISTRICT. 8. Petition of George Balich requesting a Special Permit to convert a third unit Dentist office into a residential dwelling unit and a Variance from off-street parking requirements to allow four(4) spaces instead of the required five (5) spaces for the property located at 421 ESSEX STREET—B-1 DISTRICT. 9. Old/New Business 10. Adjournment Nina Cohen, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals l • 48 Bridge Street—Request for a Special Permit to allow existing non-conforming offices to be converted to six (6) residential units - R-2 District - Lewis Legon. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit per Sections 8-5 and 9-4 to allow the owner to convert the existing non-conforming commercial office building into six (6) residential units. The applicant is not proposing any site improvements or exterior work. It is important to note that as the threshold of six (6) residential units has been breached, the applicant will have to apply to the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review Special Permit, if the ZBA decides to grant the Special Permit, per Sec. 7-18. 28 Marlborough Road—Request for a Variance from maximum height of fences and boundary walls to allow a six (6) foot stockade fence to be constructed on top of a newly constructed stone wall—R-1 District -Peter and Cheryl Bagarella. The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the height of his fence to 8-10 feet in order to make his neighbors , etc. safer and to keep in his 110-pound German Shepard guard dog. The applicant is intending to build the wooden, stockade fence on top of an existing four(4) to six (6) foot high retaining wall. The maximum height of fences in the R-1 District is six (6) feet. PLEASE NOTE: Tom St. Pierre has some concerns for the site and is requesting that the ZBA continue this item to the January 17, 2007 meeting. • 17-19 Salem Street- Request fop a Special Permit to change the use of the existing non- conforming structure from a two (2) story commercial structure to a three (3) story residential structure with five (5) dwelling units, and Variances from the maximum density and parking requirements —R-3 District - Michael Viola. The applicant is requesting relief to allow for a change in use from commercial space to five (5) residential dwelling units without the required parking. PLEASE NOTE: There were no site plans submitted with this application. The applicant has said that they will present these plans to the Board and for the file at the meeting. 13 Fairmount Street—Request for an amendment to the previously granted variance for a twelve (12) by sixteen (16) foot deck to be expanded to a sixteen (16) by sixteen (16) foot deck— R-2 District- Antonio Nogueira. The applicant is requesting a to amend a previously granted Variance to side yard setbacks (Granted at the September meeting) to allow for an expansion of the 12 x 16 foot enclosed deck to a 16 x 16 foot enclosed deck. 11 Mason Street - Request for a Variance to convert a single-family dwelling to a two-family • dwelling—B-1 District -Diane McGlynn. 2 1 � i R� The applicant is requesting a Variance for the property to allow its use as a two-family dwelling. • The property was purchased in the belief that it was a two-family, existing, non-conforming lot. It was found to be an existing, nonconforming single-family use and the owner is requesting a change in the use. It is important to note that the parcel is in the Industrial Zone, not the B-1 Zone as advertised, and that in the Industrial zone, residential uses are specifically prohibited per Sec. 5-3(h)(3)q. 118 North Street—Request for a Variance from off-street parking regulations to allow an office use —B-1 District - Mary Muburn. The applicant is requesting relief per Sec. 7-3 (g) of the City ordinance to allow them to run a psychotherapy business on the premise without any additional staff. For a professional or medical business, the Ordinance requires one space for each professional person plus two spaces for each professional person (As both of the applicants are practicing on the site, there would need to be six parking spaces for the site). Currently the site plan only shows space for one off-site parking (this space is not long enough to meet the parking requirements for a stall, but is an existing, non- conforming space). The applicants propose to live and work at the site. 11 Williams Street—Request for a Variance to the side setback requirement of ten (10) feet to three and one-half(3 1/2) feet to allow construction of a two (2) story deck—R-2 District - Shannon Englehardt. . The applicant is requesting a side setback variance to construct a two-story deck. The applicant's site plans do not show the location or dimensions of this deck. The applicant has said that they will present this information to the board at the meeting. 14 Gardner Street—Request for a Variance from off-street parking regulations to allow a second curb cut—R-2 District -David Cote. The petitioner is requesting the use of a portion of their site as a parking space. The space appears to meet the size requirements of nine (9) feet wide by nineteen (19) feet long (10 x 26 on plan), however, this should be verified by the applicant and it should be made clear if the space is for one or two vehicles as the zoning ordinance does not allow tandem parking (two cars parked one behind the other). The zoning ordinance references that they are sighting in their application refer to the tandem parking prohibition, and the requirement of one and one-half(1 '/2) spaces per dwelling unit, with a minimum of two (2) spaces for residential units in the R-2 District. 421 ESSEX STREET —Request for a Special Permit to convert a third unit Dentist office into a residential dwelling unit and a Variance from off-street parking requirements - B-1 District - George Balich. The petitioner is requesting relief to allow an existing 0 floor dentist office with rental units on the 2nd and 3`d floors to be converted into an additional dwelling unit, and to change the three • units from rental, to condominium units with four (4) on-site parking spaces. The plan also shows a new curb cut for the site to provide access to the parking area. 3 Please Sign-In Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting December 20, 2006 Name Mailing Address Phone Email a c U •d 66 3 �i93 a� r ms�u r p 6CT C,� V4 C� � S � ,� 9--/8 -7Y,/ -/,3 2 eaklouscPA14s d °II,I M(a.vysv 6_Uw , Mit R757`50785 Qx�n n na" -i-- UY AX M2Cj ha rd- 13--3- OCY- S1-.*1 �Z. c1W 57462A9 shannm»,ye wie";I-cav �14A 13�—/� (Y)cL (I �{ A/ortnao Sk- �,�,ek , 97h 7Yo ((a9/ rlia�� 4 CIVA I- eA Td /6 .A-/lD�ueSr, 2-2�sr Jmc9lynv�f�a. d�w C, h<7L�da.ti-e. S` l9 K2 e.�. �a �v.✓ �{U �/�(lin /+',h 9 7� 7 �!JAG 2 j� i • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, December 20, 2006 A Meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Nina Cohen, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair, Robin Stein and Steve Pinto. Also present was Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre and Staff Planner Dan Merhalski. Continuation of Public Hearing - Request for Special Permit to allow a portion of the lot to be used for earth processing operations - 15 Robinson Road- BPD District - AAA Enterprises Chair Nina Cohen read a letter from the applicant requesting a withdrawal without prejudice for their petition. A motion was made by Nina Cohen, seconded by Elizabeth Debski and approved (5- 0) to allow the petition to be withdrawn without prejudice. Continuation of Public Hearing - Request for Special Permit to allow existing non- conforming offices to be converted to six (6) residential units- 48 Bridge Street - R-2 District - Lewis Legon. • Nina Cohen read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuation of the Public Hearing until January 17, 2007. A motion was made by Nina Cohen, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0) to continue the Public Hearing to January 17, 2007 at 6:30 pm. Public Hearing - Request for Variance from maximum height of fences and boundary walls - 28 Marlborough Road - R-1 District - Peter and Cheryl Bagarella Nina Cohen read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuation of the Public Hearing until January 17, 2007. Ward Four Councilor Leonard O'Leary objected to the continuation. John Charbonneau of 5 Greenlawn Avenue also objected to the request for a continuation. A motion was made by Nina Cohen, seconded by Elizabeth Debski and approved (5- 0) to continue the Public Hearing to January 17, 2007 at 6:30 pm. Public Hearing - Request for Special Permit from side to change the use of the existing non-conforming structure and Variances from the maximum density and parking requirements - 17-19 Salem Street - R-3 District - Michael Viola . Attorney Anthony Rossi stated that he is representing the petitioner, Michael Viola, on this petition. Mr. Viola was also present. Mr. Rossi gave a brief presentation to the Board regarding the plans for the property to add a third floor with five (5) dwelling Page 1 of 1 • units to the existing structure. Mr. Rossi stated that the owner will occupy one of the dwelling units and will retain ownership and operate the existing Laundromat on the first floor of the structure. He was not sure who he would rent out the other two commercial spaces to. Ms. Cohen asked the petitioner if he thought the location was a good location for high-end condominium developments? Mr. Viola said that he didn't think it was a good location, but that he thinks it is an up and coming area of Salem and is growing. Ms. Stein asked the petitioner to describe the current zoning and what the specific types of relief they requested were. Mr. Rossi explained that the current commercial uses on the site were conforming uses. The residential units on the second and third floors would require Special Permits for the use, and variances from the parking requirements as there is no room for parking on the site. Ms. Stein asked Tom St. Pierre to define any additional relief required, as this was an existing non-conforming structure and would require a Special Permit to expand on the existing non-conforming structure. Tom St. Pierre, Building Inspector, stated that the non-conforming structure requirement is applicable as Ms. Stein outlined. There is a grandfathered barber shop • that is also existing non-conforming and the applicant may need to seek a Special Permit to allow the Laundromat in the Multi-Family, R-3 District. A variance for parking would also be required. The lot area per dwelling unit may also require a variance, but as the applicant did not provide the lot area in their petition, this is difficult to determine. Beth Debski inquired about the parking requirements for the project. Mr. St. Pierre replied that the residential units would require eight (8) spaces for the residential spaces, but that the commercial spaces exist on the street and as this use would be continuing the existing use, the parking for the commercial space is not required, thought the Board me disagree with him. Steven Pinto asked if the project was financially feasible without the addition of a third floor for the site. Mr. Viola said that he was not able to work the project's numbers to allow for only the two floors. Ms. Cohen stated that she thinks this is a neighborhood with a lot of parking issues. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. Pam Anderson of 157 Lafayette Street said that she thinks the project is too dense and does not have enough parking and is opposed to the granting of the petition. • Brian Tashjian of 30 Park Street stated that he is opposed to the project as there is no parking on the street. Page 2 of 2 • Ms. Cohen asked if the city had received any written correspondence for this petition. Mr. Merhalski, Staff Planner, stated that he had not. Ms. Stein stated that the project is great for the area, but that the parking is a matter that does not outweigh the benefit of the project. She recommending the petitioner try to work with the neighborhood to arrange for off-street parking. Mr. Rossi suggested that the Board allow the applicant to continue the petition to the next Board meeting in January to allow his client to look into these issues more carefully and try to work them out with the neighborhood. Ms. Stein asked if the applicant would be willing to sign a waiver of the time for the Board to make a decision. The petitioner agreed. A motion was made by Nina Cohen, seconded by Elizabeth Debski and approved (5- 0) to continue the Public Hearing to January 17, 2007 at 6:30 pm. Public Hearing - Request for an amendment to a previously approved variance - 13 Fairmount Street - R-2 District - Antonio Nogueira Mr. Nogueira addressed the Board and stated that he discovered that he needed to • enlarge his original decision to enlarge the addition by four (4) feet, while not encroaching further into the setback that he received the variance from. Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing at this time. There were no members of the public who wished to speak on this petition. Ms. Cohen asked the petitioner is he had spoken to his neighbors about this amendment. Mr. Nogueira stated that he had and that no one had objected to the request. A motion was made by Steve Pinto to approve the amendment to the previously approved variance for a twelve (12) by sixteen (16) foot addition to be expanded to a sixteen (16) by sixteen (16) foot addition, subject to all of the original decision's conditions. The motion was seconded by Robin Stein and approved 5-0. Public Hearing - Request for Variance to convert a single-family dwelling into a two- family dwelling - 11 Mason Street - B-1 District - Diane McGlynn Atty. Diane McGlynn spoke on behalf of her clients, Luis and Maria Rosero. Ms. McGlynn gave a brief presentation to the Board regarding the petition and photographs of the site. • A Special Permit was granted in 1982 to allow the property to be used as a legal two-family unit, but that permit was voided when the owner sold the property. The property was sold two times before the current owners purchased the site. At the Page 3 of 3 • time of the sale, they were given documents that the site was a legal two-family home. The current owners, were not informed of this change in special permit for use. The petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the site to become a legal two- family unit again and to allow a Variance to run with the land, not terminate with the owner. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the Public Hearing. Joan O'Korn of 15 Mason Street spoke against the petition due to a lack of parking. Ken Stanton said that the parking in the area is not a problem. Tom St. Pierre stated that the property is a confusing property and has known the site as a two-bedroom and a three-bedroom unit that is attached to another unit. Ms. Stein stated that the Special Permit cannot be tied to an individual, and as long as the unit is still owner-occupied, the previous Special Permit is still in effect. Ms. Glynn said that she wants to allow her clients to have the matter cleaned up and not have to be tied to the unit being owner-occupied. Ms. Cohen agreed with Ms. Stein and stated that a variance can be issued to allow the unit to be owner-occupied, not tied to the current owners. At this time Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing, as there were no other members of • the public wishing to speak on this issue. A motion to grant the petition, with conditions, was made by Robin Stein, seconded by Nina Cohen, and approved 4-1, Ms. Belair opposed. Public Hearing - Reguest for Variance from off-street oarking regulations - 118 North Street - B-1 District - Mary Muburn. Atty. Mary Muburn spoke of behalf of the petitioners, David and Patricia King. Ms. Muburn gave a brief presentation regarding the proposed use of the property as a psychotherapy home business. She presented a plot plans, an affidavit and photographs of the site showing the proposed parking for the home business. She stated that the petitioners will only use one room in the property for their home business and they will only see one patient at a time between the two of them. Ms. Cohen asked if there were any questions by the Board. Steve Pinto asked for clarification of how many patients and practitioners there would be. Ms. Muburn stated that the petitioners are the only practitioners and that they are a husband and wife. There will only be one patient on the premise at a time and one or the other of them will attend this patient. • At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. Page 4 of 4 Mary Woodcock, owner of Leslie's Retreat restaurant, spoke in opposition to the • petition. She cited inappropriate use of her parking lot by non-patrons of her restaurant and questioned if the future growth of the petitioners' business, or another business after theirs, would have a negative impact on the area. Ms. Cohen asked if there were any other members of the public wishing to speak on this petition. Ms. Stein stated that she is sympathetic to the congestion in the neighborhood, but she understands that commercial uses may not have parking available in this area, and as long as there is a contingency that only one patient will be seen at a time, she would be in favor of the petition. Mr. St. Pierre stated that this restriction can be included in the final decision as a condition of the approval for the Variance. At this time Ms. Cohen made a motion to approve the petition, with conditions, seconded by Robin Stein and approved 5-0. Public Hearing - Request for Variance from side setback requirements - 11 Williams Street - R-2 District - Shannon Engelhardt Max Engelhardt spoke on behalf of his wife, Shannon Englehardt. Mr. Engelhardt gave a brief presentation to the Board including renderings and a plot • plan. He and his wife are proposing to build a ten (10) foot by fifteen (15) foot deck in the rear of their house to allow for a second means of egress for the second floor and to block off the existing stairway which is used as a common means of egress for both the top and bottom units. They wish to block off the lower level and create their own stairway for egress from the top unit as a second means of egress for their unit. The upper level of the structure is owner-occupied. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. Louis Polys of 9 Williams Street spoke opposed to the petition due to the proximity of the subject property to her own and the necessity that workers for the deck would have to access the subject site through her yard. This has occurred in the past and has caused some damage to her property. Ms. Polys also requested that any work that should be done that requires access to the site through her property should furnish her with proof of insurance prior to the start of work. She also said that the building is not on a foundation, but is build on the soil. She provided pictures. Tom St. Pierre agreed that the structure is not sound. Ms. Cohen asked if there were any other members of the public wishing to speak on this petition. There were none. • Beth Debski made a motion to approve the petition, with conditions, seconded by Ms. Cohen, and approved 5-0. Page 5 of 5 • Public Hearing - Request for Variance from off-street parking regulations - 14 Gardner Street - R-2 District - David Cote. Atty. John Keilty spoke on behalf of the petitioner, David Cote. Mr. Keilty gave a presentation to the Board regarding the request for a second curb cut and variance from parking requirements under Section 7-3(d). He explained that his client bought the property in 1991 and had come to the ZBA in 2003 but it was not clear at that time if they were seeking relief to construct a driveway or were appealing the Building Inspector's decision directly. This petition was denied. They currently share a parking garage with their neighbors that straddles their property line. He provided a plot plan showing the subject site and the property lines indicated above. The curb cut has existed for some time, but there is no evidence to claim that it is a pre-existing, non-conforming access for a parking space. Ms. Cohen asked how far away from the abutter's residence was the driveway. Mr. Keilty stated that the paved area is virtually on the side yard and there is very little distance between the house and driveway. Mr. Keilty presented a petition signed by eight (8) of the neighbors on Gardner Street stating that they are not opposed to the petition. Mr. Cote addressed the Board and stated that the driveway is seven and one-half (7 1/2) feet wide and was about six (6) inches shy of the required width of the parking • spaces in the ordinance. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. Ed Scialdoni of 16 Gardner Street spoke in opposition to the petition as the site is too close to his building. He presented photos of the site showing the proximity to his house and the existing driveway that they are using. The driveway that was built was constructed after tearing down a fence that was not clear as to who owned the fence ad without asking the neighbors about it. He also stated that the petitioner would not be adding parking on the street as the curb cut is a parking space, but would be taking parking away from the city. Ms. Debski asked who installed the curb cut. Tom St. Pierre replied that it was not clear who installed the curb cut, but it was a fairly old curb cut. Lena Mento of 16 Gardner Street spoke against the petition as parking on the street is difficult due the high density of the area and the petition would take away from the parking stock on the street. Ms. Cohen asked if there were any other members of the public wishing to speak on the petition. No other members of the public wished to speak on this petition. At this time Ms. Belair made a motion to approve the petition, seconded by Ms. • Debski, and denied 3-2, Ms. Cohen and Ms. Stein dissenting. Page 6 of 6 • Public Hearing - Request for a Special Permit to convert a third unit Dentist office into a residential dwelling unit and a Variance from off-street Parking requirements - 421 Essex Street - B-1 District - George Balich Mr. George Balich gave a brief presentation including plot plans and photographs to convert the first floor dentist office in to a third unit. The structure currently has two (2) rental units. The project would create an additional unit on the first floor, turn the other two units into condominium units, and create four (4) off-street parking lots. The first floor unit will be approximately 1,200 sq.ft. Ms. Cohen stated that she would like to see some landscaping. Mr. Balich pointed out that he would be installing landscaping around the site and was working with the Historic Commission about changing the location of a fence. