The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS coN++��yDrr�,go CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 1 / SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 DDS FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING December 19, 2007- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 314 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Qbv,1�t.-.A L Robin Stein,Chair 1. Approval of Minutes o November 14, 2007 2. Continued: Petition of Sean Pray and Richard Smith requesting to modify a previous special permit decision to allow an exterior sign to remain for the property located at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD [R-21. • 3. Petition of Robert Cucurull requesting to appeal the Building Inspector's decision to deny a sign permit for All Star Collision located at 171 BOSTON STREET in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. 4. Petition of Tri-City Sales, Inc and Tri-City Realty, Inc requesting a Variance to allow two (2) principle buildings and uses on the lot located at 262-272 Highland Ave [R-1 and B-21 while approval is being obtained from the Land Court to subdivide theP arcel. 5. Petition of Michael Redfern requesting a Variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from a side lot line (5'), to allow a shed to remain 2 from the side lot line at 4 Andrew St [R-21. 6. O1dlNew Business — o Revised Board of Appeals Application Package = o Vote to adopt 2008 Meeting Schedule l_J 7. Adjournment ° r7-, l his notice postsd on "oj�ie'sol Bulletin Board" — City Hall salun Mass. an � 160/l/ at /fJ.' 1 � its 231 & 3)3 o�M-G-L- City of Salem DPCD Meeting Sign In Sheet 2e Board: iZ�l'l /a7 Date: Name Mailing Address Phone # Email -f ;k�4Q �e4v\ An9re ��sg� � w qts �sa ¢-�9oe 63 Zfe S37 • y oc�rrq CITY OF SALEM , � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND yJX, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Amy Lash, Staff Planner DATE: December 12, 2007 RE: Meeting Agenda- December 19, 2007 Hello Board Members, • Robin, Beth, Rick and Steve will be in attendance on December 19`h. Annie, Rebecca, and Bonnie please let me know if your plans change and you are able to make it. Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of November 14, 2007 ➢ Petitions and Materials for New Agenda Items ➢ Examples of Plan Requirements in Other Communities ➢ Revised Application Package ➢ 2008 Meeting Schedule Notes on Agenda Items: 3 Hawthorne Blvd The Petitioners are currently in violation for the exterior sign they have up for Europa Antiques. The sign was permitted by the City mistakenly when the zoning district was thought to be B-5. The property abuts the B-5 district, though it is actually zoned R-2. Additionally the property is subject to a special permit for a home occupation granted by the Board of Appeals on June 23, 2005. Within the special permit decision Finding of Fact#12 specified the location of signage would be inside a side window. Condition #14 specifies the "Petitioner shall display not more than one non-electric sign of an area not greater than 1 '/2 square feet and attached against the building and not protruding". • The petitioners came to the Board on September 19, 2007 requesting to modify the previous special permit decision to allow their exterior sign to remain. At this meeting the petitioners said they were not living at the dwelling unit. Art. V, § 5-3 (b) (1) (b) requires that a home occupation "be operated only by the residents of the dwelling units, with not more than (1) regular employee not residing in the dwelling unit". After discovering this violation the Board determined that they could not act on the petitioner's request and the item would need to be continued. In October the petitioners requested the item be continued until December 1 g1 because they were traveling • outside of the country. Tom St. Pierre is away this week, and he is the one who has most recently been in contact with the petitioners. He can fill us in on whether they will be withdrawing their request or what actions the Board can take. 171 Boston Street The request is to appeal the Building Inspector's decision to deny a sign permit for AIIStar Collision located at 171 Boston Street. The application form lists Robert Curcurull as the owner of AIIStar Collision, and David Battcock of Signco Graphics as the Petitioner. Neither came to the November meeting, though the manager of AIIStar Collision came. Since this person was not authorized to act, the Board continued the item upon the condition that an extension form was signed. Robert Curcurull has signed the form and will be at the December meeting to present the petition. The proposed 25-foot tall, internally illuminated freestanding sign is located in an Entrance Corridor. The Entrance Corridor Overlay District Ordinance states that the Sign Review Committee shall be allowed to limit the size of signs to half the size allowed in the underlying zone. At the applicant's property, the underlying zone allows a 25-foot tall freestanding sign and the Entrance Corridor Ordinance allows limiting the sign height to 12.5 feet. The Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) staff worked with the applicant to determine if there was a strong rationale to permit a sign larger than half the height allowed in the underlying zone. In response to the applicant's concern that a 12.5 foot tall sign would not be visible to passing drivers, DPCD was willing to recommend an externally illuminated sign of 20-feet that would be no higher than the roof line. However, the applicant opted not to revise the design. • Ultimately, the City Planner recommended to the Building Inspector to deny the sign because of the height and because it did not comply with the recommendations of the Salem Commercial Design Guidelines, which recommend that all freestanding signs be externally illuminated. The applicant initially applied for a Sign Permit in May of 2007. At that time, an illegal sign was located on the on the property's fence and the applicant was informed that their application could not be approved until the illegal sign was removed. In June of 2007 the applicant informed DPCD that the illegal sign had been removed and DPCD staff began working with the applicant to revise the proposed sign to meet the Entrance Corridor Ordinance. It is noted that the applicant participated in the City's Storefront Improvement Program in 2003. Several sign design options and a three-dimensional rendering of the building were created by DPCD's design consultant. However, the proposed sign does not incorporate the design work completed in 2003. 262-272 Highland Tri-City Sales, Inc and Tri-City Realty, Inc are requesting a Variance to allow two (2) principal buildings and uses on the lot located at 262-272 Highland Ave [R-1 and B-2]. This request is to allow the construction of the project to begin, without having to wait for final Land Court approval to create two separate lots. This request does not change the site plan previously approved by the Planning Board. Only one principal building and use is allowed per lot according to the definition of a lot. • Art. Il, § 2-2 "Lot: A parcel of land occupied or designed to be occupied by a principal building and the accessory buildings or uses customarily incident to the principal building, including such yards and other open spaces as are L •. 1 arranged and designed to be used with such buildings. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved public street and may consist of a single lot • of record, a portion of a lot of record, or a combination of such lots or portions of lots of record, provided that such lot is used for only one (1) principal use." 4 Andrew St The petitioner is requesting a Variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from a side lot line (5), to allow for a shed to remain 2' from the side lot line at 4 Andrew St. The petitioner placed the shed in its current location when he first moved to the property. Photographs were submitted that I will pass around at the meeting. Revised Application Package & Plan Requirements in Other Communities As you will see when reviewing this month's petitions, we have started to use the new petition form. Because the Board is still considering revising the plan requirements I have not been giving out the cover letter. In your packet you will find the application requirements from several other communities in Massachusetts. I've included these to provide you with examples of plot plan requirements. Most communities require that certified plot plans accompany all applications. Belmont requires plot plans only for new construction. Amherst requires plot plans "unless waived by the Board"; however, Amherst also states that site plans, floor plans, management plans, memoranda or any other documents that the Building Commissioner or zoning staff deem necessary must be provided. In effect this allows plan requirements to be waived by staff ahead of time. Beverly • allows mortgage plans only if the project greatly exceeds required setbacks (generally, at least 5 feet). I did not come across examples of other communities that allow mortgage plans. Please review these examples so that we may discuss plan requirements at the 12/19 meeting, if you are not attending you could email me your comments. I've included the Board's Rules and Regulations in your packet; see Article II Section 3 "Plans to Accompany Petition". While the Subdivision Control Law is explicit about a public hearing being required for planning boards to amend rules and regulations, the Massachusetts General Laws are silent on this issue for boards of appeal. Chapter 40A, Sections 9 and 12 specify the board of appeals can adopt rules and must file the rules in the office of the city or town clerk. Beth Rennard is looking into this issue of whether a public hearing is needed or not. 2008 Meeting Schedule At the Board's request the 2008 Meeting Schedule has been revised so that there is not a meeting during February school vacation, the February meeting will be on the 13`h (the second Wednesday). The Board should take a vote to officially adopt the 2008 schedule. • toNnrr,� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS yc {Qa, BOARD OF APPEAL w 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR a / SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • � % TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �`t'Mmeoo� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR December 21, 2007 Sean Pray and Richard Smith :.. 3 Hawthorne Blvd. n Salem,MA 01970 -J RE: 3 Hawthorne Blvd. Dear Mr. Pray and Mr. Smith: The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday, December 21, 2007 to discuss your • request for a Withdrawal Without Prejudice for the request to modify a previous special permit decision. The Board decided by a unanimous vote (4-0) to approve the request for Withdrawal Without Prejudice. If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me in the Department of Planning &Community Development at (978) 619-5685. Sincerely, Amy J. Lash Staff Planner Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk -J 44 �oNmr�.ao CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL r' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 1 FE SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • '°�"'� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR January 3, 2008 I Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals i n_ Petition of Tri-City Sales, Inc and Tri-City Realty requesting a Variance to allow two (2) principal buildings and uses on the lot located at 262-272 Highland Ave [R-1 and B-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was held on December 19, 2007 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Elizabeth Debski, Rick Dionne and Steve Pinto. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to section § 2-2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow two principal buildings and uses on one lot. Statements of fact: • 1. Attorney Joseph Correnti, presented the petition on behalf of Tri City Sales, Inc and Tri-City Realty for the property at 262-272 Highland in the R-1 and B-2 Zones. 2. Plans accompanying the petition are entitled "Tri-City Plaza Layout and Materials Plan", Sheet C-2, dated November 13, 2006 revised December 11, 2006 prepared by Christopher Iannuszzi, PE. 3. This project has been reviewed by the Salem Planning Board and received approval by a decision dated April 9, 2007. The project involves the demolition of the existing Tri-City Sales building and the construction of two (2) new buildings, one for CVS/pharmacy and the other for Tri-City Sales/Dunkin Donuts. There are no proposed changes to those plans or that decision. 4. The purpose of this petition is to allow for the construction of each of the new buildings prior to the actual subdivision of the lot. The intent of the owners, as show on the plans, is to divide the site into two lots: Lot A, the CVS lot; and Lot B, the Tri-City Sales lot. 5. The underlying land is comprised of a mixture of 14 registered and recorded parcels, which makes the subdivision subject to Land Court Approval. A petition • has been filed with the Land Court but the timing of such approval is unknown. The petitioner is requesting variances as not to lose the entire construction season. 't 2 6. Lot is defined in the Salem Zoning Ordinance as follows: Art. II, § 2-2 "Lot: A parcel of land occupied or designed to be occupied by a • principal building and the accessory buildings or uses customarily incident to the principal building, including such yards and other open spaces as are arranged and designed to be used with such buildings. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved public street and may consist of a single lot of record, a portion of a lot of record, or a combination of such lots or portions of lots of record, provided that such lot is used for only one (1) principal use." 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: 1. The variance requested is not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions; a literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship preventing the project to move forward as scheduled. 2. There are circumstances relating to the land, specifically it's registration and the approval required by the Land Court, which does not generally affect the zoning district in which it is located. 3. The approved project would not be changed by this decision and this decision • would allow the approved project to go forward as planned; therefore desirable relief may be granted to allow this request without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. To enable the approved project to go forward, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance § 2-2, specifically the terms limiting the number of principal buildings and uses per lot to one(1). 2. 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;(Stein, Debski, Dionne, and Pinto) none(0) opposed, to grant 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 ind regulations. ., -J f 3 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner and as previously approved by the •. Planning Board. 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 Inspection is to 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. 8. This request is being granted only for the plans approved by the Planning Board in decision dated April 9, 2007 and is not meant to allow for any other principal uses. Robin Stein, 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 Essex South Registry of Deeds. I V'. LJ • y ,poNDITggO' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �dl / SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 - W� FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 1 January 3, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals J Petition of Michael Redfern requesting a Variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from a side lot line (5 feet), to allow a shed 2 feet from the side lot line at 4 Andrew St [R-2]. A public hearing on the above Petition was held on December 19, 2007 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Elizabeth Debski, Rick Dionne and Steve Pinto. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to section § 7-8 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory structure nearer than five (5) feet to a side lot line. Statements of fact: 1. Michael Redfern presented the petition for the property he owns at 4 Andrew Street [R-2]. 2. A sketch showing the location of the shed, a mortgage plan, photos, and specifications for the shed accompanied the petition. 3. The petitioner constructed a shed in his backyard (2' from the side lot line) when he moved to the property in October 2006 without realizing he needed a permit. 4. To maximize the space in his small backyard,the petitioner would like to keep the shed in this location and is seeking a variance from the Board of Appeal to do so. 5. There was no opposition to the location of the shed at the public hearing. 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: 1. The variance requested is not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions; a literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. • 2. There are circumstances relating to the land, which does not generally affect the zoning district in which it is located, which make it difficult to site a shed 5' from 2 the side lot line without taking away from the petitioner's enjoyment of their rear yard. 3. The location of the shed is not out of character with the neighborhood and it has not caused any problems to the neighbors since it was placed there in October of 2006; therefore desirable relief may be granted to allow this request without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. To allow for the shed, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance § 7-8, specifically the distance an accessory structure can be from a side lot line. 2. 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(Stein, Debski, Dionne, and Pinto) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. This decision allows the shed to remain in its current location only. 2. Following the appeal period, the petitioner shall obtain a building permit. L Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, n- 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 Essex South Registry of Deeds. • _a,�ON�ITq.q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 • '�' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Doi FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday December 19, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, the Zoning Board voted upon the following items: Petition of: Tri-City Sales, Inc and Tri-City Realty Location: 262-272 Highland Ave Request: Variance to allow two principal buildings and uses on the lot located at 262-272 Highland Ave. Description: The Salem Zoning Ordinance allows for only one principal building and one principal use on a lot. The intent of the owners is to divide the site into two lots: Lot A, the CVS lot; and Lot B, the Tri-City Sales lot. The land is comprised of registered and recorded • parcels, which makes the subdivision subject to Land Court Approval. A petition was filed with the Land Court but the timing of such approval is unknown. The Petitioner is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of each of the new buildings prior to the actual subdivision of the lot. The project which was previously approved by the Planning Board would not be changed by this decision. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk January 3, 2008 Petition of: Michael Redfern Location: 4 Andrew Street Request: Variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from a side lot line (5 feet), to allow a shed 2 feet from the side lot line at 4 Andrew St. Description: Petitioner is requesting a variance to allow a shed in the rear yard at 4 Andrew Street to remain in its existing location. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk January 3, 2008 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. �r�,/�� /�y�p8 ,� 0 of CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL *' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR ti AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING November 14, 2007- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 314 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET J Robin Stem,Chair n 1. Approval of Minutes o October 17, 2007 2. Petition of Gary Parker requesting a Variance from number of stories allowed (2 %2) to allow a third floor shed dormer for the property located at 10 LARCHMONT RD [R-1]. • 3. Petition of Robert Cucurull requesting to appeal the Building Inspector's decision to deny a sign permit for All Star Collision located at 171 BOSTON STREET in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. 4. Old/New Business o Discussion-Revised Board of Appeals Application Package 5. Adjournment raltns�/notice /Board Boa c4iy ' xCnD •. � ryy i • City of Salem DPCD Meeting Sign In Sheet Board: �� Date: 11 / 19 lo� Name Mailing Address Phone # Email a co �.b CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL i' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR - ' • ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �Tfv� P TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 o� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ~� MAYOR November 16, 2007 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Gary Parker requesting a Variance from number of stories allowed (2 %) to allow a third floor shed dormer for the property located at 10 LARCHMONT ROAD [R-1]. A public hearing on the above Petition was held on November 14, 2007 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Bonnie Belair, Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran and Annie Harris. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to section § 6-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance specifically from the maximum number of stories allowed. • Statements of fact: 1. The Petitioner, Gary Parker, presented the petition for the property he owns at 10 Larchmont Rd in the Residential One Family (R-1) Zoning District. 2. Plans accompanying the petition are entitled"Parker House, 10 Larchmont Road, Salem, MA", Sheets A-1 & A-2, dated August 8, 2007, and prepared by Gregory F. Heppner Architect, Inc. 3. The residence has a side-gabled roof and the petitioner proposes to construct a third floor shed dormer on the rear side of the residence. The addition of a dormer will provide the petitioner's family with the additional living space that they need. 4. The dormer would be a half-story higher than the maximum number of stories allowed (2 Yz). 5. The petitioner presented photos of some of the neighboring residences to illustrate that the proposed addition would be in character with the rest of the neighborhood. 6. The proposed dormer would be approximately 29' wide, 7 %: feet tall, and 13' deep. It would not be higher than the peak of the existing roof, and it would not • exceed the maximum allowed height of 35'. 