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. Bob Dentremont of Danvers addressed the Board and stated that he had no objections to the petition. Ms. Cohen asked if there were any further questions for the petitioner. Ms. Cohen made a motion to grant the petition, subject to conditions, seconded by Ms. Stein, and approved 5-0. • Adjournment There being no further business before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Nina Cohen, seconded by Beth Debski and approved 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Daniel I Merhalski, Staff Planner/Clerk Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 of 7 F� '� oswr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS A _ BOARD OF APPEAL ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR - r January 9, 2007 - > Decision77 — - Petition of Luis and Maria Rosero requesting a Variance for the property at 11 Mason Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on December 20, 2006 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioners, Luis and Maria Rosero, sought a variance a Variance to convert a single- family dwelling to a two-family dwelling for the property located at 11 Mason Street, Salem, in the Business Neighborhood(B-1) zoning district. • The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. 11 Mason Street is located in the B-1 zoning district. 2. The petitioner is requesting a variance to convert a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling. 3. The subject property is a duplex attached to 11 '/2 Mason Street, which structure petitioner indicates is used as a multi-family. (This decision makes no findings regarding the use of 11 1/2 Mason Street). 4. A 1982 special permit allowed the subject property to be used as a two-family with the condition to the effect that the Special Permit for 11 Mason Street shall terminate if the property is no longer owner-occupied, or is transferred. The petitioner wants to resolve confusion created by this condition and now seeks a variance to convert the property into a legal two-family. 5. The current owners believed that they had purchased a legal two-family and have been using the property as such. is 6. One member of the public spoke opposed to the petition. • 7. One member of the public spoke in favor of the petition. 8. Granting the requested relief will not change the current actual use of the property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request to for a Variance does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as the use of the dwelling is currently residential and an additional unit will not cause a substantial impact on the neighboring community. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as the nature of the Business Neighborhood District allows for a residential component in the Special Permit section and by its nature allows incorporation of residential uses with business uses. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner by unfairly restricting the usage of their property • when multi-family uses are permitted in the district with a Special Permit. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor (Cohen, Pinto, Debski, Stein) and one (1) opposed (Belair), to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office 40 and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. r • 7. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structures(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%)of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 8. One of the two units at 11 Mason Street shall remain owner occupied. Robin Stein Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws • Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS . uvar i BOARD OF APPEAL ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR • � SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL = r' MAYOR January 10, 2007 c_ Decision o Petition of David Cote Requesting a Variance D from off street parking regulations to allow for 77 = m a second curb cut for the property located at 14 Gardner Street:o > City g of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A hearing on this petition was held on December 20, 2006 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Pinto, Elizabeth Debski, Robin Stein and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners are requesting a Variance from off-street parking regulations to allow a second curb cut for the property located at 14 Gardner Street located in an R-2 zone. • The Variance, which has been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involved. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner(s). c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioner David Cote and Victoria Cote are the owners of the property located at 14 Gardner Street. The property is located in an R-2 District. 2. The Petitioner requested a Variance to allow the use of a second curb cut to allow for off-street parking for his family. • 3. Attorney Jack Keilty represented petitioners. • 4. Lena Mento and her brother Ed Scialdoni, abutters who are the owners of 16 Gardner Street spoke in opposition to the petition. They were concerned about losing parking on the street and fumes from the parked car. 5. There was a letter provided to the Board of Appeals signed by eight neighbors/abutters who supported the petitioner's request for a curb cut. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented the Board of Appeals finds as follows; 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property but not the District. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief cannot be granted without derogation form the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two (2) in opposition, members Nina Cohen and Robin Stein and three (3) in favor, members Elizabeth Debski, Stephen Pinto and Bonnie Belair which denied the Variance requested without the minimum of four(4) • votes in approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. Variance Denied Bonnie Belair December 20, 2006 Board of Appeal • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal A onnr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR January 10, 2007 Decision c ' Petition of George Balich requesting a Special Permit Permit and Variance for the property at 421 Essex Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on December 20, 2006 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioner, George Balich, sought a Special Permit to convert an existing nonconforming mixed-use building into a residential building and a Variance from off- street parking requirements for the property located at 421 Essex Street, Salem, in the Business Neighborhood (B-1) zoning district. • The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 421 Essex Street is an existing nonconforming building within the B-1 zoning district. At present it houses two residential units and a commercial unit (dentist's office). 2. The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to convert to residential use the dentist's office, and also seeks a Variance from off-street parking requirements to allow four(4) spaces to serve the resulting 3 residential units, instead of the required five (5) spaces. 3. Petitioner's plan calls for no exterior changes to the turn of the century property, and does not increase the number of units therein. The existing building envelope will be retained and the structure rehabilitated for resale as condominium units. 4. The first floor unit will be approximately 1,200 sq.ft. 5. The petitioner shall provide four(4) off-street parking spaces on the site, and • will create a new curb cut to allow access to the parking area from Warren St. 6. Petitioner will remove "No Parking—Doctor's Office street signs currently • reserving street parking spaces on Essex and Warren Streets, freeing up parking spaces on the street. 7. One member of the public spoke in favor of the petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's requests to for a Special Permit and a Variance do not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as the additional residence at the property will not substantially impact the neighborhood. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as the nature of the Business Neighborhood District allows for a residential component in the Special Permit section and by its nature allows incorporation of residential uses with business uses. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner by unfairly restricting the usage of their property when multi-family uses are permitted in the district with a Special Permit. • 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Cohen, Pinto, Debski, Stein, Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a Special Permit and a Variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall appear before any City Boards and Commissions having • jurisdiction, including without limitation the Historic Commission. • 7. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structures(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%)of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. -Sz" �. A " Nina Cohen Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been • dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • od r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 1 20 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR m SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978.745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 *MBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR January 10, 2007 - Decision '- Petition of Shannon Engelhardt requesting a Variance c for the property at 11 Williams Street m^ City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on December 20, 2006 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioner, Shannon Engelhardt, sought a Variance to the side setback requirement of ten (10) feet to three and one-half(31/2) feet to allow construction of a two (2) story deck for the property located at 11 Williams Street, Salem, in the Two-Family Residential District (R-2) zoning district. • The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 11 Williams Street is within the R-2 zoning district. 2. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the side setback requirement ten (10) feet to three and one-half(31/2) feet to allow construction of a two (2) story deck. 3. The proposed deck will be a ten (10) by fifteen (15) foot deck with stairway. 4. One member of the public spoke opposed to the petition due to the petitioner's contractor having to access the site via her property. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request to for a Variance does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as the use of the deck will not cause a substantial • impact on the neighborhood. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent • or purpose of the zoning ordinance as deck structures are frequently attached to residential structures in the R-2 District. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner by unfairly restricting the usage of their property. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Cohen, Pinto, Debski, Stein, Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any other City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structures(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%)of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. The petitioner shall supply insurance certificates to the Building Inspector and to their abutters prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. • • Elizabeth Debski Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a]! BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • s� TELEPHONE: 978.745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR o J January 10, 2007 — o CD T Decision . u- - Petition of David and Patricia King requesting a Variance from off-street parking regulations for the property at 118 North Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on December 20, 2006 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Bonnie Belair, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioners, David and Patricia King, sought a Variance from off-street parking regulations to allow an office use for the property located at 118 North Street, Salem, in the Business Neighborhood(B-1) zoning district. • The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 118 North Street is an existing nonconforming residential use within the B-1 zoning district. Petitioners seek to live in the house and to use it for a professional medical office for psychological counseling. 2. The petitioner is requesting a variance from the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance, Section 7-3(g) requiring for professional offices, medical and dental clinics that one (1) parking space be provided for each professional er p son, plus one (1) space for each two (2) other employees, plus two (2) additional spaces for each professional person in the case of medical or dental clinics. 3. The petitioners have submitted an affidavit detailing terms of the proposed use for the site that they offered to incorporate as conditions of the decision (attached). 4. Petitioners stated that the proposed use as a counseling office would be restricted to one therapist and one patient per hour, during regular working • hours only. One onsite parking place would be made available for use by • clients of the medical office. 5. Petitioners agreed that the business would employ no persons on site except for the owner/residents. 6. Mary Woodcock, of Leslie's Retreat restaurant, opposed the petition, stating that parking was very difficult in the vicinity, and that several businesses share the available street parking. She asked that prospective clients be notified not to park their vehicles in the Leslie's Retreat parking lot, which is reserved for restaurant customers. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The benefit resulting from the Variance request outweighs the detriment to the public good as the proposed use will enable the property to have some use, and the conditions attached to this variance will limit the medical use to only one (1) patient at a time being seen by either petitioner. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance since the proposed use is an allowed use in • the B-1 Business Neighborhood District. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner as there is no other way to meet the parking requirements for this use. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Cohen, Pinto,Debski, Stein, Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. �J • 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be n harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structures(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent(50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 8. The site shall remain owner occupied. 9. The terms of the affidavit (attached) are hereby incorporated into this decision as further conditions to the granting of this Variance. 10. The petitioners shall only see one patient at a time between the two of them. • /1" 4CO44 � lA r. Nina Cohen Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • 11/17/08 11:54 FAX 7812480482 LINO a ASSOC PC 0002 11/17/2008 11:45 PAI 8417344 ST MARYS CkRC ®002 Affidavit We,RICHARD W. CAPRON and CLAIRE P. CAPRON of Schenectady,New York, do uader•oath depose:and say as follows: 1. We are the progwcttve buyers of the Ind, with the buildings thereon, situated at 118 Nortb Street,Salem,Massachusetts(the"Premises'). 2. We are be th licensed and practicing peyohotheMists. 3. We intend to use one toom of the Premises as a professional office in which to conduct oa psychotherapy practices. 4. Only one of us will use the office at the PtmWses at a particular time, to see one patient at It time. 5. We do not intend to ompioy goy clerical,office or professional staff to assist us in •. our psychotherapy practices. Signed under the penalties of perjury on I 1 b 06 RHARD W.CAPRON CLAIRE P. CAPRO • �7 oNwr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL -. L11 ; it rat r n m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR C�_R'_ " L�M• MA . ' f SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 K'S OOFFICEE TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBER EYOR ISCOLL JdN 79P 3. 18 January 9, 2007 Decision Petition of Richard Griffin requesting a Variance for the property at 32 Palmer Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on November 15, 2006 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski and Annie Harris. The petitioner, Richard Griffin, sought a variance from the required front setback of fifteen (15) feet to approximately two (2)feet, the required rear setback of thirty(30)feet to approximately five (5) feet, the required maximum lot coverage of thirty-five percent • (35%)to fifty-seven percent (57%) and off-street parking from the required three (3) spaces to zero (0) for the property located at 32 Palmer Street, Salem, in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) zoning district. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 32 Palmer Street is within the R-2 zoning district. 2. The petitioner is requesting variances to re-construct the site, which was completely destroyed by fire over twelve (12) months ago. 3. The petitioner is proposing to construct a two-family dwelling of approximately 3,500 sq.ft. 4. The former use of the destroyed structure was as a two-family residential structure. 5. There is on-street parking for the property on Palmer Street. 6. No members of the public wished to speak on this petition. • J' • On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request to for Variances do not constitute substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Dionne, Belair, Hams, Debski, Pinto) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is top be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. riTirw.ay 74-t...;. A� Annie Harris Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CI* CLERK 3 — T> ca • Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. m C)or 3 .. rtm3 _ D CO • • AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING November 15, 2006- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Continued Petition of AAA Enterprises & Services requesting a Special Permit to allow a portion of the premises to be used for earth processing activities for the property located at 15 ROBINSON ROAD—BPD DISTRICT. 2. Petition of Richard Griffin, requesting a Variance from front and rear setbacks, lot coverage and off-street parking requirements to allow construction of a two (2) unit residential building for the property located at 32 PALMER STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 2. Petition of T. William Smith requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to allow an accessory structure (deck) to be within five (5) feet of the property line . for the property located at 17 HIGH STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 3. Petition of Timothy and Dennis Campbell requesting a Variance from number of stories to construct a third floor dormer for the property located at 8 MESSERVY STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 4. Petition of William Crosby requesting a Special Permit to allow an Auto Repair Business for the property located at 483 HIGHLAND AVE.—B-2 DISTRICT. 5. Petition of Lewis Legon requesting Special Permit to allow existing non- conforming offices to be converted to six (6)residential units for the property located at 48 BRIDGE STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment Nina Cohen, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHU ETT BOARD OF APPEAL U 1 �!�' ��Ei� P1A CLER`r('S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR - ! SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 I� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL �QQy \i l� =, P 3 02 MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING November 15, 2006- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1t^t_1 XContinued Petition of AAA Enterprises & Services requesting a Special Permit to (/B 9�0 allow a portion of the premises to be used for earth processing activities for the Vile property located at 15 ROBINSON ROAD—BPD DISTRICT. Petition of Richard Griffin, requesting a Variance from front and rear setbacks, lot coverage and off-street parking requirements to allow construction of a two (2) unit residential building for the property located at 32 PALMER STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 0fo etition of T. William Smith requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to llow an accessory structure (deck) to be within five (5) feet of the property line r the property located at 17 HIGH STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. • Petition of Timothy and Dennis Campbell requesting a Variance from number of �orw c stories to construct a third floor dormer for the property located at 8 MESSERVY STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. Petition of William Crosby requesting a Special Permit to allow an Auto Repair /Sc Business for the property located at 483 HIGHLAND AVE.—B-2 DISTRICT. k Petition of Lewis Legon requesting Special Permit to allow existing non- conforming offices to be converted to six (6)residential units for the property S_b located at 48 BRIDGE STREET —R-2 DISTRICT. 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment Nina Cohen, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals iilii notice poVrA on °Olftcisl Bull In Boardo City Hell Aye at 3. C?3 /a it14101 s 23.A A 233 of VIJI; .�„ • MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dan Merhalski, Staff Planner hh Department of Planning & Community Development DATE: November 7, 2006 RE: Agenda—November 16, 2006 Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Petition and materials for 32 Palmer Street ➢ Petition and materials for 17 High Street ➢ Petition and materials for 8 Messervy Street ➢ Petition and materials for 483 Highland Ave. ➢ Petition and materials for 48 Bridge Street The following is a brief description of the agenda items. Please feel free to contact me at the Department of Planning & Community Development at 978-619-5685, if you have any questions. 15 Robinson Road —Request for Special Permit to allow a portion of property to be used for earth processing - BPD District—Mountain Realty Trust. The applicant is returning to the Board from a previous meeting in August for the requested Special Permit. Members eligible to vote on this continued item (Present at the opening of the hearing) are: Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Robin Stein and Steve Pinto) The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to expand a currently existing nonconforming use to allow operations for receiving and processing earth products including loam and crushed rock. The operations will require the use of a rock crusher and loam screener. The site is currently, and would continue to be used, as a junk yard, in addition to the expanded operations for earth products. 32 Palmer Street—Request for a Variance from front and rear setbacks, lot coverage and off- street parking requirements—R-3 District - Richard Griffin t The applicant is requesting variances from the front setback requirement of 15 feet to a proposed • 1.9 feet, side setback requirement of 20 feet to a proposed 7.5 feet, and from the rear yard setback requirement of 30 feet to a proposed 4.98 feet. Additionally, the applicant is requesting variances from lot coverage from the required 35% to a proposed 57%, and off street parking from the required 3 spaces to 0. The request for a variance from the Maximum number of stories from the required 2 '/2 to 3 stories is not required as the R-3 District allows up to 3 '/z stories. The original structure was completely destroyed by fire more than 12 months ago and the applicant is requesting to reconstruct the building with additional space for a dormer on the third floor and a slightly larger footprint area. 17 High Street - Request for a Variance from side and rear setbacks -R-2 District - T. William Smith The applicant is requesting variances from the side setback requirement of 10 feet to a proposed setback of approximately 9 feet, and from the required rear setback of 30 feet to a proposed 0 feet to allow construction of a 5 x 7 foot deck and access door at the site. The applicant has stated that the adjacent property owner has no objection to the installation of the deck. 8 Messervy Street-Request for a Variance from number of stories -R-2 District - Timothy and Dennis Campbell The applicant is requesting a Variance from number of stories from the required 2 '/2 in the R-2 • District to 3 to allow construction of a dormer. The dormer has been constructed by the contractor without the required variance, and the applicant is seeking relief to allow the improvements to remain. 483 Highland Ave. - Request for a Special Permit to allow an Auto Repair Business - B-2 District - William Crosby The applicant is requesting a special permit, according to their application, per section 5.3 (2). It should be noted that this section citation does not exist, but Sec. 5-3 (f) lists special permit uses available in the B-2 District. These uses include "automobile, trailer and boat and sales and service". As the plot plan is dated in 1946, and there was no further information given in the application, the applicant will be bringing in more detailed plans to the meeting. 48 Bridge Street - Request foe a Special Permit to allow existing non-conforming offices to be converted to six (6) residential units - R-2 District - Lewis Legon The applicant is requesting a Special Permit per Sections 8-5 and 9-4 to allow the owner to convert the existing non-conforming commercial office building into six (6) residential units. The applicant is not proposing any site improvements or exterior work. It is important to note that as the threshold of six (6) residential units has been breached, the applicant will have to apply to the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review Special Permit, if the ZBA decides to grant the Special Permit, per Sec-7-18. 2 } A Please Sign-In S Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting November'20, 2006 Name Mailing Address Phone Email g� 0 � C s m i,u 1 S oh A /zy fgT i� • Please Sign-In • Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting November 2006 Ib Name Mailing Address Phone Email rd C'6een opo r d /77 S-979rg-O City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, November 15, 2006 A Meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris and Steven Pinto. Also present was Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre and Staff Planner Dan Merhalski. Continuation of Public Hearing - Request for Special Permit to allow a portion of the lot to be used for earth processing operations - 15 Robinson Road- BPD District - AAA Enterprises Staff Planner Dan Merhalski read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to the December 201h ZBA meeting. A motion was made by Richard Dionne, seconded and approved (5-0) to continue the Public Hearing to December 20, 2006 at 6:30 pm. Public Hearing - Request for Special Permit to allow existing non-conforming offices to be converted to six (6) residential units- 48 Bridge Street - R-2 District - Lewis Legon. • Richard Dionne read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuation nuation of the Public Hearing until December 20, 2006. A motion was made by Richard Dionne, seconded and approved (5-0) to continue the Public Hearing to December 20, 2006 at 6:30 pm. Public Hearing - Request for Variance from front and rear setbacks lot coverage and off-street parking requirements - 32 Palmer Street - R-2 District - Richard Griffin Richard Griffin, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation regarding the project to construct a new, two and one-half story, two-family condominium on the site of a burned out foundation of a house. The building was a pre-existing two- family dwelling. Annie Harris asked if the parking for the site was on-street parking? Mr. Griffin confirmed that the parking would be all on-street. Mrs. Harris asked if there would ever be a third dwelling unit in the structure? Mr. Griffin said that the layout would prohibit a third unit. At this time Richard Dionne opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public wishing to comment on this item. Mr. Dionne closed the public hearing. Page 1 of 1 • Annie Harris made a motion to approve the requested variances, with conditions, seconded by Steve Pinto and approved 5-0. At this time Attorney Steve Lovely spoke regarding the item of 272 Jefferson Ave., with permission of the acting Chair, Richard Dionne, that his client will be coming in December for the December 20, 2006 meeting. Public Hearing - Reauest for Variance from side and rear setbacks -17 High Street - R-2 District - T. William Smith. Mr. T. William Smith represented himself and gave a brief presentation regarding the plan. He corrected that the requested relief is not five inches, but five feet. He said that he had spoken to two of his neighbors about the requested variance and had received their approval. He stated that the deck would be approximately twelve (12) feet to the floor of the deck. At this time Mr. Dionne opened the public hearing. No members of the public wished to comment on the petition. Mr. Dionne closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Steven Pinto to approve the requested variances, with conditions, seconded by Richard Dionne and approved 5-0. • Public Hearing - Request for Variance from number of stories - 8 Messervv Street - R-2 District - Timothy and Dennis Campbell. Timothy and Dennis Campbell gave a brief presentation explaining that the structure has been constructed and that they were unaware that they needed to get a permit for the particular structure. They were notified that they needed an additional permit, and had applied for one. They were denied a permit, and are before the ZBA to request a variance to allow for the existing construction to remain. The construction was an addition to the third floor for a dormer and associated interior rehabilitation work. Elizabeth Debski requested when the structure was constructed? Mr. Timothy Campbell replied that the structure had been constructed in July of 2006. Mrs. Belair asked if the structure was a two-family dwelling? Mr. Campbell stated that the structure is a three-family and that it would remain as a three-family condominium. Mr. Dionne opened the public hearing at this time. No members of the public wished to comment on this item. • Mr. Dionne closed the public hearing. Page 2 of 2 . A motion was made by Bonnie Belair to approve the variance, with conditions, seconded by Annie Harris and approved 5-0. Public Hearing - Request for Special Permit to allow an Auto Repair Business - 483 Highland Ave. - B-2 District - William Crosby.' Ward Three City Councilor Jean Pelletier asked if he could speak on the project, as he had another meeting to go to and had to leave the ZBA meeting. He spoke in favor of the petition and the business owners and said that they would be a good business for the city. Attorney William Quinn represented the petitioner and gave a brief presentation regarding the site and the petition for a Special Permit. He stated that the business would be a Mercedes-Benz repair shop and that the owners are both well-qualified and certified to repair Mercedes-Benz vehicles by Mercedes-Benz. Mr. Quinn presented revised plans to the Board showing that there were two curb cuts for the site, not one as shown on the original plans. Mrs. Harris asked if the parking extended onto another lot? Mr. Quinn verified that the parking does extend onto another lot, but that historically the lot had been used that way, the owner of the lot has allowed the petitioners to park vehicles on their property, and they would be given the rights to parking on the lot by the owner of that lot. • Mrs. Harris asked Mr. Merhalski what the requirements of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District were. Mr. Merhalski gave a brief summary of these requirements. The petitioner agreed to abide by the requirements of the Entrance Corridor district and agreed to do landscaping within the requirements of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Steve Pinto commented that he thought that it was nice to see a business come to the City of Salem. Mr. Dionne Opened the public hearing at this time. There were no members of the public who wished to speak on this item. Mr. Dionne closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Elizabeth Debski to approve the variance, with conditions, seconded by Annie Harris and approved 5-0. Approval of Minutes A motion to approve the minutes, as amended was made by Richard Dionne, seconded by Steve Pinto, and approved 3-0, Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair • abstaining. Page 3 of 3 •tel Tom St. Pierre, the Building Inspector, explained the situation with 272 Jefferson Avenue and explained that the will notify the Board in their packets when the item comes back to the ZBA. Adjournment There being no further business before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Richard Dionne, seconded by Steve Pinto and approved 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Daniel J. Merhalski, Staff Planner/Clerk Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Page 4 of 4 CONDIT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL {' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • > _ - ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ooh FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Cz AGENDA - AMENDED BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING October 18, 2006- 6:30 P.M. o (j, 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET f ' oTr 1. Continuation of Petition of Nicholas Osgood requesting a Variance and/or Speoi61 Permit from side yard setback to allow a third floor deck for the property located. v at 4 BENTLEY STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 2. Petition of Linda Moustakis requesting Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer's determination that 4 BENTLEY STREET is a three- family dwelling R-2 DISTRICT. 3. Petition of Jiuolito Zepy, requesting a Variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance to allow an alteration to a previously existing non-conforming sign for the property located at 17 CANAL STREET -B-4 DISTRICT. • 2. Petition of Petricia LeBrun requesting a Special Permit to allow a Pet Grooming Business in an existing non-conforming structure for the property located at 8-10 BROADWAY - I DISTRICT. 3. Petition of Antonio Nogueira requesting a Variance from the required side yard setback of ten (10) feet to approximately three (3) feet to allow for enclosing of a twelve (12) by sixteen (16) foot deck for the property located at 13 FAIRMOUNT STREET - R-2 DISTRICT. 4. Petition of Kathryn Harper requesting a Variance from Rear Yard setback requirements from the require4 thirty (30) feet to approximately eleven (11) feet to reconstruct a two-story addition for the property located at 3 ALLEN STREET - R-2 DISTRICT. 5. Petition of Daniel Spencer and Kevin Spencer requesting Variances from number of stories to allow construction of a roof deck, and from rear yard setback to construct a second story bay window for the property located at 35 JUNIPER AVENUE - R-1 DISTRICT. 6. Petition of Centurion Group requesting Variances from Maximum Lot Coverage from the required twenty-five percent (25%) to forty-eight point eight percent (48.8%); from Side Yard setback from the required ten (10) feet to a proposed five (5) feet; from Rear Y etAt*dWnptbg,fGti>j A thio"?Ak(ecB1A B"W city N- i v®., Salem, Mass. on ?+►G�f�i,/,2,90446 �lK 1►�� � o Ib pfa.�. ""°gyp' :� > : ® proposed five (5) feet; and from Maximum Building Height from the required thirty (30) feet to a proposed thirty-three (33) feet to construct a third building on the site located at 435 HIGHLAND AVENUE—B-2 DISTRICT. 7. Petition of AAA Enterprises & Services requesting a Special Permit to allow a portion of the premises to be used for earth processing activities for the property located at 15 ROBINSON ROAD—BPD DISTRICT. 8. Petition of Neil and Martha Chayet requesting a Special Permit to alter a non- conforming structure, a Variance from the rear setback requirements and a determination of a curb cut for the property located at 26 WINTER STREET - R-2 DISTRICT. 9. Old/New Business 10. Adjournment Nina Cohen, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals y'< • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, October 18, 2006 A Meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Nina Cohen, Chair; Richard Dionne; Elizabeth Debski; Robin Stein and Steven Pinto. Also present was Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre and Staff Planner Dan Merhalski. Public Hearing - Reauest for Special Permit to allow a portion of the lot to be used for earth processing operations - 15 Robinson Road- BPD District - AAA Enterprises Nina Cohen read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to the November 15th ZBA meeting. Ms. Cohen asked if there were any members of the public that wanted to speak about the request for a continuation. No members of the public wished to speak. Ms. Cohen asked the Board if they had any comments. None of the Board members had any comments. A motion was made by Mrs. Cohen, seconded by Richard Dionne and approved (5-0) . to continue the Public Hearing to November 15, 2006 at 6:30 pm. 272 Jefferson Avenue Nina Cohen said that there was a mistake on the agenda regarding the petition for 272 Jefferson Ave. and that the item would not be heard tonight, but will be heard on November 15, 2006. Approval of Minutes - September 27, 2006 Special Meetina - Nina Cohen made a motion to accept the minutes from the September 27, 2006 Special Meeting of the ZBA as drafted, seconded by Richard Dionne and approved (5- 0). Amendment to Agenda Items - Chair Cohen addressed the public and stated that the following petitions for 4 Bentley Street would have to be heard in opposite order from that on the agenda as the second petition relates directly to the first. There being no opposition from the Board, the items were switched on the agenda. Public Hearing - Request for Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Officer's determination that 4 Bentley Street is a three-family dwelling - 4 Bentley Street - R-2 District - Linda Moustakis Atty. John Carr addressed the board representing Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley . Street and gave a history of the appeal of the determination that the property at 4 Bentley Street was a legal three-family dwelling and the history of their appeals process. He then went on to describe the appeals process and that the case would Page 1 of 1 • likely be appealed to the District Court because the Assistant City Solicitor's opinion is in favor of the Building Inspector's determination. He therefore asked the Board to move the process along to the courts and to issue a decision on the appeal of his applicant for administrative review and to let the courts decide the case. Atty. Philip Wyser, representing the owner of 4 Bentley Street, Nicholas Osgood, and addressed the Board in defense of the statute of limitations as outlined in Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A, section 7. He gave a description of the history of the site and that his client purchased the building as an existing three- family building with separate kitchen and bedroom facilities for each dwelling and even had three electric meters. He mentioned that his client received a building permit in 1997 for renovations of the third floor apartment. He stated that because the permit was issued to a three family dwelling and because the work was completed as permitted and that more than the required six (6) years for appeals of the decision of the Building Inspector have passed, that the appeal should be denied. Atty. Carr gave his rebuttal to the statements given by Mr. Wyser and stated that the zoning for that district is R-2 and that if the building was not a legal three-family, the recourse for a buyer is to bring suit against the seller for the sale of the property as a legal three-family. Robin Stein stated that she has read MGL chapter 40a Section 7 and that she has read both parties submitted court cases as well as other related cases, and said that she believes that this is a clear case of Chapter 40A section 7 being applied and that the statute is clear that the appeals period is limited and has been exceeded. • Nina Cohen opened the discussion up to the public at this time. There were no members of the public that wanted to speak on this matter. Nina Cohen made a motion to grant the request of Linda Moustakis for administrative appeal of the zoning enforcement officers determination that 4 Bentley Street is a three-family dwelling in an R-2 District. The Board voted one (1) in favor (Pinto), four (4) opposed (Cohen, Dionne, Debski, Stein) to grant the appeal. The appeal was denied. Continued of Public Hearing - Reauest for Variance and/or Special Permit from side yard setback to allow a third floor deck - 4 Bentley Street - R-2 District - Nicholas Osgood Atty. Philip Wyser addressed the board and suggested to the board that the issue is really about whether the exterior stairwell should qualify for a variance and submitted that he believes that the stairwell does. The only reason that the exterior staircase exists, is because of the third floor unit. He summarized the history of the project. He stated that hardship exists and has been submitted in his previous memorandums. The third unit needs to have a second means of egress or it cannot be used or sold, and constitutes a hardship. The wording of MGL 40A Section 10 relates to structures also. He read from the statute and stated that the determinations of a variance as described in this section mentioned the words • "structure" and "substantial" twice. He stated that they have a very small amount of space for the variance on the side setback and that this is not a substantial variance Page 2 of 2 • of the zoning ordinance. This implies that it is not substantially derogating from the intent of the zoning ordinance. Robin Stein asked for a clarification of the timeline of the building permit. Mr. Wyser said that Building Permit was issued in the Spring of 2005 and the structure was constructed over the summer and into the fall. The master deed was recorded in November of 2005. It was after the master deed was recorded that the Building Inspector ordered the structure removed and that the two units that are not owner-occupied were also sold before then. Atty. John Carr addressed the Board on behalf of Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley Street and gave a clarification of the timeline. He stated that the Building Permit was issued in May 2005, construction followed almost immediately. Mrs. Moustakis complained immediately to the Building Inspector. She was told that the second means of egress was required for an attached structure. He then read a letter submitted by Mrs. Moustakis to the Building Inspector. On November 22, 2005 the Building Inspector notified the owner of the property that the egress was illegal and the deed was filed on November 30, 2005 for the two residents. This hardship would then be