2 7. The lot is approximately 50' wide, and 100' deep and the residence is situated at the front of the lot along Larchmont Street. The rear yard depth is approximately • 80', leaving a significant distance between the proposed addition and the property to the rear. 8. The Petitioner represented that no plumbing will be installed in the shed dormer area. 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: 1. The variance requested is not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions; a literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. 2. There are circumstances relating to the structure's design and location on the lot, not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. 3. The massing of the residence with the addition of the dormer would not be out of character with the neighborhood; therefore desirable relief may be granted to allow for this additional half-story without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. • On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. To enable the proposed dormer, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance § 6-4, specifically"maximum height of buildings (stories)". 2. 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, six (5) in favor (Stein, Debski, Belair, Hams, and Curran) none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. 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 is shall be strictly adhered to. 3 • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of 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. Robin Stein, 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 Fled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • oN�wr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR f C SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday November 14, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, the Zoning Board voted upon the following items: Petition of. Gary Parker Location: 10 Larchmont Rd Request: Variance from the number of stories allowed (2 %) to allow a third floor shed dormer Description: Petitioner proposes to construct a third floor shed dormer on the rear of the residence, measuring approximately 29' wide, 7 %] feet tall, and 13' deep. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk November 16, 2007 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9& 15 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. oeolr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS n BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR j SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 -�� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-7409846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ,^1 MAYOR N cn Notice of Rescheduled Meeting Ln You are hereby notified that the regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, to be held on November 21, 2007 at 6:30 in Room 313, has been rescheduled to Wednesday,November 14,2007 at 6:30 pm in City Hall Annex, Room 314, 120 Washington Street. m Robin Stein Chair • Tl'-cls notles w %'ly Hail �s;..:9 ;; kyr:-°3, t1 4udFs a tO /+pin ddPFl �.v" P)$ �4I (�+ Zvi :'♦ lV.f•_ ; tst,,`v�. v �..�1 38 „ft, A 0{Irr CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS �S BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING October 17, 2007- 6:30 P.M. J 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 1. Approval of Minutes o o September 19,2007 -- 2. Petition of Edward A. Potvin requesting a Variance from the number of stories allovw r (2 %)to allow a third floor roof deck and a Special Permit to modify an existing non- conforming building for the property located at 12 HANSON STREET [R-21. 3. Petition of Helen Sides requesting a Variance from rear yard setback and a Special Permit to modify an existing non-conforming structure,to allow for a second story balcony for the property located at 1A DANIELS STREET COURT [R-21. • 4. Continued-Petition of Riverview Place LLC requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit(7-21 (k), Variance from off street parking requirements 7-21 (1)and 7-3 (g),Variance from number of stories and height of three buildings 7-21 (m)(1),Variance from number of exterior entrances for dwelling units 7-21 (e)(2)(a),Variance of buffer area 7-2 1(m)(1)(c) at 72 FLINT STREET AND 67-69 & 71 MASON STREET INRCC). 5. Continued-Petition of Sean Pray and Richard Smith requesting to modify a previous special permit decision to allow an exterior sign to remain for the property located at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD [R-21.---Requested Continuance to December 19, 2007 6. Old/New Business o Discussion- Rescheduling of November 21, 2007 Meeting for Thanksgiving Holiday o Discussion-Revised Board of Appeals Application Package 7. Adjournment This notice posted on "Official Bulletin e0"N City Hall Y'alam, ti1aSS. 01 t /0, 1007 at 3:2 10m in acc rdiLnzio viih Chap. 39 Stec. 23A & 23B of M.G.L. • City of Salem DPCD Meeting Sign In Sheet Board: 2.13--,A\- Date: Name Mailing Address Phone # /Email , �PAr21�K -8AI t ��iEAN KL/l✓J`T /IJ `l Fl Jt/ `f AFD, a7/� "� LAr Y � + Sarun t2 �1Ansan �. teu ,V1A 978-X41-B74o tllo elf✓5gvuo�L� 9or1/a.-l�c.a+y nPc��E�1L��L 51�xu1ie�55�•C+,�ItuviPlF4 6th-- 835- 38Z°� kufiibfck�-�� gtio�.c� J69nHP �, (kw �'Sse �;w�Ctead�YWltl 3b Fe �' 9--yy��=(1-fU -�d�d • D S� h �K Ft , -F S''O rl !^ �e�ti wr. �e�/eJ�/'PN 7G u,c.�v�ev�ce S� �o�iuG dLot� to 3 J4--1 s ` VIC)00,, UA /) 7 VO coT /5 eft Q41 T-7,F7yyrFi-7 SMgro�cJ r City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Minutes of Meeting-Wednesday, October 17, 2007 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein(chairperson),Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski,Richard Dionne, Steve Pinto (alternate), and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Members absent: Annie Harris Business Items Petition of Sean Pray and Richard Smith requesting to modify a previous special permit decision to allow an exterior sign to remain for the property located at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD [R-2]. --- Requested continuance until December meeting. Robin Stein read a letter from Sean Pray requesting continuance for his petition for 3 Hawthorn Blvd. A motion was made by Bonnie Belair to continue the petition to December 19, 2007, seconded by Steve Pinto, and approved 5-0 (Beth Debski abstained). A motion was made by Steve Pinto to approve the September 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes, seconded by Bonnie Belair, and approved 5-0 (Beth Debski abstained). • Joanne Fitzgerald Mcrea gave a brief presentation about the Community Preservation Act(CPA). She said it was on the ballot for November and if passed it would cost an average home assessed at $500,000 an extra$32 per year. She said that the funds would go towards historic preservation, open space, and recreation. She said it would be a way to strike the state budget and there would be a 100% match from the State. 