self- created, and cannot be considered a true hardship. He further stated that the requirements of a variance requires all three of the requirements of MGL 40A have to be proven to allow a variance. Mr. Pinto asked what the timeframe was from when the petitioner started the deck to when he finished it. • Mr. Carr responded that May to about August, or about three months. At this time Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing. Ward Four Councilor O'Leary addressed the Board to speak in opposition of the Variance. Nina Cohen asked to clarify the Variance request for the setback and the deck. Mr. Wysman stated that the request for the deck has been withdrawn and the deck has been dismantled. Victoria Regan of 4 Bentley Street spoke and said that she was not informed about any appeals regarding this issue and have not received copies from the Building Department as requested. She said that she had no opinion on the request for the variance. Nick Osgood of 4 Bentley Street addressed the Board and urged them to vote in favor of the petition and that he has invested a lot of time and money into the building and that he had gone to the Building Inspector repeatedly with the Inspectors approval, but that now he is being told that he has to tear down the stairway and that the stairway is consistent with the neighborhood. At this time Chair Cohen closed the public hearing. • Mrs. Cohen gave a brief history of the petition before the Board. She stated that this is clearly a difficult situation. Page 3 of 3 • Robin Stein agreed that this is a very difficult decision and that there seems to be a hardship, but that the extent of the hardship warrants a variance and suggested that a similar structure that is not as large could potentially be considered. Steve Pinto commented that it isn't cheap to build these kinds of things, but that it seems to be too much structure for the area. A motion was made by Nina Cohen, seconded by Richard Dionne to grant the Variance to allow for the existing stairway to remain subject to seven standard conditions. The Board voted unanimously (Cohen, Dionne, Stein, Pinto) to deny the variance by a vote of (0-4), with Elizabeth Debski not eligible to vote on this matter due to not being present t the first meeting when the public hearing was opened. Public Hearing - Reguest for Variance from the City of Salem Sian Ordinance for pre- existing non-conforming sign - 17 Canal Street - B-4 District - Jiuolito Zepy Mr. Mario Zepy addressed the Board of behalf of the petitioner and gave a brief summary of the history of the site and the use of the sign. He stated that the sign's size has not changed, only the wording. Staff Planner Dan Merhalski addressed the Board and clarified the requirements of the sign ordinance relating to the location of the sign above the roof-line of the • structure and the size of the sign in relation to the frontage of the structure in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. At this time Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing. Ward Three Councilor Jean Pelletier spoke in favor of the petition. No other members of the public wished to speak on this item. At this time Chair Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Robin Stein and seconded by Richard Dionne to grant the petition for Petition of Jiuolito Zepy, requesting a Variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance to allow an alteration to a previously existing non-conforming sign for the property located at 17 Canal street in a B-4 District with conditions. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board (5-0). Public Hearing - Request for Special Permit to allow a pet grooming business in an existing non-conforming structure - 8-10 Broadway - I District - Patricia LeBrun Patricia LeBrun addressed the Board and explained her petition. She plans to operate a dog grooming business and would limit the hours of operation to 8:30 am-5:00 pm, Tuesday through Saturday, with only a few times of the year being opened longer than that or on other days. • Richard Dionne noted that he is a patron of the store and didn't want to have any implications of a conflict of interest. Page 4 of 4 • At this time Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing. Ward Three Councilor Jean Pelletier addressed the Board and stated that the ward councilor for this property, Matthew Veno, had spoken to him and was in favor of the project, as he is himself. No other members of the public wished to speak on this item. At this time Chair Cohen closed the public hearing. The Board discussed the location of the egress stairway and it was agreed with the petitioner that the stairway would be moved to the driveway side of the house, and that this would be conditioned in the decision. A motion was made by Beth Debski and seconded by Nina Cohen to grant the petition for a Special Permit to allow a Pet Grooming Business in an existing non- conforming structure for the property located at 8-10 Broadway - I District, with conditions. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board (5-0). Public Hearing - Reguest for Variance from Side yard setback to enclose a deck - 13 Fairmount Street - R-2 District - Antonio Nogueira • Mr. Nogueira addressed the Board and explained his petition to enclose an existing deck at the site. He submitted a petition in favor of the Variance that was signed by ten (10) of his neighbors. At this time Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing. There were no members of the public who wished to speak at this time. At this time Chair Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Steve Pinto and seconded by Richard Dionne to grant the petition for a variance from the required side yard setback of ten (10) feet to approximately three (3) feet to allow for enclosing of a twelve (12) by sixteen (16) foot deck for the property located at 13 Fairmount Street - R-2 District, with conditions. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board (5-0). Public Hearing - Reauest for Variance from rear yard setback to reconstruct a two- story addition - 3 Allen Street - R-2 District - Kathryn Harper Mrs. Harper addressed the Board and presented her petition to reconstruct a two- floor addition that would enclose the bottom portion of the existing balcony. She reviewed the plans with the Board at this time as well. • At this time Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing. Page 5 of 5 . Patrick Rudolfski of 5 Allen Street spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He stated that the building is too close to his own and that if the balcony was enclosed on the first floor, he would loose a lot of sunlight at his house in that location. Frank Kulik of 3 Allen Street addressed the Board and stated that he is the significant other of the applicant and that he is in favor of the petition. At this time Chair Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by chair Cohen and seconded by Beth Debski to grant the petition a Variance from Rear Yard setback requirements from the required thirty (30) feet to approximately eleven (11) feet to reconstruct a two-story addition for the property located at 3 Allen Street - R-2 District, with conditions. The motion was approved by a vote of four (4) in favor (Cohen, Dionne, Debski, Stein) and one (1) opposed (Pinto) (4-1). Public Hearing - Request for Variances from number of stories and rear yard setback to allow construction of a roof deck and bay window - 35 Juniper Street - R-1 District - Daniel Spencer Mr. Daniel Spencer addressed the board and explained his plan to construct a roof deck and bay window at 35 Juniper Street. He showed the board renderings of the site and plans and stated that he plans to use the site for his father to live in. He had spoken to his neighbors and they had all been in support of the project. He • presented a petition signed by three (3) of the neighbors in support of the petition. At this time Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing. Everett Dawkins of 37 Juniper Street addressed the Board and spoke in favor of the project. Campbell Seamans of 22 Beach Avenue addressed the Board and said that he only has questions about what the future use of the property would be. Ward One Councilor Lucy Corchado addressed the Board in favor of the petition. At this time Chair Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Richard Dionne and seconded by Robin Stein to grant the petition for Variances from number of stories to allow construction of a roof deck, and from rear yard setback to construct a second story bay window for the property located at 35 Juniper Avenue - R-1 District, with conditions. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board (5-0). Public Hearing - Request for Variances from maximum lot coverage side yard setback, rear yard setback and maximum building height to construct a third building on site - 435 Highland Ave. - B-2 District - Centurion Group • Bob Fantasia addressed the Board and gave a brief presentation on behalf of Centurion Group for the project at 435 Highland Ave. The presentation included Page 6 of 6 • elevations and site plans for the proposed additional building located near the Clark Avenue side of the site. Mr. Fantasia presented copies of the site plans to the Board. Dale Gienapp addressed the board on behalf of the applicant and described the site's shape as a panhandle lot and displayed a site map showing the limits of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Richard Pasternack, the site manager for Uncle Bob's Storage, addressed the Board and explained that one reason he was requesting approval to construct this building was to allow him the ability to move the stored items in his existing buildings into the site as he remodeled the existing buildings in phases. He stated that he did not plan to build upwards during his remodel, just improve the existing buildings on the site. Steve Pinto expressed concern that the proposed building was very close to the residential home adjacent to the site and asked if the roof of the structure would be pitched. Mr. Gienapp confirmed that the roof would be pitched and that the height of the structure was measured from the middle of the pitched roof, according to the standards for the zoning definition. Nina Cohen asked what the dimensions of the footprint of the building would be. Mr. Gienapp said that the structure would be approximately sixty (60) feet wide by • one hundred and twenty (120) feet long. Beth Debski asked if the applicant had talked to the Fire Department at all about the access for the property? Mr. Fantasia commented that they had met with the Fire Department twice and that as he understood it, they were not too concerned about the fire access by Clark Street, but that the access was maintained on Highland Avenue and that they couldn't possibly make the turn into the site from Clark Street. He said that they would have more work to do with the Fire Department as these were their thoughts after a preliminary evaluation, but that the access was primarily from Highland Avenue. Nina Cohen read the purpose statement of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District from the city's zoning ordinance and stated that the proposed building was within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Dan Merhalski, the Staff Planner, addressed the Board and stated that he had made a mistake in his review of the plans of where the Entrance Corridor Overlay District boundaries were. He stated that he had measured the location of the Overlay District from the center of the northbound traffic lane as it appeared on the plans to be the centerline of the Highland Avenue, when in fact he should have measured from the center divider on Highland Avenue, farther away from the site on the submitted plans. He apologized for the mistaken measurement. • Ms. Cohen stated that the Entrance Corridor District is measured from the property line to the rear of the lot. Page 7 of 7 • Tom St. Pierre, the Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer read the wording of the zoning ordinance and stated that the boundaries of the Corridor follow the rear lot lines of parcels abutting the street. At this time Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing. Dennis Colbert of 37 Clark Street addressed the Board and stated that he thinks the proposed building would be too dense for the property and too large. He further expressed concern about the drainage running down Clark Street. Ward Three Councilor Pelletier addressed the Board and stated that he is opposed to this petition and that the size of the building and the requests for multiple variances are not demonstrating the required hardship for granting the variances. At this time Chair Cohen closed the public hearing. Robin Stein stated that she feels that the shape of the lot and the topography do appear to be a hardship to the owner. Beth Debski stated that she has a number of problems with the petition. IT is too dense and too tall. She stated that she is shocked that there are no neighbors here tonight and noted that the house abutting the site will be towered over by the proposed structure. Nina Cohen commented that she agrees with Ms., Debski and that the size of the • building is substantial at sixty (60) by twenty (20) feet. Steve Pinto noted that he liked the look of the proposed building but that he had a problem with the height and the requested setbacks. A motion was made by chair Cohen and seconded by Steve Pinto to grant the petition for a requesting a variances from Maximum Lot Coverage from the required twenty-five percent (25%) to forty-eight point eight percent (48.8%); from Side Yard setback from the required ten (10) feet to a proposed five (5) feet; from Rear Yard setback from the required thirty (30) feet to a proposed five (5) feet; and from Maximum Building Height from the required thirty (30) feet to a proposed thirty- three (33) feet to construct a third building on the lot with conditions. The motion was denied by a vote of one (1) in favor (Stein) and four (4) opposed (Cohen, Pinto, Dionne, Debski). Public Hearing - Request for a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming structure, a Variance from the rear setback requirements and a determination of a curb cut - 26 Winter Street. - R-2 District - Neil and Martha Chavet. Neil and Martha Chayet and Larry Beals addressed the Board and presented their plans to demolish the existing garage building and build a new garage fronting on Oliver Street. The plans and elevations for the site were presented and summarized, as well as a brief history of the former owners of the house. The stated that they have spoken to as many neighbors as they can and believe that they have their full • support. At this time Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing. Page 8 of 8 • Jane Hackett of 6 Oliver Street spoke in favor of the petition. No other members of the public chose to speak at this time. At this time Chair Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Robin Stein and seconded by Nina Cohen to grant the petition for Variance from the rear setback requirements and a determination of a curb cut for the property located at 26 Winter Street - R-2 District. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board (5-0). Adiournment There being no further business to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals this evening a motion was made by Elizabeth Debski to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Nina Cohen and approved (5-0). The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Daniel J. Merhalski, Staff Planner/Clerk • Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Page 9 of 9 f t uN CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS .'� BOARD OF APPEAL (('' '' 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOC, tJ ('(' O SALEM. MA SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 CLERK'S OFFICE • ' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 2006 DEC -1 P b: 32 December 7, 2006 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal Decision — Amended Petition of Nicholas Osgood requesting a Variance From Side Yard Setback to Allow Construction of Exterior Stair at 4 Bentley St. (R-2 District) A public hearing on the above petition was opened at the April 19, 2006 meeting of the Zoning Board pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, and was continued until the October 18, 2006 meeting. The following Zoning Board members were present: Beth Debski, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steve Pinto and Robin Stein The petitioner Nicholas Osgood requests a variance pursuant to section 9-5 to allow the construction of an exterior stairway at the existing dwelling at 4 Bentley Street in the two-family zoning district. • The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Plans and Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Nick Osgood purchased the property at 4 Bentley St, a three-story residence, in 1995. 2. In May 2005 Mr. Osgood applied for and received a building permit to construct a roof deck and an exterior staircase to allow egress from the third floor.' 3. In applying for the building permit, Mr. Osgood submitted sketched showing that the proposed stairway would extend to within three feet of the rear property line and would not be in compliance with rear setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Building Department understood that the dimensional requirements of the zoning code were superseded by Building Code and fire safety requirements, and for that reason the permit was issued without the granting of a zoning variance. 4. In May construction of the stair commenced. A neighbor,Linda Moustakis of 2 Bentley St., immediately objected, on the grounds that the structure was too close to the property line and did not meet zoning requirements. She requested that the • Building Department demonstrate their basis for setting aside zoning L considerations. She further pointed out that no variance would be required if the egress stairway were sited on the driveway side of the house. 5. On November 22, 2005 the Building Commissioner informed Mr. Osgood that the building permit granting permission to construct the stair was not validly issued and directed him to correct the zoning violation within 60 days of receipt of the notice. See Letter of Thomas St. Pierre, Zoning Enforcement Officer, dated November 22, 2005, incorporated by reference herein. 6. On information and belief,Mr. Osgood did not comply with the Building Commissioner's directive. In late 2005, Mr. Osgood converted the property to a condominium association and-filed-a-Master-Deed-and-Deelaratiewof-Trust--- 7. On November 30, 2005 Mr. Osgood conveyed the second floor condominium to Victoria Regan. 8. Mr. Osgood's request to build a roof deck was not part of the original building permit since there was no roof deck shown on the sketches submitted to the Building Department. The Building Department has asked the petitioner to remove any portion of the roof deck that was completed, and, upon information and belief he has done so. This petition does not include a request for a variance to allow a roof deck. • 9. At the public meeting, Ms. Moustakis and her attorney John Carr spoke in opposition to the proposed variance,on the grounds that the exterior stair was too large and deprived her of privacy in the enjoyment of her property. Also speaking in opposition to the stair were neighbors Robert Wilde of 5 Daniels St. and Kate Gill of the Daniels House Inn. 10. Also speaking in opposition were City Councilors Lucy Corchado, representing Ward 1, and Lenny O'Leary, Ward 4 representative and a friend of the abutter. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition and detailed plans, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for a variance to construct an exterior stair within 2.5 ft of the rear property line constitutes a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The proposed expansion does nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. • • 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) opposed (Cohen,Dionne, Stein and Pinto) and none (0) in favor, to approve the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and - approved by the Building Commissioner- 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. eez,A AIN Nina Cohen, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeal • t CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETOiS'f UF SALEM. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 j • FAX: 978.740-9846 .100b DEC —1 P 2: til KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR December 7, 2006 Decision Petition of William Crosby requesting a Special Permit, for the pro e�rtx at 483 Hig_hland.Ave- City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on November 15, 2006 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, Annie Hams,Elizabeth Debski, Steven Pinto. The petitioner, William Crosby, sought a special permit to allow an auto repair business for the property located at 483 Highland Ave., Salem, in the Business Highway(B-2) zoning district. • The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 483 Highland Avenue is within the B-2 zoning district. 2. The Petitioner was represented By William Quinn, Esq. 3. The petitioner is requesting a special permit to allow an auto repair business to be located on the site. No auto sales or shall be conducted on the site, and no towing business will be run out of the site, though vehicles may arrive via tow truck. 4. The business will service and repair only Mercedes-Benz vehicles. 5. Arty. Quinn presented the Board with revised plans that showed that there are two (2) curb cuts, not one (1), as depicted in the originally submitted plans. 6. The petitioner said that the abutting landlord has agreed to allow the petitioner to park vehicles on hi property. 7. Ward One City Councilor Jean Pelletier spoke in favor of the petition. • 8. The petitioner agreed to do landscaping according to the requirements of the • Entrance Corridor Overlay District. 9. No members of the public wished to speak on this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including,but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for a Special Permit for an auto repair business on the site does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as Highland Avenue is a largely business oriented corridor and many similar businesses are located along this road in a similar fashion as the petitioner's. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. • In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Dionne, Debski, Pinto, Hams, Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • 8. There shall be no auto sales, towing, gasoline or fuel services on the premise. • 9. The parking lot shall be striped and constructed as per the revised plans submitted to the Board entitled"Plot Plan of Land 483 Highland Avenue Salem Prepared for William Crosby" and dated November 8, 2006.. 10. Landscaping for the site shall installed and constructed according to the regulations of the City of Salem Entrance Corridor Overlay District (sec. 7- 19(c)4. - - Elizabeth Debski Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. oN�yr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSFIMF SALEM._ MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S 0MC€ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR +� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 j00b NOV 21 p 2: 16 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF TIMOTHY AND DENNIS CAMPBELL REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM NUMBER OF STORIES TO CONSTRUCT A THIRD FLOOR DORMER FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 MESSERVY STREET R-2 DISTRICT. A hearing on this petition was held on November 15, 2006 with the following Board Members present: Richard Dionne, Acting Chairman, Stephen Pinto, Elizabeth Debski, Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioners are requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow a third floor dormer for the property located at 8 Messervy Street located in an R-2 zone. The Variance, which has been requested, may be granted upon a finding by this Board • that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures involve. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioners. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Petitioners Timothy and Dennis Campbell are the owners of the property located at 8 Messervy Street. The property is located in an R-2 District. 2. The Petitioners requested a Variance to construct a third floor dormer for the property that they are renovating. • 3. Petitioner's applied for a permit for the renovation but did not know that they had to apply and be granted a Variance for the dormer. • 4. The Building Inspector stopped the Petitioner's on their work on the dormer. The dormer was weatherproofed until the Board made a decision on the request for a Variance. 5. There were no abutters that came to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. 6. Granting such variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Owning to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning By-Law would result in unnecessary hardship. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on, the evidence presented the Board of Appeals finds as follows; 1. Special conditions exist when especially affect the subject property but not the District. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good • and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 5 in favor and 0 in opposition to grant the Variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained. • 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction, but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. Petitioner shall obtain proper street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number as to be visible from the street. 9. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not authorize Petitioner to demolish or deconstruct any structure(s) on the property to an extent greater than 50% of the structure as measured by floor area or replacement cost. If a structure on the property is demolished by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost or more than 50% of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with this Ordinance. Variance Granted Bonnie Belair November 15, 2006 Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days • have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that is has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal • rI o�tt}w},r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS s1! BOARD OF APPEAL + e 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR `� � �, VF "aLE-hl"'Ma • � + j SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 CLERK'SV.,.-4FEME — TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 466 NOV_21;-P-::2 3b November 27, 2006 Decision Petition of T. William Smith requesting Variances for the property a117 High Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on November 15, 2006 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Steven Pinto. The petitioner, T. William Smith, sought variances from the required side setback for the required ten (10) foot side yard setback to approximately nine (9) feet and from the required rear yard setback of thirty (30) feet to approximately zero (0) feet for the • property located at 17 High Street, Salem, in the Two-Family Residential (R-2)zoning district. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 17 High Street is within the R-2 zoning district. 2. The petitioner is requesting variances to construct a five (5) foot by seven (7) foot, approximately twelve (12) foot high, attached deck. 3. The petitioner told the Board that the adjacent property owner at 13 High Street did not object to the proposed structure. 4. No members of the public wished to speak on this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request to for Variances does not constitute substantial • detriment to the public good. i • 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Dionne, Belair, Harris, Debski, Pinto) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing • structure. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Steve Pinto Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. ovnirA.�i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACILIU4F�TULEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE .0 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR - ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 (11 KIMBERL DRISCOLL _200b' NOV —1 �P 3' 02 MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING November 15, 2006- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Continued Petition of AAA Enterprises & Services requesting a Special Permit to allow a portion of the premises to be used for earth processing activities for the property located at 15 ROBINSON ROAD—BPD DISTRICT. 2. Petition of Richard Griffin, requesting a Variance from front and rear setbacks, lot coverage and off-street parking requirements to allow construction of a two (2) unit residential building for the property located at 32 PALMER STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 3. Petition of T. William Smith requesting a Variance from side and rear setbacks to allow an accessory structure (deck) to be within five (5) feet of the property line • for the property located at 17 HIGH STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 4. Petition of Timothy and Dennis Campbell requesting a Variance from number of stories to construct a third floor dormer for the property located at 8 MESSERVY STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 5. Petition of William Crosby requesting a Special Permit to allow an Auto Repair Business for the property located at 483 HIGHLAND AVE. —B-2 DISTRICT. 6. Petition of Lewis Legon requesting Special Permit to allow existing non- conforming offices to be converted to six (6) residential units for the property located at 48 BRIDGE STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment Nina Cohen, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals TIW emWe posted on "Offielal louH Cit Hall vs., Wom, Puss. 01 b goo6 a1 �- U��m in a1r..-ordmr uoo h . 39 Sm 23A & 23B of f-A.G.L. 1 s, L` • MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dan Merhalski, Staff Planner Department of Planning &Community Development DATE: October 10, 2006 RE: Agenda—October 18, 2006 Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Copy of City of Salem Sign Ordinance ➢ Petition and materials for 17 Canal Street ➢ Petition and materials for 8-10 Broadway ➢ Petition and materials for 3 Allen Street ➢ Petition and materials for 35 Juniper Avenue ➢ Petition and materials for 13 Fairmount Street ➢ Petition and materials for 435 Highland Avenue ➢ Petition and materials for 4 Bentley Street ➢ Petition and materials for 26 Winter Street The following is a brief description of the agenda items. Please feel free to contact me at the Department of Planning & Community Development at 978-745-9595, extension 311, if you have any questions. 17 Canal Street—Request for a Variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance to allow a newly altered sign to remain - B-4 District-Jiuolito Zepy The applicant is requesting a Variance from the City of Salem Sign Ordinance to allow an existing sign to remain which did not receive a permit prior to its construction and does not meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance as it pertains to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District along Canal Street._The Sign Ordinance allows for a sign area in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District of 1 sq.ft. of signage for each linear foot of street frontage. The sign was the former"Big Fred's" sign and was a pre-existing non-conforming sign. It has since been altered to Read "Sammy's". The Sign Ordinance does not allow signs to be located above the roofline of a structure. The applicant did not include the size, dimensions, or an image of the sign that is being requested for the variance. The Board should verify these items with the applicant at the meeting. 1 J 8-10 Broadway - Request for a Special Permit to allow a Pet Grooming Business in an existing non-conforming structure - I District- Petricia LeBrun. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to allow a pet grooming business to be established at the site. No other information was given in the application. The B-4 District (Wholesale and Automotive) allows for uses in the B-1 District (Business Neighborhood) as well. Uses allowed in these districts include retail, service and construction-related businesses. Items such as the number of animals to be kept on the premises at one time, the number of employees, the number of vehicle trips anticipated per day and any mitigation for noise and traffic headlights/parking should be addressed by the applicant at the meeting. 3 Allen Street-Requesting a Variance from Rear Yard setback requirements from the required 30 feet to approximately 11 feet to reconstruct a two-story addition - R-2 District - Kathryn Harper. The applicant is requesting a Variance from the required setback of 30 feet to reconstruct a 2- story 12' x 17' addition. The current addition would be demolished and a new addition would be reconstructed in its place. The size of the proposed addition's footprint is approximately the same as the existing addition's. 35 Juniper Avenue—Request for Variances from number of stories to allow construction of a roof deck, and from rear yard setback to construct a second story bay window - R-1 DISTRICT- Daniel Spencer. The applicant is requesting Variances from number of stories and rear yard setback to construct a roof-top deck and a bay window. Floor plans of the site are included in this packet. The applicant must submit scale drawings of the proposed improvements and show the distances and heights that the relief is requested from. The lot size essentially follows the footprint of the house with a small front yard running parallel to Juniper Avenue. 13 Fairmount Street—Request for a Variance from the required side yard setback of ten (10) feet to approximately three (3) feet to allow for enclosing of a twelve (12) by sixteen (16) foot deck - R-2 District - Antonio Nogueira. The applicant is requesting a Variance to enclose a portion of the existing deck. The house is currently located within the required 3-foot setback, and the proposed additional work to fully enclose the deck into a one-story room would line up with the north side of the house. 435 Highland Avenue—Request for Variances from Maximum Lot Coverage from the required 25% to 48.8%; from Side Yard setback from the required 10 feet to a proposed 5 feet; from Rear Yard setback from the required 30 feet to a proposed 5 feet; and from Maximum Building Height from the required 30 feet to a proposed 33 feet to construct a third building on the site—B-2 District - Centurion Group (Bob Fantasia). CA' The applicant is requesting variances to allow construction of a two-story storage facility on the 2 rear portion of the site of Uncle Bob's Storage (behind the new Dunkin Donuts). Currently this portion of the site is undeveloped and used for storage of boats and vehicles. The applicant is proposing to construct a new storage facility on the lot (which received a variance to construct a second building on the lot in 1987) and is requesting another variance for the proposed third building. No site plans or elevations were submitted with this application. Please note that the submitted site plan showing the existing conditions includes a fire lane on the portion of the site where the proposed structure is to be built. This fire/safety measure should be discussed to see how the applicant proposes to maintain this access to the site. The applicant is also subject to the entrance corridor overlay district (contrary to what they state in their application) and, depending on the square footage of the proposed structure—which is not included in the application - will have to go to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. 4 Bentley Street - Continuation of request for a Variance and/or Special Permit from side yard setback to allow a third floor deck—R-2 District-Nicholas Osgood. This is a continued item from the September 20, 2006 ZBA meeting and is dealing with the determination of the Building Inspector's Office that a fire escape and deck were permitted previous to a determination that the egress was not allowed in the setback. 4 Bentley Street—Request for Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer's determination -R-2 District -Linda Moustakis. The applicant is requesting administrative appeal of the determination that the structure located at 4 Bentley Street is a legal three-family dwelling. I was unable to speak with Tom this week about the previous decision and the statute of limitations for zoning decisions, however, I anticipate that Tom will either be at the meeting, or I will get the information from him and pass it on to the Board at the meeting on Wednesday. 15 Robinson Road —Request for Special Permit to allow a portion of property to be used for earth processing - BPD District—Mountain Realty Trust. The applicant is returning to the Board from a previous meeting in August for the requested Special Permit. Members eligible to vote on this continued item (Present at the opening of the hearing) are: Bonnie Belair, Annie Hams, Elizabeth Debski, Robin Stein and Steve Pinto) The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to expand a currently existing nonconforming use to allow operations for receiving and processing earth products including loam and crushed rock. The operations will require the use of a rock crusher and loam screener. The site is currently, and would continue to be used, as a junk yard, in addition to the expanded operations for earth products. 26 Winter Street—Request for a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming structure, a Variance from rear setback requirements and a determination of curb cut- R-2 District - Neil and Martha CA Chayet. 3 The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming structure, a Variance from rear setback requirements and a determination of curb cut to allow for construction of a 2-car garage. The application for appeal does not have any dimensional information regarding the alterations requiring the Variance and Special Permit. It appears as though the structure will be on the lot line of Oliver Street (the rear setback then would be 0'), and would be close to the required 10' side setback. 4 Please Sign-In Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting October 18, 2006 Name Mailing Address Phone Email CITY OF SALEM, MASSACH0I41tT'T$qLE11. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 106 OEL 9."10 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR December 4, 2006 Decision Petition of Mario Zepaj requesting a Variance for the property at 17 Canal Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on October 19, 2006 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, See. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Robin Stein, Steve Pinto, Richard Dionne,Elizabeth Debski. The petitioner, Mario Zepaj, sought a variance from the requirements of the City of Salem Sign Ordinance to allow the existing sign to be altered for the property located at 17 Canal Street, Salem, in the Wholesale and Automotive (B-4) zoning district. • The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 17 Canal Street is within the B-4 zoning district. 2. The petitioner is requesting a variance to alter an existing non-conforming sign at 17 Canal Street. Specifically petitioner undertook to alter a roof sign by changing the wording to "Sammy's Roast Beef' from "Big Fred's Roast Beef." 3. The petitioner received a violation letter regarding the alterations from the Building Inspector dated August 30, 2006. 4. Ward 3 City Councilor Jean Pelletier spoke in favor of the variance. 5. No other members of the public wished to speak on this petition. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for a Variance to the existing nonconforming sign do not constitute substantial detriment to the public good. 1 k 1 • 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner, both financial and otherwise. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Cohen, Stein, Pinto, Dionne, Debski) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 3. The sign shall remain at the same size as it is currently. Nina Cohen Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • 3ND17'A�A CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHU�!ff7j� SALEM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE f SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • - TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX: 978-740-9846 20Qb NOV 0 f - _� �'� ' MAYOR November 6, 2006 Decision Petition of Centurion Group requesting Variances from Maximum Lot Coverage, Maximum Building Height and Dimensional Relief to Construct a Third Building on the Site Located at 435-443 Highland Avenue B-2 District City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on October 16, 2006 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Nina Cohen,Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Steve Pinto, and Robin Stein. Petitioner seeks variances from density, height, allowed lot coverage and dimensional requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a new 7,200 sf two-story building. The proposed new structure will be used as part of the petitioner's business as a self-storage facility. • The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and of the plans and attachments submitted with the petition, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner Centurion represented the corporate owner, Uncle Bob's Self Storage, headquartered at 234 Main St., Buffalo NY 14421. Representing petitioner were Bob Fantasia and Richard Pasternak of the Centurion Group, of Lexington MA, and Ray Gienapp, architect, of Gienapp Design Associates. 2. Petitioner's property lies in the B-2 zoning district and is also within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District defined in Art. VII, Sec. 7-19 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. The property consists of a 79,690 sf site at the intersection of Highland Avenue, a state highway, and Clark St., a residential street, The site is Oklahoma-shaped, formed by a rectangle along.Highland Ave: with an narrower extension extending toward Clark St. on the north side. 4. Petitioner currently operates a self-storage business within two large existing 2-story buildings on the site. The existing business is conforming as to setback requirements and legally nonconforming as to lot coverage. Petitioner • r 2 was granted variances from this Board in 1987 from frontage, lot size an • g , d use requirements to allow the facility to be used for the current business operation. 5. Petitioner proposes to erect a third building on a section of the property which is currently used for vehicle and boat storage. The extension abuts a new Dunkin Donuts facility, which is entered from Highland Ave., and a residential property, which is entered from Clark St. 6. The dimensions of the proposed structure are 120 ft long by 60 ft wide and 33 ft. tall. According to site plans submitted by the petitioner, the proposed structure would be set back 5 ft from Clark St. and 5 ft from the rear property line, where the abutting property is residential. Petitioner proposes to rebuild a concrete retaining wall and erect a stockade fence between its property and that of the abutting property owner. 7. Lot coverage with the new building would go from 39.8% at the present to 48.8% with the new addition. 8. The Board questioned whether the plan allowed adequate access by safety vehicles, including fire equipment, and whether it provided drainage plans for water runoff from the roof. 9. The proposed petition was opposed by Dennis Colbert of 37 Clark St., and by • City Council President Jean Pelletier, on the grounds that the development was overly large and dense for the site and did not adequately provide for issues arising from water runoff and access by safety equipment. 