127 communities have taken advantage of it so far. After it was voted in a CPA committee would be formed. Public Hcarine Petition of Edward A.Potvin requesting a Variance from the number of stories allowed (2 1/2)to allow a third floor roof deck and a Special Permit to modify an existing non-conforming building for the property located at 12 Hanson Street [R-2]. Attorney Patrick Burke presented the petition of the Bass River Inc. He explained that Bass River runs programs to provide work and educational experience to mentally retarded adults. There are 65 adults, ages 22-65,participating in the programs at the 12 Hanson Street facility. The facility operates Monday-Friday, typically 9:00 am-3:00 pm and all the activities are staff supervised. They would like to provide program participants with an outdoor gardening experience, which is why they would like to build a roof deck. Rebecca Curran asked if this would be a container garden. Yes, it would be a container garden Atty. Patrick Burke replied. • Richard Dionne said he didn't have any problems with the proposed deck and is in support of it. Tom St.Pierre said he has been to the property on numerous occasions to do inspections and the • facility is very well run. Bonnie Belair said she is concerned with safety and asked if the deck would be locked off. Attorney Burke said yes, they would take those precautions and that all activities are staff supervised. Robin Stein asked if limits to keep the use of the deck to agricultural purposes should be incorporated. Beth Debski said she thought access to the deck to just be outside should be fine too. There being no further questions or comments, a motion was made by Bonnie Belair to approve the request for a Variance from the number of stories, and a Special Permit to modify an existing non- conforming structure to allow for the roof deck subject to seven(7) standard conditions and one (1) special condition that supervised use be required. The motion was seconded by Richard Dionne and approved 5-0 (Steve Pinto abstained). Petition of Helen Sides requesting a Variance from rear yard setback and a Special Permit to modify an existing non-conforming structure,to allow for a second story balcony for the property located at 1A DANIELS STREET COURT [R-2]. Architect, Helen Sides,presented the petition for the property owned by Hans Weedon. She said that they were at the Board only for the balcony. The balcony is off a planned second story addition. The zoning allows for the second story addition. She said she believed the existing setback is 16 ft,the new setback with the 3 ft balcony would be 13 ft. Bonnie Belair asked if there would be stairs coming down from the balcony. Helen said no there • would not. Katie Bickford(5 Daniels St Ct) asked why nobody was notified about the second story addition. Robin Stein explained that a second story is allowed by right. Robin said that what's being considered is a 3 ft impact into an existing no conforming setback and she did not think this would take away from the intent of the zoning ordinance. She asked if anybody wanted to entertain a motion. Beth Debski made a motion to grant the Variance from rear yard setback, and a Special Permit to modify an existing non-conforming structure to allow for a second story balcony subject to seven(7) standard conditions and one (1) special condition that there be no stairs leading down from the balcony. The motion was seconded by Richard Dionne and approved 5-0 (Steve Pinto abstained). Ward 3 Councilor Jean Pelletier asked that a better explanation about the height be given to the residents who came concerned with the second story. Tom St. Pierre showed the residents a copy of the plans and explained to them that the zoning ordinance allows for(2 1/2) stories. • 2 Continued Petition of Riverview Place LLC requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit 7- 21 (k),Variance from off street parking requirements 7-21 (m)(1),Variance from number of exterior entrances for dwelling units 7-21 (e)(2)(a),Variances of buffer area 7-21 (m)(1)(c) at 72 Flint Street and 67-69& 71 Mason Street [NRCC]. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition for Riverview Place LLC. Atty. Grover reintroduced the principals David Zion, Mike O'Brien, and David Walsh. He explained they have a purchase and sale agreement for the Salem Suede and Bonfanti sites. He introduced Stephen Livermore the project Architect, and Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey, as well as the traffic engineer Jeff Maxtutis of EarthTech. Arty. Grover explained that the proposed project would redevelop the Salem Suede and Bonfami leather factories for apartments. He wanted to focus on the changes that had been made to the plan since they had last been at the Board of Appeals. He feels the comments and concerns that they heard last time were in two areas: 1)the size and impact of the project on the neighbors and 2)the traffic problems already in existence. Atty. Grover explained that they had first submitted an application in June with 160 units. After having a neighborhood meeting they decided to reduce the number of units to 148, the number they had come to the Board of Appeals with. The proposal has now been reduce by 18 units,bringing the total to 130 units. 13 units (or 10%)will be affordable, 117 units will be market rate. Arty. Grover said the density per acre is 28 units/acre of market rate units, and about 32 units/acre including the affordable units. Atty. Grover said that the inclusion of the Bonfanti site is beneficial for marketability and quality • of the project. He said the difference between this whole site compared to others in the area is the significant cost to clean up and demolish the buildings. He said for these reasons it is a unique site that must be looked on its own. Last time they were seeking variances from parking, which they no longer need with 309 spaces proposed. He said they had met the requirements of 2 spaces per unit(260 spaces), 37 spaces are for the commercial space and 12 are earmarked for residents of Flint Street. Atty. Grover said that the variances the were seeking were for the density and the conditions of tY Y g tY the 50 ft.buffer and the use of separate exterior entrances. He presented Jeff Maxtutis of EarthTech to present an overview of the Traffic Impact Assessment. Jeff explained that he started by looking at the existing conditions as a baseline,then looking at the impact of the project,then looking at mitigation efforts to improve both the existing and projected conditions. Jeff explained that counts were done in September at commuter peak hours,which are from 7:00- 9:00 am and 4:00-6:00 pm. He said the highest volumes of traffic were between the hours of 7:30-8:30 am, and 4:30-5:30 pm. Accident data was also collected from MassHighway. The projections looked five years ahead, and projections were influenced by the traffic generation data available for the type of use. Apartments are expected to generate less traffic than homes owned and occupied by families. He said when the counts were than compared to the as of right use of an office development, and they came out significantly lower. Jeff said that suggested improvements include an easement which would allow the extension of Commercial Street, a flashing beacon at Flint and Mason, and a left tum lane on Tremont • (which would require the street to be widened slightly on the park side). Arty. Scott Grover said that the traffic impact assessment would be peer reviewed at the Planning Board stage. 3 • Architect Stephen Livermore presented a visual which showed both the existing footprint and the proposed. The proposed footprint would be smaller,and the building would be further from the river. He said that 62%would be two bedrooms. He showed street view perspectives of the proposed and existing structure. He said the massing at the edge of the sight would be greatly reduced. Bonnie Belair asked how 130 additional cars would not add to the poor traffic conditions. Jeff said it would not be 130 cars leaving at once and that the estimates assume that some residents would take transit. Bonnie said she was concerned about safety. If there is already a higher crash rate,how would we deal with this? Jeff said that by removing parking on Flint Street the site lines would be improved. Scott Grover mentioned that off street parking will be offered on the site. Steve Pinto asked how a traffic signal would be approved. Councilor Prevey said he believed there would be a process with the Police Department and Engineering Department. Robin Stein asked Arty. Scott Grover if his clients were willing to pay for the traffic light. Scott said yes they were. Beth Debski said that the Zoning Board was a step in a series of steps that the development would have to go through. She said the Planning Board would look at traffic in more detail. • Bonnie Belair asked if there was a lender in place. Any. Scott Grover said that MassDevelopment would be providing loan for acquisition and clean up. David Zion said that they have willing partners that will provide funding after the site is clean. Scott read a petition in support of the project, which was signed by forty-seven(47)neighborhood residents. He submitted the petition into the record. Robin Stein summarized a letter in support of the development which was submitted by John Hoskins of 22 Larchmont Rd and passed it around for the Board to see. Robin then read a memo from Lynn Duncan about the process that the project would go through following the Board of Appeals. The memo explained that there is still independent review required by three boards,the Planning Board,Design Review Board, and Conservation Commission. Robin opened the public portion of the hearing and invited members of the public to speak starting in the front right corner of the room and working around. Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey said he met with Mr. Grover yesterday and is encouraged that the project has been scaled back and that less relief is being requested. He urged the Board to think about density. He is concerned with the failing safety grade with regards to the traffic. He said that a project of this size and scope could be detrimental to the traffic problem. He said he's listened to the concerns and has taken them seriously. He wants to see the project go forward and feels that staying with the building that is currently there is unacceptable to everybody in the room. • At Large Councilor Thomas Furey said that both his parents worked in the leather industry and lived on Mason Street. Right now the area is blighted and he feels the proposed development would 4 improve the City at large. He feels that major compromises have been made and that it is a win-win • situation for the City. Elizabeth Bradt(20 Commercial Street)is concerned about the current state of the property. She said she had learned that her daughter and her friends has walked around on the property and found syringes. She is in support of getting rid of the blight and existing problems. Ward 7 Councilor Joseph O'Keefe sees pluses in the Riverview Place project. He is a fire protection engineer and feels that the current building is a fire trap. Raymond Harvey(84 Flint Street)has lived on Flint Street for 35 years. He said that he will be glad to see the existing buildings go. He said that he and his wife made a deal with one another that they would move away if there was a fire at Salem Suede,which damaged their property. At Large Councilor Joan Lovely said that the developers have brought down the density, and added adequate parking so she hopes the Board acts favorably. Martin Imm(174 Federal Street)worked on the Master Plan. He feels that the question for the ZBA is the hardship question. He said everybody wants the existing building comes down and that is clear. He said the developer's approach has been, "What can I afford to pay for the land?" He said that's the wrong question to ask and that they should start be determining what the land is worth. Why should the current owner receive more than what is appropriate? He wants to challenge the developer and ask, "What can you really pay for that?" He said more focus is need on hardship. Jim Treadwell (resident of Ward 6) is concerned that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance • shouldn't be deviated from. He said that on August 6"the Fire Department inspected Salem Suede and that things were in place in case of a fire. He questioned the numbers used by Mr.Maxtutis. He said the Master Plan recommended other traffic modifications and that the extension of Commercial Street could be accommodated on site. He said that 28 Goodhue only has 22 units/acre as opposed to 30, and that the Jefferson is also 22 units/acre. He said the Jefferson blends into the neighborhood with the townhouses on the edge. He said he strongly objects to the request to waive the buffer requirement. He said he was disappointed that there was no chance to meet with the developer following the August meeting. He said that the Bonfanti site is assessed at$640,000. Lorene Scanlon(75 and 77 Mason Street) said she was representing the Mack Park condominium development. She said she and the other condo owners feel that the development is too large for the neighborhood and she is concerned about the noise of 130 units. She feels traffic is a huge problem and mentioned there had been an accident very recently. She said she has been concerned about the redevelopment of the site since moving to Mason St. She thinks people are only signing the petition to get rid of the buildings. Pat Donahue (12 Dearborn Lane)does not feel that the development integrates with the neighborhood. He said the density is too much for 1 &2 family residences and that such a development belongs on Highland Ave or near a highway. He said the design looks like a new addition to Salem Hospital. He said that the variances will set a precedent for projects to come. Stephen Harris (148 North Street) feels that the parking issue has been addressed. He agrees with Ms. Belair that the biggest problem is people parking on the corner. He said the area could tum into a mega office complex which would mean that traffic doubles. • John Carr said he is a lifelong resident who worked on the NRCC zoning and that he served on the Historic Commission. He says it's difficult for Board members to absorb all of the information at the 5 meeting. He said that even with the density bonus from the affordable housing, there are still two times as many units as what is allowed. He said safety issues are separate from matters before the Board. He is not concerned with the first floor entrances,but he's concerned about the number of units. He said there isn't a market for office space. David Pelletier(12 Crombie Street) feels that the next step after the demolition of the building would be to build a parallel Flint Street for northbound traffic. He said the project design should have more creative solutions and that the cart is being put before the horse. He feels the Jefferson is an embarrassment and that he doesn't want a repeat of that. Betsy Bums(22 Beckford Street) said"Does zoning mean anything in this City?" She feels that the density is still more than 2x what is allowed and wants to know how this can be dismissed. She wonders about hardship and wants to know why when the principal is also an owner there can be hardship. Erin Lenz said that she is looking forward to this. She feels that there is an opportunity that shouldn't be turned away. She says she is for the project and wants to remind everyone that Salem is a city, and this is the scale of a project that belongs in a city. Jim Scanlon(Ward 6) says that he is a lifelong residents and he has always felt that the site was an eyesore. He thinks the opportunity to move forward should be seized. Bob Manuppelli (Barr Street) says the developers have given and given. He is upset by the people from other wards commenting on this project. He said that the traffic would be cut in half with