10. Opponents also objected to the lot coverage request, on the grounds that the proposed building would not fit in with the surrounding Dunkin Donuts and residential buildings which are substantially smaller buildings and more residential in appearance. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the petition, the plan and testimony heard at the Meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The proposed plan is overly dense and does not adequately address issues of safety access and water runoff. 2. No traffic plan was submitted to show movement of vehicles within the site. 3. The size and position of the proposed building fails to take into account the proximity of residential neighbors and the scale of neighboring structures on the east and west. The plan for a massive, undifferentiated structure between smaller residential structures is totally insensitive to the existing structures. 3 4. The requested relief would result in a substantial detriment to the public good in allowing the expansion of an existing use in an Entrance Corridor Overlay District without any enhancement of the existing warehouse structures, signage or landscaping. 5. The relief requested would nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance by allowing an excessively dense commercial structure to be erected adjacent to a residential neighborhood without any buffer zone or border, and without providing adequately for public safety vehicles' access. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) opposed (Cohen, Debski, Dionne and Pinto) one (1) in favor(Stein), to deny petitioner's request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety • shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's office and shall display such numbers so as to be visible from the street. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the Planning Board, the Design Review Board and the Conservation Commission. Nina Cohen, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the South Essex Registry of Deeds. .rpNDITAAO CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ODN FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2006- 7:00 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. CONTINUED: Petition of North River Canal LLC, requesting a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit (3,500 sf) to allow 1468 I/2 square feet per unit for the property located at 28 GOODHUE STREET R-2. 2. Old/New Business r c 3. Adjournment xC) -- D -TI r.;Iv D 7hle notis® postod on "Official 8 111 191 Board" City li Ave., ` 'A° rn, i� ass. ��n � a/ SOD( at � uc.corda 23A 3 f M.G.L. _. Please Sign-In Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting September 27, 2006 Name Mailing Address Phone Email S Z m R78 7S-/137 SzwadeP_ emeas4Ad a8;k Ab WA a 9 6cl cy�7�s vis ( f Pr Thbs�f'ov/s a7 C9m 7i-• 7Y ` — 766 — q — 7 Fc 16&1- (9cr✓a-+, PV�L v4 978'- 7YY - S �>� D � , Zo 2- na T— ;73 1 aD i�;A44_z�S1, (Al 9'-7$- ee'JO AeWXS o 5 f u City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Minutes of Special Meeting Wednesday, September 27, 2006 A Special Meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 7:00 p.m. Those present were: Nina Cohen, Chair; Richard Dionne; Annie Harris; Elizabeth Debski and Bonnie Belair. Also present was Staff Planner Dan Merhalski. Public Hearing - Request for Variance from Lot Area per Dwelling Unit -North River Canal, LLC - 28 Goodhue Street NRCC Zoning District Atty. Joseph Correnti addressed the Board and presented the project. The proposal is requesting a variance to maximum density from the required 3,500 sq.ft. per dwelling unit to approximately 1,800 sq.ft. per dwelling unit to allow for construction of a four (4) story, 78,780 sq. ft. mixed-use residential and commercial building. Mr. Correnti explained the history of the site as an industrial and commercial space, and the demolition process of the former three (3) story wooden structure. The reason for this demolition was that the structure was deemed be a safety risk and was cost prohibitive to repair the building. Mr. Correnti displayed a site plan of the old structure and the lot coverage, and then displayed another board of the proposed structure with the previous building overlaid • on the footprint of the proposed one. The new building will consist of forty-four (44) dwelling units on the second to fourth floors with four (4) of the units to be reserved as affordable units, according to 40B. The first floor would be reserved as commercial/retail/office space for tenants under the required 3,000 sq.ft. retail space required in the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC). Parking for the site would comply with the required 2 spaces per dwelling unit and would also allow thirty-two (32) spaces for the retail/commercial units. The total number of parking spaces would be one-hundred and twenty (120) parking spaces. Mr. Correnti stressed that the commercial uses would only be those that are allowed in the NRCC district. He further explained the proposed site plan and highlighted the permitting process, including the Special Permit that was granted by the Salem Planning Board for use in the NRCC district. As a part of the Site Plan Review with the Planning Board, the project will have to be heard by the Design Review Board, and will have to receive a recommendation from this Board before the Planning Board can vote on the Site Plan application. Mr. Correnti also summarized the permitted process to date and highlighted that the Planning Board approved the Special Permit for Use for the site in the NRCC, according to the requirements of the NRCC Ordinance, by a unanimous decision. Mr. Correnti further described the project site and detailed the landscaping of the parking area, and the feature of a bike path along the site border with the North River Canal, which would include benches, landscaping and period lighting. Page 1 of 1 Mr. Correnti then introduced Tom Galvin of Joseph McGrath and Associates, the • project architect. Mr. Galvin reviewed the site plan and elevations for the project, highlighting the commercial/retail space, the landscaping for the parking lot and the floor plan of the building. He described the exterior of the building as having brick on the first floor with glass windows for storefronts, and clapboard for the remaining floors of the building. The structure will have a mansard roof with fiberglass shingles. All of the building's mechanical units will be screened in a sunken roof areas running the length of the building. The floor plan showed approximately fifteen (15) residential units per floor on the upper three floors, and the common areas and commercial spaces on the first floor. There would be no dwelling units on the first floor. Mr. Galvin showed aerial photos of the project site and a rendering side by side of what the propose4d structure would look like in an aerial image. The artist space proposed for the first floor would be owned by the residents as a condo unit. At this time Chair Cohen opened the Public Hearing. James Treadwell of 36 Felt Street addressed the Board and described the historic building for the site. He asked the board to consider the commercial space as not meeting the ten percent (10%) required for commercial space in the NRCC district. He pointed out that the JPI project on Bridge Street meets the requirement for tow (2) spaces per dwelling unit and that the amount of spaces is needed there. He also urged the board to make sure that the project meets the criteria of the NRCC district. • Chair Cohen read a memo from Mr. Treadwell to the Board detailing his concerns and submitted it to the file. Beverly McSwiggin of 30 Japonica Street addressed the Board and stated that she is in favor of the project, but not the number of dwelling units proposed. Bill Luster of 190 Bridge Street addressed the board and stated that he is speaking on behalf of Allied Lumber and gave their support for the project and stated that the project will be of benefit to other properties in the area. Lisa Dubreuil of 28 Upham Street addressed the Board and stated that the city needs to be careful the housing market doesn't bottom out and leave a problem at the site. She questioned why forty-four (44) units were needed for the project and asked what the city would gain in return. Rita Alberghini of 27 Foster Street addressed the Board and stated that the utilities for the site could be an issue and asked if the service would be enough to support the project. Ed Plecinoga of 166 Ocean Ave. spoke in support of Mr. Treadwell's comments and stated that 3,500 sq. ft. is enough for a development and it is not necessary to give the applicant a variance. He further stated that he had been before the Board in the past with a similar project and had been turned down by the ZBA for a variance request. He wants to see fairness and consistency and not see another developer get a variance. • Page 2 of 2 Pat Donahue of 12 Dearborn Lane stated that she is not against the development, • just the issuance of a variance. Ward Six Councilor Paul Prevey addressed the Board and offered his support for the variance for the project. He stated that the area is blighted and that this development proposal will bring in further development to the area of the North River and Blubber Hollow. He admitted that traffic is an issue on the site, but that the project is a good one and should be granted the variance. Ward Two Councilor Michael Sosnowski addressed the Board and spoke against the proposed project receiving a variance. He stated that zoning is there for a reason and that it shouldn't be changed. A lot of people worked very hard on the NRCC zoning ordinance and it should not be ignored or deviated from. He stated that another developer is building a project down the road from the project site and is not requesting any variances. Developers can build in the NRCC without the need for a variance. Ward Seven Councilor Joseph O'Keefe addressed the Board and stated that he supports the requested variance for the project site. Meg Twoey of 122 Federal Street addressed the Board and presented a letter from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association. She stated that they support the project, but only if it stays within the requirements of the NRCC zoning Ordinance. She requested that the city's Planning board and the Design Review Board should rule on the project first, then the ZBA should hear the request for a variance. • Nancy Burns of 22 Bedford Street addressed the Board and stated that she thinks that the density is too large for the site and believed that the quality of other developments would be negatively affected by the project if a variance is granted. David Hart of 104 Federal Street addressed the Board and stated that a hardship doesn't apply here as the dimensions of the lot are the issue. He cautioned the Board that they would be setting a precedent if they allowed a variance for the project. Joan Swene of 22 Silver Street addressed the Board and said that this project has Y p J no opposition n the neighborhood that is adjacent to the project site. James Moskowitz of 10 Marion Street addressed the Board and stated that he is a Ward Four resident and had tried to save the historic building on the project site. He noted that he supports the variance request and that the developer has worked to reduce the number of units on the site from forty-four (54) to the current forty-four (44). He further stated that the neighborhood is in support of the project. Leslie Limon of 18 Southwick Street addressed the Board and stated that she was once opposed to the project, but now is not thinking that it is so bad. She then went on to state that she is opposed to the project because blight is bad, but not as bad as this project would be for the area. Chuck Bartman of Ward Four on Marlborough Road addressed the Board and stated that the Ward Four group wants the building to be changed. He asked is thirty-two (32) people too much for the area? • At this time Chair Cohen closed the public hearing. Page 3 of 3 • Anthony Roberto, the developer for the project site asked to address the Board. He said that he is not greedy and spent a lot of money trying to save the historic building, and a lot of work has already been done on the site. He stated that the decision to grant a zoning variance has been given to the Boards and commission of the city by the city council, and this includes the number of units on the site, even if the requirement of 3,500 sq.ft. per unit is on the books. He stated that he knows what the market is like and that the site needs the forty-four (44) units. If he could build the project site with less units, he would, but the costs involved in the remediation of the site and the current market conditions require the number of units that he has presented to the Board. Ward Three Councilor Jean Pelletier addressed the Board and stated that he is not opposed to the project, but neither is he in favor of it. He wants there to be a long deliberation on this issue and that the Board needs to make uniform decisions. He stated that the zoning in the city is out of whack and needs some work, but that this is why Boards exist. Atty. Correnti addressed the Board and responded to some of the concerns posed by the public for the site. He stated that the city will review the utility usage for the site at the Panning Board level during Site Plan Review. He said that the condo market is known to the developer and that if the market was bad, the developer wouldn't develop the site. He added that the project has the support of the Mayor and the Ward four residents, as well as many others in the city. He went on to state that precedent is not a part of the ZBA decision process as each • case that comes to the Board is unique. He added that a variance doesn't need a precedent because they are always pertain only to a particular site. He stated that traffic is dangerous at the location due to the configuration of the street near the site. He offered that the developer will contribute $10,000 to a traffic analysis for the city. He stated that the support for the project at 401 Bridge Street by the Federal Street neighborhood is good, but that project is completely different in its nature to this one as it is for a three-story commercial building, not a residential, mixed-use structure. Atty. Corenti continued by saying that variances are a part of the zoning ordinance for a reason. The current zoning ordinance was written in 1965 and has been updated, but that it still needs work. This project meets or exceeds all of the zoning requirements save one: the square footage per dwelling unit. He then addressed the issue of hardship and state that the huge building that was demolished was condemned by the city and incurred a huge cost to the developer. Further, the shape of the parcel is unusual with 450 feet along the North River Canal which limits the side of the development from access, and the NRCC requires a building to be located along the street frontage. He added that the cost of the riverwalk is a financial hardship that will benefit the city. Chair Cohen asked Mr. Correnti if there was any consideration for permeable parking with the large coverage of the parking area? • Page 4 of 4 Mr. Correnti said that the developer would be willing to investigate that and if it is . doable. Annie Harris asked if the multi-bedroom units could be used as home offices? Mr. Roberto said that there are storage units on the first floor that are assigned to each of the units and that he has seen people using similar units for home offices. Mrs. Harris asked if there was a specific order of permitting that needed of be followed with reference to the Planning Board and the ZBA being applied to at different times. Chair Cohen responded that it is usually up to the applicant to decide when to apply to the Boards and which ones they want to go before first. At times a project needs to gain an approval from one Board before they can go on with the permitting for another. Mrs. Harris asked if the affordable units would be preserved in perpetuity? Mr. Correnti said that the units would be protected as affordable under 40B and that the owners of the affordable units would not be able to re-sell them at market rates. Mr. Dionne asked if it has been determined that land remediation would be necessary for the site given its past uses? Mr. Correnti explained that the work has already been done and that there was • surprisingly little remediation work needed for the site. Mr. Dionne commented that the only objection he had to the design was that the design doesn't have any place for the children that may live on the site to play, except by the wall on the river. Mr. Correnti commented that they are providing active recreational space along the river and that the site is within walkingdistance of numerous cit arks including Y P 9 Leslie's Retreat Park and Mack Park. John Penny, the owner of the Flynn Tan site nearby addressed the Board and asked if the developer would be open to design issues and traffic and would be willing to work together with him to resolve these? A motion was made by chair Cohen and seconded by Annie Harris to grant the petition for a variance from the minimum lot area per dwelling area from 3,500 sq.ft. per unit to approximately 1,800 sq.ft. per dwelling unit, with conditions that included the developer providing a 450 foot bike path that would be ten (10) feet wide with three (3) to six (6) foot buffers on wither side along the North River Canal side of the lot; that the developer shall pay the city $10,000 for a traffic study prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide four (4) affordable units or ten percent (10%) of the total number of units as affordable units; the petitioner shall examine design options including permeable paving, outdoor recreational uses, and design innovation for the site. • The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board (5-0). Page 5 of 5 Adiournment There being no further business to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals this evening a motion was made by Nina Cohen to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0). The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Daniel I Merhalski, Staff Planner/Clerk Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CIi Y OF SALEM, MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • �° -- TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 1006 SEP -8 A 9.- 5I AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 6:30 P.M. 3'FLOOR,ROOM 313 — 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 o C??CONTINUED: Petition of Pedro Jimenez seeking to a modification of the previously ,--n granted Special Permit to allow additional roofed area over decks for the property located at 54 LAWRENCE STREET R-2. CONTINUED: Petition of North River Canal, LLC requesting a Variance from lot are per dwelling unit(3500sf)to allow 1468 %s sq. feet per unit for the property located at 28 GOODHUE STREET R-2. CONTINUED : Petition of Nicholas Osgood seeking a Variance and/or Special Po Permit from side setback to allow a third floor deck for the property located at s' r`�Y/q/ 4 BENTLEY STREET R-2. d Petition of Thomas McDonald seeking to amend previous decision dated February 19, 1985 requiring owner occupancy for the property located at 11 BRYANT STREET R-2. �te.P II fT Petition of Lesley Linder, Trustee, seeking a Special Permit to alter an existing non- conforming structure and a Variance from rear setback to allow the construction of decks for the property located at 14-16 LEACH STREET R-2. S-.:- c� etition of Stephen Medico seeking a Variance from side and rear setback to qd construct a 12 x 11 sunroom on existing deck for the property located at 25 PARLEE STREET R-1. 4 Z)) Petition of Rachel Hunt seeking a Variance from side yard setback to reconstruct and expand mudroom for the property located at 95 ESSEX STREET R-2. r—o Petition of Brian Brinkers seeking a Variance from side setback and number of stories aft9)allowed, to construct an Wt- GLOVER STREET R-2 addition on rear of property for the property located at 14 i9: Old/New Business L This notice posted on "Official Bu1i �� City o! ve , Salem, Mass. on IXJ� W �n1h accordarm wriQtt 9d • allyitf AM • 29B at M.G.L. Clerk, BoarAppeals ` " ,(f �. "✓'-1 '1 f"e�. '/�v y va,¢.r..,.✓(� a....(.tJe (�rOl}.S //'e+.�� ,�j�"�r ^A� Cd�� � L j1 e j et _ � (fie e( S (-i �^s�. �a �,•f � I a �l P�d 6 .ti�F,Ly - ��•cy /�^.•;c -- ' �(�. rte- - PQ�F� �/� s y��P C� ��•� ') � ����t �..,�1 —• n (ci� n P0414 ` "C(.eIt- I,, ,�l YS �' 9 ceh nr J /— �va i � .. Ao Cm-r,y ,(JOr DRQ �-1 Cl a,r L5 • S�N-`'�. CSv.. ) /J L'GV�-�/S .�'1 V'�2.v`� C� T� �����J Ylp_✓+y<S ,�,._ giyu- i Cws �Uc C .-..`��(C+� �'� t1"� 1L1 S`�/e.c� r'/il/.�0��� i'c'I �.r�Y" 1`('-� Q,VCt.�c,�.. C�✓'1�PN' a,'u9 L r co✓�ci j P l �( >C � �C v �- ��- ��. I' I" 1 i' i i' 'I; I Ir I! I � •II �� (I I • tl II i' • T�" Td✓v 1 �� J i'�.�R-Rfit c�Vt, ,3� � y46let. P_ S S� ✓ �'iI -Plft`eS JJD✓ 30" Ivesw�P�_, �e _ _ _. _� - � __ -- - _ ' - r k � ._ III, " Lla to�{n.cQ N � ,.. F7 �tl u"wvn o Zbcr9 l `{/JIRP 1 � � e rS f°JVa a -1 we.l �O<,vS ,^,t �yj Lo i , ,. i i- f qS- CsseX l2uoC-t- ( w � � - � r-y brims ,, — �d+.✓� cd� �- Cc1re�^4.YC'i COo Ise i+1 tTi-yof Lj wed- , I I I- oNOIT� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS CITE` OF :SA�t EM, MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERK'SOFFICE m 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 _ ppnn _ KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ,PWb N��' _� �.� 3; 0I MAYOR November 6, 2006 Decision Petition of Lesley Linder requesting a Special Permit to alter an existing non-conforming structure and a Variance from the rear yard setback for the property located at14-16 Leach Street, R-2 District City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on September 20, 2006 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Nina Cohen, Annie Hams, Beth Debski, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair. The petitioner Lesley Linder seeks relief pursuant to sections 8-2, 8-4, 8-6, 9-4 and 9-5 to allow construction of two rear decks for the property located at 14-16 Leach Street, Salem, in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) zoning district. • The petitioner is requesting a Special Permit to alter an existing non-conforming structure and a variance from the thirty (30) foot minimum rear yard setback requirement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (Sec 6-4,Table 1) to approximately eleven (11) feet for the construction of two 8 ft by 12 ft decks. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner owns a multifamily house at 14-16 Leach Street, which presently houses 4 residential rental units. The property is an existing nonconforming structure and use within the R-2 zoning district. 2. Petitioner, who was represented by Philip Posner, Esq., constructed two 8 by 12 ft. decks on the rear of the property without obtaining required zoning relief and without obtaining a building permit. He appears before this Board at the request of the Building Inspector's office, which notified him of these violations. 3. Mr. Posner stated that his client was now attempting to comply with building codes and regulations He further stated that the decks were constructed in an effort to enhance and improve the property. J • 4. Ward Five City Councilor Matthew Veno opposed the petition on the ground that the decks would be a nuisance to neighbors due to the density of the surrounding neighborhood. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for a Special Permit to alter an existing non- conforming structure and a variance from the thirty(30)foot minimum rear yard setback requirement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (Sec 6-4, Table I)to approximately eleven (11)feet for the construction of two 8 ft by 12 ft decks does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor • (Cohen, Debski, Dionne, Hams) and one (1) opposed (Belair), to grant the request for a Special Permit and a Variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to, including the Fire Department policy regarding use of open flames for cooking on exterior decks. 4. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • 7. The Petitioner shall submit As-Built plans to the Building Inspector within • thirty (30) days of the date of this decision. 8. The Petitioner shall consult the City of Salem Board of Health to determine an appropriate permanent enclosure for trash barrels and shall install and maintain such structure on the side of the house at all times while any units are rented. t4 .t, 4;o4.... Nina Cohen Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • r Dear CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETT/� + Qq BOARD OF APPEAL _, C/ LJjo� r 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ``/rel -Sof��F q I SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ` FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL j446 NOY `8 /-� MAYOR ,� A 7 November 6, 2006 Decision Petition of Pedro Jimenez requesting an Amendment of the previously granted Special Permit for the property at 54 Lawrence Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on August 16, 2006 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, and continued to September 20, 2006. The following Zoning Board members were present: Bonnie Belair, Steven Pinto, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Robin Stein. The petitioner, Pedro Jimenez, sought to Amend to a previously granted special permit to allow an additional roofed area over decks for the property located at 54 Lawrence Street Street, Salem, in the Two-Family Residential (R-2)zoning district. • The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 54 Lawrence Street is within the R-2 zoning district. 2. The plans submitted and approved by the Zoning Board were different from the as-built plans submitted to the Building Inspector. 3. The roofing area was increased by approximately thirty-six (36) sq. ft. 4. At the first public hearing on August 16, 2006, David Maurice of 24 Cloutman Street spoke against the requested amendment to the original Special Permit. 5. At the continued public hearing on September 20, 2006, the Petitioner presented a written agreement between himself and his neighbors regarding the project. 6. Ward Three City Councilor Jean Pelletier spoke against of the petition at the public hearing of August 16, 2006. • • On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request to amend the previously granted Special Permit does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Belair, Pinto,Debski, Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request to amend the Special Permit, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 6. The Building Department must find that all As-Built plans are permissible and the stairs as built are acceptable. 72 . D � Robin Stein Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. odr�uyy,�r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a3� BOARD OF APPEAL s e 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR i SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE,: 978-745-959,5 FAX: 978-740-9846 C') KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL c C-)� MAYOR - y E AGENDA T BOARD OF APPEAL N"' AUGUST 16,2006 6:30 P.M L nrn m Yd FLOOR,ROOM 313-120 WASHINGTON STREET m jW r^3 Executive Session to discuss the amended memorandum of understanding for 7-17;'MOMAS D CIRCLE. } 1. CONTINUED:Petition of Daniel&Jacquelyn Robinson requesting a Variance ftom side setback to construct a deck for the property located at 55 TURNER STREET R2. 2. CONTINUED:Petition of Carey Pahnquest requesting relief from Section 7-3,off-street parking for the property looted at 59%SUMMER STREET R-2. 3. CONTINUED:Petition of North River Canal,LLC requesting a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit(3500sf) to allow 1468 '/x sq feet per unit for the property located at 28 GOODEME R-1 4. Petition of Saul Barragan requesting a Special Permit per Section 5-2 (b) (1) to allow a Home Occupation for the property located at 26 TREMONT STREET R-2. 5. Petition of Pedro Jimenez seeking to a modification of the previously granted Special Permit to allow additional roofed area over decks for the property located at 54 LAWRENCE STREET R2. 6. Petition of Salem Point Rental Properties seeking an amendment to the original decision (7/14/04)to allow all 15 units to be sold as owner occupied units for the property located at 50 PALMER STREET B-L 7. Petition of AAA Enterprises&Services,Inc. seeking a Special Permit per Section 8-3 t3 zZ" portion of the premises to be used for earth processing activities such as rock,soil,loam crushing of rock and screening loam for the property located at 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD. 8. Petition of Christine McCleam requesting a Special Permit per Section 8-3 to alloy a graphic art business and art gallery for the property located at 107 FEDERAL STREET R-2. 9jMa r /New Business. � U �l Clerk,Board of Appeals This notiee posted on "OfAclal Huilefin 110aw City Hall Ave., WPM, Mass. on AUG 1 1 at ,o/fJ in acwrdari& wM (nV. 2 2313 of M.G.L. �J osnmr� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS '� y@ BOARD OF APPEAL C{ I v "FSALEM. MA 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR CLERK S OFFICE l SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1006 AUG 10- A 11: IS . MAYOR AMENDED AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL AUGUST 16, 2006 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 — 120 WASHINGTON STREET Discussion and vote of the amended memorandum of understanding for 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE 1. CONTINUED: Petition of Daniel & Jacquelyn Robinson requesting a Variance from side setback to construct a deck for the property located at 55 TURNER STREET R2 2. CONTINUED: Petition of Carey Palmquest requesting relief from Section 7-3, off- street parking for the property located at 59 '% SUMMER STREET R-2. 3. Petition of Saul Barragan requesting a Special Permit per Section 5-2 (b)(1)to allow a Home Occupation for the property located at 26 TREMONT STREET R-2. 4. Petition of Pedro Jimenez seeking to a modification of the previously granted Special Permit to allow additional roofed area over decks for the property located at 54 LAWRENCE STREET R-2. 5. Petition of Salem Point Rental Properties seeking an amendment to the original decision(7/14/04)to allow all 15 units to be sold as owner occupied units for the property located at 50 PALMER STREET B-1. 6. Petition of AAA Enterprises& Services,Inc. seeking a Special Permit per Section 8- 3 to allow a portion of the premises to be used for earth processing activities such as rock, soil, loam crushing of rock and screening loam for the property located at 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD. 7. Petition of Christine McClearn requesting a Special Permit per Section 8-3 to allow a graphic art business and art gallery for the property located at 107 FEDERAL STREET R-2 8. Old/New Business (i 00049 potted on "Officla9 ® � Sa11yM ate �&11�vs., Salem, Aiass. on r /d (/ IY/ nt ac,�co � Clerk,Board of Appeals 2V 23 rder yYi�y� is � � of trl.6a.l. .j i A ]IN CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETl'1 y OF SALEM MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLERn OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 '. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 1006 AUG -9 A $. 26 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL AUGUST 16,2006 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 — 120 WASHINGTON STREET Executive Session to discuss the amended memorandum of understanding for 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE 1. CONTINUED: Petition of Daniel &Jacquelyn Robinson requesting a Variance from side setback to construct a deck for the property located at 55 TURNER STREET R2 2. CONTINUED: Petition of Carey Palmquest requesting relief from Section 7-3, off- street parking for the property located at 59 %SUMMER STREET R-2. 3. Petition of Saul Barragan requesting a Special Permit per Section 5-2 (b) (1)to allow a Home Occupation for the property located at 26 TREMONT STREET R-2. 4. Petition of Pedro Jimenez seeking to a modification of the previously granted Special Permit to allow additional roofed area over decks for the property located at 54 LAWRENCE STREET R-2. 5. Petition of Salem Point Rental Properties seeking an amendment to the original decision(7/14/04) to allow all 15 units to be sold as owner occupied units for the property located at 50 PALMER STREET B-1. 6. Petition of AAA Enterprises& Services, Inc. seeking a Special Permit per Section 8- 3 to allow a portion of the premises to be used for earth processing activities such as rock, soil, loam crushing of rock and screening loam for the property located at 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD. 7. Petition of Christine McCleam requesting a Special Permit per Section 8-3 to allow a graphic art business and art gallery for the property located at 107 FEDERAL STREET R-2 8. Old/New Business Tkb MSG* Posted on 60f ciaf B IX415 ap Ave. Safem, Mass. on 2M M f3/�1 in abcordance I l ift fp �YQ of M.G.L. ASallyMurta Clerk,Board of Appeals w MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dan Merhalski, Staff Planner bo., Department of Planning& Community Development DATE: August 8, 2006 RE: Agenda—August 16, 2006 Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Draft Memorandum of Understanding—Thomas Circle The following is a brief description of the agenda items. Please feel free to contact me at the Department of Planning & Community Development at 978-745-9595, extension 311, if you have any questions. 7-17 Thomas Circle—Update on Status of Revised Memorandum of Understanding—Jerry Parisella,Asst. City Solicitor The Assistant City Solicitor will review the amended Memorandum of Understanding (TviOU) for the site. The Board will then have to vote to accept or amend the MOU. (This is before the ZBA as part of a settlement to a previous ZBA decision that was appealed by the former owner of the site, and signed by former Mayor Usovicz. The original MOU should have come to the ZBA for approval,but did not. The ZBA is therefore being asked to approve an MOU with the current owI,er io settle the suit that was filed against the ZBA with their o iguial decisi::.i) 54 Lawrence Street— Request for amendment to previously granted Special Permit—R-2 District— Pedro Jimenez The applicant is requesting an amendment to the previously approved Special Permit to allow for the newly constructed roof to remain. The roof extends out farther than allowed in the permitted plans. 107 Federal Street—Request for Special Permit - R-2 District—Christine McClearn The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the use of the existing property as an artist gallery/graphic design business in the Two-Family Residential district. A previous decision I (dated 1995) allowed the site to be used as a flower shop. The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 5-3, lists the Special Permit uses permitted and excluded for the R-2 District. 50 Palmer Street—Request for amendment to previously granted Variance—B-1District—Salem Point Rental Properties,LLC The applicant is requesting that the previously approved variance be amended to allow the applicant to sell all of the proposed units as condominiums. The previously approved variance allowed the applicant to sell nine (9) units, and rent the remaining six (6) units. The applicant has requested the change to allow for the sale of all fifteen (15)units due to market conditions and the feasibility of keeping all of the units as affordable housing for the required fifty (50) year period that has been recorded at the South Essex Registry of Deeds. All other conditions of the previously approved variance (dated July 14, 2004) would remain in effect. 26 Tremont Street—Request for Special Pemut- R-1 District—Paul Prevey The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to allow a home occupation in a Single-Family Residential District. The petitioner is proposing to use a single room on the site for a message therapy business. No changes to the structure are proposed. 15 Robinson Road—Request for Special Permit-BPD District—Mountain Realty Trust The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to expand a currently existing nonconforming use to allow operations for receiving and processing earth products including loam and crushed rock. The operations will require the use of a rock crusher and loam screener. The site is currently, and would continue to be used, as a junk yard, is addition to the expanded operations for earth products. 2 Zfs.q w��ef;� 81/d'4 — P'1��<rs� �....�— Sty-,��'"I S �`��'� /L.�G,� ►���,�� w �rea is I t`^,d- 2d` �� L, S -p 4 � -- s-yo, . Pe�� PQ �k,Yw,cT SPe�k-�n�, POW�^9 `"'t��tl 61(� b 2 pp ul-Qo^ ?1n1Q�g�tGY � a — DPd�tX Gy Sa�G� w<ShOeccFf,.e Trf -d ��ay� 64V��Jb✓� �tl'_lSewi � co" r,,zl, dtl F ��(A S4 (1-1 iJ —Yd3d 4a 1tia F. F � r N i u I T Pq(wa- S}_ — �c, , ,Q a Q (Ids, 4 (/ �s Uar j to Ge o"-ea ;j ,eat eve a �odle CalcOox �'`'w,�y U"o�t 19_�y,n.ce st - '• .f 9�,�- mea- �,,;}ref`- �Cow.,c��ar Cc1rG� Cno� '�h 78-✓w d� U4(�,a'�t SSI f 64aE p- _. .l-If �(6nw.cn ,S�'• .,�"lpwri�Kr01 E 1'�� UU I r laY ��Qv( Sq( of �O��hX�4A 04i refit f lea ^ GYf— Il to 1(kaN T a 3 Y i _ 1 i 'ry - ,. ,� < ' 'i;.,f-J:....,( n,. :r. i. � � 1 .. u '- 7 ^�- :L. S-r.�r ;: i l � 'L '.,,�.:. E � .. „ J 51.,.0 ( r+ . i. . . •r - [ � � .. M.�. 'tea I _ ( 'i"�'"�' III �� +`� f � y .. � � } h I .� 1 ..1. . .. ._ mei .� r � F � ,.. w� ., ,. i _� P/',•�.`,.� 4� ,�Ls �4,,,,�,,� .S�..aO,b , q h e� ��o^/ �c �4 (1�_,pwl��Xor�. Gtw Ie 1 '� '-�r�l� �y�QS• A1C. Q.4y I T��MC / I 7 �d)r H �/ ITa a„(c( 1 cg:k 9 ttde Sb -6o Uek2121 /Joy a3 �w ff�z - rrcl. I�_w4e�Ge s P �Vick U ►{ � � NtQ"'o J�eaki✓� qsa�? /T �W�>�^3y� Ro�. �.pS�CY� _ a��pdSfdr - NP4 1�-1 taH� 2✓nlr .Sq T-Jy v ariceefe a14- oc, f F _ i. IA � 1 1 1 �l ! ' r 4 T .:�. .... r i) � In✓, .. �• � 3.: �Fes. "' ss ,n t t • III , SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEOERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01070 JOHN R. B[RAFINI. an. TCLCPNON[ JOHN A.KRAFINI, JR. 871-7♦4.O ili JOHN E. CARLwe 781-881-2743 JOS[PN O.CORRENTI TELECOPIER 079-741-4083 August 15, 2006 VLA HAND DELIVERY Nina Cohen, Chairperson City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: North River Canal, LLC 20 Goodhue Street, Salem, Massachusetts Dear Ms. Cohen: On behalf of the Applicant, North River Canal, LLC, I hereby request allowance to continue the hearing date for the Zoning Board of Appeal Petition until the Board' s regularly scheduled meeting in September, 2006. Very truly yours, North River Canal, LLC By its Attorney J e C. Co anti JCC:dl cc: North River Canal, LLC .i 08/T,1/2006 13:44 FAX @001/002 SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP Attomeys At Law 63 Federal Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 JOHN R.SERAFINI,aR. TELEPHONE:(B7B)7440212 JOHN R.SERAFINk JR (FBI)6B1.2743 JOHN E.OARUNO TELECOPBe W71)741.4M JOSEPH C.CORRENII PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES)TO: NAME: Lynn Goonin Duncan,AICD,Director FIRM: City of Salem Department of Planning and Community Development TELECOPIER NUMBER: (978)740.0404 FROM: Joseph C Correnti,Esquire PAGES(including this Cover sheet): 2 DATE SENT: August 14,2006 CLIENT NUMBER: MESSAGE: If there is a problem with this transmission,call(978)744-0212 And ask for: De+nwse Luxton CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THIS TELECOPY TRANSMISSION CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE LAW FIRM OF SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED TO BE FOR THEUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ON THIS TRANSMISSION SHEET, IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE,COPYING,DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS TELECOP7ED INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TELECOPY IN ERROR,PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE IMMEDIATELY SO THAT WE CAN ARRANGE FOR THE RETRIEVAL OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. b OOV2006 13:45 FAX 1a002/002 SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI. LLP ATToRNCT6 Ar-LAw 63FSIDILLRALL STRCETC6Q!N(( JQ2h&6ETT6 ` 01970 JOHN R.6ERAFIM.SR. 1006 JUL '9 n, TGA TELEPHONE JOHN R. 6ERAPNI. JR. J i 976.744.0212 JOHN E. DARLING ��}}�S 791-661-2709 JC6EPN C. CORRENTI RFCEivED TELECOPIER SALEM. MA 970-741.4863 July 19, 2006 VIA HAND DELIVERY Nina Cohen, Chairperson City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re; North River Canal, LLC 28 Goodhue Street, Salem, Massachusetts Dear Ms. Cohen: On behalf of the Applicant, North River Canal, LLC, I hereby request allowance to continue the hearing date for the Zoning Board of Appeal Petition until the Board' s next regularly scheduled meeting in August, 2006. Very truly yours, North River Canal, LLC By its Attorney, OJo �', p �P�� C. Correnti JCC:dl cc: North River Canal, LLC 0,8/14/2006 17:23 FAX R 002/002 4 SERAFINI, SERAFINI. DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 133 FEDERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. 6ERAFIN:. SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R.$ERAF INI. JR. 078-744.Oa12 JOHN E. OARLING 791-881-9743 JOSEPH C. CORRENTI TELECOPIER 478-741.4893 August 15, 2006 VIA HAND DELIVERY Nina Cohen, Chairperson City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: North River Canal, LLC 28 Goodhue Street, Salem, Massachusetts Dear Ms. Cohen: On behalf of the Applicant, North River Canal, LLC, I hereby request allowance to continue the hearing date for the Zoning Board of Appeal Petition until the Board' s regularly scheduled meeting in September, 2006. Very truly yours, North River Canal, LLC By its Attorney J se C. Co anti JCC:dl cc: North River Canal, LLC 08/14/2006 17:22 FAX 1i3j001/002 SERAFINI, SERAFINIs DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP Attomeys At Law 63 Federal Street Salem, Massachusetts 01870 JOHN R.SERAFINI,art TELEPHONE:(873)74-0412 JOHN R SERAFRII.JR. (781)6N-2743 JOHN E.DARLING TELECOPIER:(976)7414693 JOSEPNC.CORRENTI PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES)TO: NAME: Sally Murtagh,ZBA Dan Merhalshi,Staff Planner FIRM: City of Salem Department of Planning and Community Development TELECOPIER NUMBER- (978)740A404 FROM: Joseph C.Correnti,Esquire PAGES(including this cover shoat): 2 DATE SENT: August 14,2006 CLIENT NUMBER RISS 0401 MESSAGE: Re: Request for Continuance 28 Goodhue Street If there is a problem with this transmission,call(978)744-0212 and ask for: Dow Luxton CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THIS TELECOPY TRANSMISSION CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE LAW FIRM OF SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PRPALEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED TO BE FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ON THIS TRANSMISSION SHEET. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE,COPYING,DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS TELECOPIED INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TELECOPY IN ERROR,PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE IMMEDIATELY SO THAT WE CAN ARRANGE FOR THE RETRIEVAL OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. S4Jay NQ�R�✓ (fat( ror Cary 0 j� �Nef k, ItAa«,J August 9 2006 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals RE: Thomas Circle Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: My name is Susan Howland, resident and owner of 3 and 5 Thomas Circle. I am writing in regard to the deliberating on the Memorandum of Understanding for the 7-17 Thomas Circle Project on August 16th. I am on vacation with my family and have asked my father, Richard Williams, who resides with me, to enter this statement on my behalf. On Tuesday evening, August 80', Mr. Tony Tiro met with my husband, my father and me to discuss the criteria we felt was essential to be included in the new MOU. At this time, Mr. Tiro was amenable to our suggested list of"conditions" (see/read attached). I respectfully request that all efforts are made to include these recommendations into the new MOU. If they can not be included, I ask that no final decision be made, and that the meeting be continued until September, when I will be back from vacation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Susan M. Howland RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES, INC. Project at 50 Palmer Street, Salem That the prior Decision of the Board granted on July 14, 2004 be amended as follows: (1) allowing applicant to eliminate the rental use of any of the units shown on the previously approved plan, and allowing the applicant to sell all fifteen (15) of the units as affordable owner-occupied single-family dwelling units; and (2) Condition # 7 of the Decision is amended as follows: 7. The words "by low and very low income individuals and families" is stricken from the condition. An additional sentence is added at the end of the condition which reads: " All units in the project will be marketed as Affordable Housing for purchase exclusively by Individuals or Families whose annual incomes are 80% or less of the median income for the Area(Low Income Families)based on family size as determined by HUD." All other terms, conditions and restrictions of the original Decision remain in full force and effect. I a a a vr� CJI. I n I i BMW I View from Congress/Palmer Street Corner � Sale rri Harbor Comrr�u pity Developr��erat 50 DEMN Palmer Street Corporation DESIGN Sa�ev� rvixas GROUP ini-= ■■ ■■_ - ■■ ■■ �ir �� ■■��■ ����� ■■�■■ _ X11 � II i�� . 11 I =— .._ _ •,_ �� = jj j j 11 11; ■�■ 11 n 11. ■ ■ '11 ��I�1 _ 11 ■� - .. _ _ . - u .. _�� _ _ - ■� =n n '11 If, ■'■ 'll _�� 11' ■ ■ 11 11 11 = 11� III 11 ■I■ .I. ■I■_a%Vii► _moi/�I =■I■ �I� ■I■_�I■ .I. ■I■=ii/x/11 ■I■ .I. ■I■ �I■ .I. ■I■ _�I■ .I. ■I■ �I■ .I. ■I■= �I■ .I. ■I■ 1 I ! ! ! ! I 11 �■ ■■ =I - ii LE ii '=—=-n�n' 111 �I■ 1111 "!I!!I!►11I�►!.I!!!III@IIIII! I!!�Ilp!,!!,ui!; 1111 ■I■ 111.111 ■I■ 11�1i _1111■ 111 _ _ O .II �� � .1 ..�■. Ir�nl ..�.. -cl�nl In�l__ ..�.. ..�., ifs _ 11 11 11 11 11 11 = 11 11 II 11 =_ 11 II ! 11 11 11 _ 11 ■'■ 11 :: = ii - 11' �l 11 11 ■■ 'jj ` � ii _I 1 ■ � 11 =�nn _ I_ 011 jussl Kim —10 min I' Fs i ■I■ 1111 1 I � 111 ■I■ 111=IIIII!!I!II�IIC!I!!I�I;=I�I1 111_111 ■I■ 11� I� I ,III��„L! II!�IIII ,II!I�IIII,+I ! _I SII ■I� 111_ M El ® ! NNW nm ®® m® ® NPt/MKEAG STREET ® ® ,' ® ® ® ® i a h1�18prfi ® ® ® ®® ® ® a Naumlcaao SS_ Elavaeaon S -.,. nlp 112 13 Ir, fs PaMina ^ C_l WV • spam. O Ilia :' 1HC Em m N F Palmar 3t_ Elava2lon 15 Units Total 1(2)U.T.H. unMal a3 Unft.3&< U.6B8 UN.78e66 O came,Unit-3(Z)Badroom CwMw 15 Parking Spaces 3 Stories ®� ® e 1 ® e ® � � CONGRESS STREET ®' ® ® ® N R7 Oroaa r>d Floor Ptah C OeIQrBas St. Elavatlon Salaraa Harbor Commu2>,ity 1?¢velop22a er>,t 50 Palmer Street Corp oratLora G OUP Sal¢o>, Mass G STREET STREET NAVMKEP NAVMKEAG um.+a a+s s ti wm1z a+° N n — a Un6+a2 Uy 314, 5Swb CONGRESS STREET CONGRESS STREET Saoohd Flood Plarl Nrta� Thud Flooa- Plate XoRB' S al¢sza Harbor corramuasty Develop+rie RC UINA 50 Palzr�¢r Stre¢t corporatloa DFSION GROUP 264 M ce'N-j - stC,A d'ado Nuvw3� ( 65k1� r6� Iw,- pYer< f 13 Ga �cy,�l�e Sd • — S1 SoSe��,s ek �, 'L ryNlj -�o. /`°o. .f ""`0.7r q�,l�pd 1'l_ga/4e✓ 04/� �nf�d,ra ..,�S4at4.d,�r d f ffJgtJ ..�C;J�1 t ? n�lM`cr o7 cS 7'�•,`GJ_Cw tea^,' .('I✓at_1�+i.--c... T �LI a f I--J —d, aa'4, l 61��_ huice —' �c.ppe eP�� � a� bleP�r- w�� kPi � en TAW • � .c"� �-- .(�"+a.�urc GCIn'!T+`G4 rF IV FCtP watl,� 1 f�e�-a / (jM ��a✓y'�/t' w�e.-t %/ �ONa�tw.;}./ d•�..•e7irfS b`^4kt Tur w•itge CiY'e�w�t�o....erl' _' A(6 e.y�.; Prat••-'�c'�tw — dflete 464"rf Llblr ��e (Tv�( L°oWfya� — it r'� oK �°)a � tY l�2ecfo19 . lu✓ �� �� (,'�-c •..;�t SG,..� �- �N^�,,,s�)� s"f,-eGfi I �k.( ...;rl be oP�.fY�0 l� C4—f-e, 6 a� �p S�odet DPcn{a0— N S,00kf Zd.4`d VI-IjI net l�e�t Ne,�4P cm p� Pb, o�p[Va t �a tl ,a vIt S • i • �/2 a v4 e . SH fi oC�e e &kick— Zh P&V-dV — 0004 1Z0, �a'WMVNI�( Pz iii� [[� �' I--- / �, I aY �w Ci��Or �vp�ad0� �Perre�+wr Lome Gr w�ayav _ ee 1 r /7gain{f'rul. � (I _ cowr.c_ldr S SJ�0 0 Ss.s�Y,�� Sr. C.e~-�+i. c� 5r,. �r.,.�-e,• mat C�--pa�iLk, e�t,_�ti6a�w.��,Ca-l"�_�., -- -- C.r'b.y� Si{'�y-p✓ Y^_ - - o✓-�.t w. C`d�{ � Cd"�yaf�Tw� kt l'I`f� a/e 9 — .. t.- ,.W .any, q — — s ,� ti �...1, 9 1.�' ' - t � i L - � ~ 1 i �. 3 a. ' 1 t .� \ A. � .,M1t �\. ._l, ` ♦ 0- ..., I i.. i.r a .! 1 .,. �. \ .l\t ✓. t.... t^ r� I \�+ t...��_s f._ 'S�°u A ., .. Y - !t y i f .. y y. . . �•� � ... +'• L! y \ t I H � _ W + ♦:�? ll Ti ir%♦ S�{f y$.� . <, 1. .tea k �� c 'y ..�p�. -. :.gyp �.. ` .� � r I. u9: ,� �. ay.. r ....a. .i ... y _ y 1 . r �" r it Ly ESu��. t�r �Jr er�<<eoQ 6 s¢oWP, Q 6S� r - _ dam. r,� d �' � � _ '- i t. ,i. - ...o. � ' � - '� �' -y.' fir'.•., _ � _. . . '.,.t i - 1 � �. '� ' 'i '" ' � ". .. y .. .�nr �1 . , �_ I __ oar CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL j + 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL o C AUGUST 23,2006—6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET u;u, 00 or Petition of Lafayette Development LLC seeking a Variance from height(45'alloweci l 65'+ proposed)&number of stories(3 12/allowed-6 proposed)to construct a new s!� rn3 story building for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET R-3. w v M Sall urtagh Clerk,Board of Appeal This notice posted on "Officlai Bulletin B City Hall e. Salem, Mass. on al �3� In accordance with' 36 SK93 i 938 0 Please Sign-In Zoning Board of Appeals Special Meeting August 23, 2006 Name /� Mailing Address Phone Email W;//,an e-A to 0 G-1 2, ^_U,9 9 ZSS ?-- 4 iti ST A>H Sv d ?, S Sa3 9 Lf- JlOaO 78 -75 rq -36 ,23 �1 bow " awc\ 13'J8 - 19S- - 3t41 13 S+. . 3glc._ dt7L 1v14r•k5'Cif Kdp;wf lh � 1Fs �v��i IS >c, 6 63 SR« r,a 9.78 1��� SSSS +• CAWNVtW -70 to SL -r472- iz L'✓ls G'� ��� �'y S �5's - �"i e r�_�G,T�aozzi L-Asold �fi MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dan Merhalski, Staff Planner L\P Department of Planning &Community Development DATE: August 8, 2006 RE: Agenda—August 16, 2006 Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda The following is a brief description of the agenda items. Please feel free to contact me at the Department of Planning & Community Development at 978-745-9595, extension 311, if you have any questions. 7-17 Thomas Circle—Update on Status of Revised Memorandum of Understanding—Jerry Parisella,Asst. City Solicitor The Assistant City Solicitor will ask the Board to go into Executive Session to update them on the status of the revised Memorandum of Understanding for Tony Tiro and the City regarding the project on Thomas Circle. This is just an update for the Board, and no action will be required to be taken by the Board. 54 Lawrence Street—Request for amendment to previously granted Special Permit—R-2 District— Pedro Jimenez The applicant is requesting an amendment to the previously approved Special Permit to allow for the newly constructed roof to remain. The roof extends out farther than allowed in the permitted plans. 107 Federal Street—Request for Special Permit - R-2 District—Christine McCleam The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the use of the existing property as an artist gallery/graphic design business in the Two-Family Residential district. A previous decision (dated 1995) allowed the site to be used as a flower shop. The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 5-3, lists the Special Permit uses permitted and excluded for the R-2 District. 1 9 50 Palmer Street—Request for amendment to previously granted Variance—B-1 District—Salem Point Rental Properties, LLC The applicant is requesting that the previously approved variance be amended to allow the applicant to sell all of the proposed units as condominiums. The previously approved variance allowed the applicant to sell nine (9) units, and rent the remaining six (6) units. The applicant has requested the change to allow for the sale of all fifteen (15) units due to market conditions and the feasibility of keeping all of the units as affordable housing for the required fifty (50) year period that has been recorded at the South Essex Registry of Deeds. All other conditions of the previously approved variance (dated July 14, 2004) would remain in effect. 26 Tremont Street—Request for Special Permit - R-1 District—Paul Prevey The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to allow a home occupation in a Single-Family Residential District. The petitioner is proposing to use a single room on the site for a message therapy business. No changes to the structure are proposed. 15 Robinson Road—Request for Special Permit- BPD District—Mountain Realty Trust The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to expand a currently existing nonconforming use to allow operations for receiving and processing earth products including loam and crushed rock. The operations will require the use of a rock crusher and loam screener. The site is currently, and would continue to be used, as a junk yard, is addition to the expanded operations for earth products. 2 CFTIFOF SALEiVFMASS/kCHUSETTS — -- _ -- BOARD OF APPEAL N 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR c �� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 C- m TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 o,- r f}s AMENDED AGENDA D ;F3- BOARD c3-BOARD OF APPEAL ti m D JULY 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 31 20 3 /20 WASIE NGTON STREET r Board Members will meet in executive session to discuss a litigation settlement regarding Thomas Circle, Map 8, Lots 20, 21 and 22 and 15 Robinson Road with City Solicitor Elizabeth Renard. Executive session will begin at 6:00 p.m. Petition of Nicholas Osgood seeking a Variance and/or Special Permit �.cm • from side setback to allow a third floor deck for the property located at 4 BENTLEY /tp STREET R-2. CONTINUED: Petition of Daniel&Jacquelyn Robinson requesting a Variance from side setback to construct a deck for the property located at 55 TURNER STREET R2 CONTINUED: Petition of North River Canal, LLC requesting a Variance from lot v area per dwelling unit(3500sf)to allow 1468 %:sq feet per unit for the property located at 28 GOODHUE R-2. - f 0,4MVC40 Petition of George Van Cott seeking to vary the design approved previously in May of 2005 for the property located at 12 PUTMAN STREET R-2. ,f'!r Petition of Frank dt Cynthia Beckhusen ctp�pvbv: requesting Variances from side and rear � setback and lot coverage to construct a two story addition for the property located at 22 WALTER STREET R-2. F RM—ion of Carey Palmquest requesting relief from Section 7-3,off-street pa _ijg for The property located at 59 'x4 SUMMER STREET R-2. Petition of Edward Curtin requesting Variances from rear yard setback to construct a One story addition for the property located at 10 ORCHARD TERRACE R-2. ctpPr Petition of 92 Derby Street Trust requesting a Special Permit per Section 8-4 to 1 expand an existing non-conforming 3 story structure for the property located at 92 DERBY STREET B-1. Petition of Joseph Martino`requesting Variances from number of stories to allow partial third floor for the property located at 16 ABBOTT STREET R-1. 10. Old/New Business _. .. .� : w. f �"1 /"4�r�4 'C. �' *S♦ i A Ci[�CSS: r�'n 1 ,_ G '.� . 0 T ti'PS - - -�"i ""m� S�"►1� ��-fp�,,Z -- S9 S 'o�(� , �°� -0 IZ 'FY — V f ^VJ9) a ooT/ — Irv)' fir^ a' 'lIV r 1992 � . 1 Y ' ._,. ��,,.1 e ...J :.. ttr�. .::ts _ t 1 ; � 1. \'\ _\ ti'5.1,�5'-` -.1^...t us '.�� ilf�t t2 ry, P' tr:ri �.1 r i�p•,t� rr 4' }' + t n .. 1 i' < •t<s• rte; .w\' �;.=�%^Y . ., ��,. �:• �.r,-. • ,}��r�1 'r � r r .t f. 3 ,. C . � t -�;-� ,; _,� C �.tt �; �� 1 �•er...i�..r y.y.�t r �. i j�zi{:. a .. i }' h r r r _ r d:lt' y` i s .i �... n._ tt� � � [.. 1 J,, � .h= y. h �1-'R b ti- t.. _ .yt �r ...i..r isc dw.:"4e. s>.`v ,y S;;`-.1 . t ++J 1 i.�,.. � .. ,.is Z�+ s y 3- ..+. -- . .,_-, . _., v...._y...�.. .�.._ _.. . .. {, .•,Gass U {,CS } t.C; a /. . �ti r . .,. 7 ,i"'t 1 ` 1 1 d. 5 £` ``\I •e I't f Ito Orc(-kor-� Tt:rrace_ — V�rvad^ �lq4 I M� Geohil. S �o rcQ Q c".r Pcwt F (1 r� t°•. S - T } : r � r - 1ti 7 f � ' 6 ,- 1 -Za �- .2-� G�r404�--r __ y=� J h . 't., y..,.r � ;t t i. ,_ )3 Robc,+ �o 5 t (I MV(c-(DPA Mew � Sa kA Mk 01770 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Dan Merhalski, Staff Planner Department of Planning & Community Development DATE: July 10, 2006 RE: Agenda—July 19, 2006 Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo Update on ZBA requested Items: • The Board had requested that I look into how to prevent non-permitted owners from renting their properties illegally—I spoke with Tom St. Pierre and he told me that the only way to prevent this kind of infraction is for a neighbor, etc, to notify the Building Dept. of the infraction. It can then be dealt with as a zoning violation, and may be taken to court if the infraction is not corrected at the request of the Building Inspector. The following is a brief description of the agenda items. Please feel free to contact me at the Department of Planning &Community Development at 978-745-9595, extension 311, if you have any questions. EXECUTIVE SESSION—Thomas Circle—Beth Rennard Beth will be briefing the Board on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by former Mayor Usovicz regarding the sewer and water services for the 4-lot subdivision on Thomas Circle. She will speak with the Board about renegotiating the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, subject to Planning Board approval for any changes to the Subdivision Decision. The purpose of the renegotiation is to correct issues with the city's right to conduct work on private property ,needing ZBA approval to negotiate certain items and costs incurred by the city through the MOU with the outcome of those negotiations. 4 Bentley Street—Request for Variance and Special Permit—R-2 District-Nicholas Osgood The applicant is returning to the ZBA after the Hearing in May to request a setback variance for a secondary egress stairway that has already been constructed on the site. The applicant has also constructed a deck and catwalk on the top of the egress structure and is applying for a Special Permit for this deck and catwalk. Petitions have been received from neighbors both in support of, 1 and against the requests for variance and special permit. The side setback requirement for the R-2 (Two-family Residential) district is ten (10) feet. The proposed structure does not specify where the structure's location is on the plans, however, the correspondence of the applicant states that the structure is "2 to 3 feet from each of the adjacent property lines". The rear setback in the R-2 District is 30 feet. 55 Turner Street—Request for Variance -R-2 District—Daniel and Jacquelyn Robinson The applicant is requesting a variance to the side setback requirement of ten (10) feet to allow for the construction of a deck approx. one (1) foot from the property line. No plan of the deck or the lot was submitted with the application. 12 Putnam Street—Request for Variance and Special Permit- R-2 District—George Van Cott The applicant is requesting that the previously approved variance and special permit decision dated April 26, 2005 be amended to allow for the construction of a three-story building, instead of a two and one-half story building. The proposed site will contain 4 condominium units. The previous decision allowed variances from lot width, size, number of stories, side and front yard setbacks and a special permit for the nonconforming use (Multi-family structure in a two-family district. 22 Walter Street—Request for Variance -R-2 District—Frank and Cynthia Beckhusen The applicant is requesting variances for front and rear setbacks, as well as lot coverage to allow construction of a thirty (30) by twenty-six (26) foot two-story addition to their existing residential site. The requested variances and the regulations are below: Requested Regulation Front setback (Southwick St.) 0 ft. 15 ft. Front setback (Walter St.) 2 ft. 15 ft. Rear setback 19 ft. 30 ft. Lot Coverage 41% 35% 59 '/2 Summer Street—Request for Variance and Special Permit - R-2 District— George Van Cott The applicant is requesting that the previously approved variance and special permit decision dated April 26, 2005 be amended to allow for the construction of a three-story building, instead of a two and one-half story building. The proposed site will contain 4 condominium units. The previous decision allowed variances from lot width, size, number of stories, side and front yard setbacks and a special permit for the nonconforming use (Multi-family structure in a two-family district. 10 Orchard Terrace—Request for Variance - R-1 District—Edward and Carol Curtin The applicant is requesting variances to construct a nine (9) foot by fourteen (14) foot, 1 story addition to their residence. The requested variance for rear setback is to reduce the required 2 setback from thirty (30) feet to twelve (12) feet. 92 Derby Street—Request for Special Permit- B-1 District—Derby Street Trust /John Paskowski The applicant is requesting a special permit per Sections 8-4 and 8-6 of the City Zoning Ordinance to expand a pre-existing non-conforming structure in the Business Neighborhood District (B-1). They plan to expand the third floor by adding a deck and more enclosed living space. The addition will be over the currently existing footprint and will not enlarge the property's lot coverage. The special permit is required due to the existing structure s' location within the setbacks for the lot. Tom is contacting the applicant for a plot plan to determine the exact amount of relief requested for the decision. 16 Abbott Street—Request for Variance - R-1 District—Joseph and Jodi Martino The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for expansion of their residence from a 1-story residence to a 3-story residence. The current zoning in the Single-Family Residential district only allows for 2 '/2 story buildings. The proposed height of the building of 33' 7 1/2" is under the required 35' limit. The amount of lot coverage will not be changed. 3 31-bii PLOT PLAN OF LAND IN SALEM, MA., DATE: 6-20-06 SCALE: 1" = 20' OFFSETS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE BY TAPE SURVEY BAY STATE SURVEYING ASSOCIATES INC. 100 CUMMINGS CENTER,SUITE#316J BEVERLY, MA., 01915 OF �Ac O'r ROBERT bN JAMES o SOTIROS ti - U No.26094 O G STEC.L� D g ' 1 r� I !Z STOXV Jwoo[) 31 �OT 3 v ORCHARD wT d UITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR Lli ; �I� ;ALEN, "IA SALEM„iMASSACHUSETTS-01970sr�r.++ +a+nrCL`;K'S OFFICE . ........... . TELEPHONE: 978-743-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 1906 MAR I b P 2: 40 AMENDED BOARD OF APPEAL AGENDA MARCH 29, 2006, 6:30 P.M. 3`" FLOOR— 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. CONTINUED: Petition of Northeast Animal Shelter Inc. requesting a Special Permit per Section 8-5 to allow existing non-conforming use (car dealership) to be converted to an Animal Shelter for the property located at 347 HIGHLAND AVENUE BPD 2. Petition of Sean O'Connor requesting a remand order of the land court to rehear a Special Permit per Section 5-2 (b) 11 to convert historic carriage house to a single family unit for the property located at 26 CHESTNUT STREET R-1 3. CONTINUED: Petition of RCG 90 Lafayette LLC requesting a Variance from Article VI, Table III as well as a Variance from parking, dimensional variances requested are side yard setback, floor area ratio and maximum lot coverage, parking relief sought is for 1 space per unit and parking stall depth of 18' for the property located at 90 LAFAYETTE STREET B-5 Sally M gh Clerk of the Board This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Boardw City Hall Ave., Salem, Mass. on 16 aQo(= at J: 4o N in accordanou wO Chap. 3$ Sec. 23A III 23'8 of M.G.L. ot+olrA CITY OF SALEM,, MASSACHUSETTS ' x �+, BOARD OF APPEAL z .e 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE,: 978-745-9595 TetmEW� FAX:.978-740-9846 - KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL c �� MAYOR y L*+1 AGENDA C' BOARD OF APPEAL AUGUST 16,2006 6:30 P.M. ornrn rn 3`d FLOOR,ROOM 313-IN WASHINGTON STREET T-- 22:1 C-). D Executive Session to discuss the amended memorandum of understanding for 7-1ZJ`)F�IOMAS CIRCLE. 1-0 I. CONTINUED:Petition of Daniel&Jacquelyn Robinson requesting a Variance from side setback to construct a deck for the property located at 55 TURNER STREET R2. 2. CONTINUED: Petition of Carey Palmquest requesting relief from Section 7-3,off-street parking for the property located at 591/2 SUMMER STREET R-2. 3: .CONTINUED:Petition of North River Canal,LLC requesting a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit(3500so to allow 1468 '/2 sq feet per unit for the property located at 28 GOODHUE R-2. 4. Petition of Saul Bazragan requesting a Special Permit per Section 5-2 (b) (1) to allow a Home Occupation for the property located at 26 TREMONT STREET R-2. 5. Petition of Pedro Jimenez seeking to a modification of the previously granted Special Permit to allow additional roofed area over decks for thePmPay located at 54 LAWRENCE"STREET R2. 6. Petition of Salem Point Rental Properties seeking an amendment to the original decision (7/14/04) to allow all 15 units to be sold as owner occupied units for the property located at 50 PALMER STREET B-L 7. Petition of AAA Enterprises&Services,Inc. seeking a Special Permit per Section 8-3 to allow a portion of the premises to be used for earth processing activities such as rock,soil,loam crushing of rock and screening loam for the property located at 15 ROBINSON ROAD BPD. 8. Petition of Christine McCleam requesting a Special Permit per Section 8-3 to allow a graphic art business and in gallery for the property located at 107 FEDERAL STREET R-2. 9 O /New Business. j Clerk,Board of Appeals a ' This notice p08t6d On "OffIC10 808641 8066 City Full Ave., Ssl0m, ibl ss. cin ,�(J� j Z ® at 3 ,�/yf Ire a=rdanf with (:i�l,�a n`. a 2313 ®t MI.G.L