traffic coming and going through different entrances. • Mary(last name unknown, a resident of Essex St) feels that Salem is very lucky to have a Master Plan and zoning to back it up. She said that some communities are not in this situation. She said the project is too dense and it doesn't fit in. In her opinion the developer hasn't proven hardship. The development team was given the opportunity to respond to public comments. David Zion talked about clean up costs. He said that the Bonfanti site would cost$750,000 to purchase, and $250,000 for clean up and demolition. The total cost would be one (1)million. If the site was only going to hold 20 units, after adding in permitting costs,the cost per unit would be in excess of$50,000. David Zion feels that the Bonfanti site hurts the project financially,but he feels it is key to the redevelopment of the area, he wants to leave a legacy. David said that in 1980 his father purchased the property for 1.1 million. He said his father was not the polluter and that he was actually the one who put in the water treatment facility. David said that with the inclusion of the Bonfanti site,the costs would be up to $35,000 per unit. David said that his father did have 10-15 inquiries of people interested in buying the site for residential development. Robin Stein brought it back to the Board for comments. Richard Dionne said that he applauds the developers for their efforts. He personally likes the design of the project. He feels 130 units is a lot, though something needs to be done. He said given the site and the support from the direct abutters he said he feels this is an excellent project he can go on with it. Steve Pinto said he felt as though something had to be done. He feels the hardship is legitimate; . he knows that it is a contaminated site that will require clean up. He is encouraged that the traffic signal may improve existing and future conditions. He said he appreciated how the developers have been very up front and flexible. 6 Bonnie Belair said she was opposed feeling it was way too dense,but she now feels that the hardship has been addressed. She feels that there will be no perfect project; she knows everybody wants the site cleaned up. She hopes the other concerns can be worked out as the development goes on in the process. Robin Stein reviewed the findings that the board needed to make in order to grant variances. She said that there must be unusual circumstances affecting the land or structures, literal enforcement of the ordinance would have to cause substantial hardship financial or otherwise, and that desirable relief may be granted if there is not substantial detriment to the public good, and if the relief does not derogate from the intent of the ordinance. She feels this is a unique and challenging site, and that the requirements for granting a variance have been met. She is pleased the applicant is going to work with the City on traffic mitigation. She said she believes the project fits within the bylaw. She feels that no project will ever be perfect and that there will never be agreement from everyone on what should happen on with the site. She feels that throughout the review process the project that will continue to be shaped resulting in a better end product. Beth Debski said that she feels that the project is a much better since the number of units was reduced and that the granting of the relief has been justified. She feels that many of the direct abutters are in support of the project. She is in support of the project. Rebecca Curran said that she feels they are 90% in compliance with the buffer zone requirement. She said that the zoning ordinance says in black and white that variances are allowed. She said she would have felt more comfortable with a pro forma analysis. She is glad the project has been reduced. • There being no further questions of comments,Bonnie Belair made a motion to grant variances from lot area per dwelling unit,to allow for common building entrances,and to allow construction within the buffer area, subject to five standard conditions and three special conditions. The special conditions are that there are to be 13 affordable units as required by the NRCC zoning, 12 parking spaces are to be designated for use by residents of Flint Street, and a 30 ft easement as shown on the plans should be granted to the City of Salem to allow for the extension of Commercial Street. The motion was seconded by Steve Pinto and approved 6-0 (Stein,Debski, Curran, Pinto,Belair,Dionne). Old/New Business Discussion-Rescheduling November 21"Meeting for Thanksgiving Holiday The November meeting needs to be rescheduled. Amy Lash said there are currently no applications. The Board decided that the meeting is to be rescheduled to November 10 if there are three applications by Wednesday,October 20 and canceled if there aren't enough applications Discussion-Revised Board of Appeals Application Package Amy asked if everyone had a chance to look at the revised Board of Appeals package. Rebecca Curran said she had made a few notes about the plan requirements. Rebecca's notes are going to be incorporated and Amy will send out the revised application again. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm Respectfully submitted: • Amy y. cask Staff Planner 7 �oNoir�.� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n 1(� To 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR November 1 , 2007 I Decision r- City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Y _` Petition of Bass River Inc. requesting a Variance from the number of stortes allowed (2 %:) to allow a third floor roof deck and a Special Permit to modify an existing non-conforming structure for the property located at 12 HANSON STREET [R-2]. A public hearing on the above petition was opened on October 17, 2007 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair and Elizabeth Debski. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to Section 9-5 and a special permit pursuant to Section 8-4 to construct a third (3`d) floor roof deck. 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. Attorney Patrick Burke presented the petition for the property owned by Bass River Inc. at 12 Hanson Street in the R-2 Zoning District. 2. Bass River Inc. provides mentally handicap adults with supervised work and educational experiences. The facility at 12 Hanson Street is open Monday thru Friday, typically between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm. 3. Bass River Inc. proposes to construct a third floor roof deck as shown on the plans prepared by Deer Hill Architects, LLC entitled "Proposed Roof Deck", dated June 8, 2007, sheets Al-A3. Said roof deck is approximately 28' x 19' and includes a stairway bulkhead. 4. The roof deck will be used for container gardening and it will provide program participants with the opportunity to get outside and learn new skills. Program participants will be supervised when using the proposed roof deck. . 5. A letter of support was submitted by Leo Jodoin (8 Hanson St) and Mark Chesley(6 Hanson St). 6. The Building Inspector, Thomas St. Pierre informed the Board of Appeals that the facility is well run and he has never found any problems when doing inspections 2 On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing • including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to enable the proposed development, which development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. hi consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Debski, Belair, Dionne, and Curran) none (0)opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a variance and 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 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any of the City Boards or Commissions having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Staff of the program will supervise all non-staff use of the 3rd floor roof deck. �Lla,n '_/'m . L . obi in Stein;'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 Essex South Registry of Deeds. �I . ONDITA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ..- SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 117,11 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL I MAYOR T,- November 1 , 2007 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Hans Weedon requesting a Variance from rear yard setback and a Special Permit to modify an existing non-conforming building, to allow for a second story balcony for the property located at 1A DANIELS STREET COURT [R-2]. A public hearing on the above petition was opened on October 17, 2007 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair and Elizabeth Debski. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to Section 9-5 and a special permit pursuant to • Section 8-4 to allow for a second story balcony. 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. Architect Helen Sides,presented the petition for the property owned by Hans Weedon at lA Daniels Street Court in the R-2 Zoning District. 2. The proposed balcony is part of a second story addition. The residence is currently one story and the Zoning Ordinance allows for 2 1/2. The requested relief is exclsuively for the balcony. 3. The proposed balcony is shown on the plans prepared by HF Sides Arch LLC entitled"Weedon Loft", dated January 23, 2007, sheets A3-A6. The Y x 10' proposed balcony is on the south side of the residence and it would extend into the already non-conforming rear yard by 3'. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning • District to enable the proposed development, which development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2 2. 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, Debski, Belair, Dionne, and Curran) none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a variance and special permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. 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 new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain approval from any of the City Boards or Commissions having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. There shall be no exterior stairs connecting to the balcony. Robin Stein, 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 Essex South Registry of Deeds. z i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS- BOARD ASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALl: m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • v 1 ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 �6r TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 _ FAX: 978-740-9846 L A KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR November 2, 2007 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Riverview Place LLC requesting Variances to allow for a minimum lot area of 1,440 square feet per dwelling unit, common building entrances, and to allow construction within the 50 foot buffer area for the properties located at 72 FLINT STREET AND 67-69 & 71 MASON STREET [NRCC]. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 22, 2007 and continued to September 19, 2007, and October 17, 2007 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on October 17, 2007 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein,Bonnie Belair, Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, and • Steven Pinto. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to section § 7-21 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance specifically from: minimum lot area per dwelling unit § 7-21 (k)(1), separate first floor entrances § 7-21 (e)(2)(a)(3), and buffer areas § 7-21 (m)(1)(c). Statements of fact: 1. The locus in is in the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC)District and includes 72 Flint Street (3.69 acres), 71 Mason Street (0.34 acres), and 67-69 Mason Street (0.11 acres) for a total of 4.14 acres (the "Locus"). Salem Suede, Inc. owns 72 Flint Street. The R.L.B. Realty Trust owns 67-69 and 71 Mason Street. 2. Plans accompany the Petition include the site plan prepared by Eastern Land Survey, entitled "Site Development Permit Plan", dated October 9, 2007, and elevations prepared by H.H. Morant & Co., Inc. Architects, entitled "Riverview Place: Schematic Roof Plan &Elevations", dated September 26, 2007. 3. A Traffic Impact & Assessment Study prepared by Earth Tech, Inc. was submitted with the Petition. EarthTech, Inc. was previously involved with the North River Canal Corridor Master Plan. The study estimates 871 new vehicle trips on a daily basis including 56 additional trips during the morning peak traffic period and 87 additional trips during the evening peak traffic period. 4. The petitioner proposes to erect three new structures with a total of 130 dwelling units on the 4.14 acre site (1,440 sf per dwelling unit). The Mason Street building will contain 5,540 sf of commercial space on the first floor with residential 2 apartments on the upper floors. Thirteen (13) units are to be affordable. The • original Petition proposed 164 residential units in addition to the proposed commercial space. 5. The project will provide 309 parking spaces of which, 260 parking spaces will be allotted to the residential units (2 spaces per dwelling unit), 37 parking spaces will serve the commercial space and 12 spaces will be reserved for residents of Flint Street. 6. The Locus has historically been used as a tannery. The existing buildings will be razed and extensive remediation will be undertaken to clean up the site prior to new construction. 7. Conditions of the Locus, including soil conditions are unique to it and not present other properties in the district. 8. Several City residents spoke saying they were not opposed to the request to allow common building entrances. 9. Approximately 10% of the structure on the Bonfanti site, 10% of one (1) structure on the Salem Suede site, and a portion of the roadway and parking on the western side of the Locus are within the 50 foot buffer zone. The existing industrial building is much closer to the abutting residences than will be the proposed new • structure. 10. Several City residents voiced opposition to the proposed density variance; many felt it deviated from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Many of these residents participated in the development of the NRCC Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 11. Several City residents spoke in support of the project; many of these residents felt it was an opportunity to change a blighted area. 12. At the August 22, 2007 meeting, the petitioner submitted a petition in support of the proposed plan with sixteen(16) signatures of residents from Flint, Mason, School, and Larchmont Streets. 13. At the October 17, 2007 meeting, the petitioner submitted forty-eight (48) petitions, signed by neighborhood residents, in support of the redevelopment plans. The petitions, prepared by Riverview Place LLC, state "by signing below, I wish to express my support for this proposed project described above and I urge the Board of Appeals to grant the relief from the City's Zoning Ordinance necessary to allow the project to proceed. I consider this to be a valuable opportunity to improve two properties that are a substantial blight to my neighborhood. I believe that the redevelopment of these properties will not only be beneficial to me as part of the immediate neighborhood, but also to the City as a whole". 3 14. Letters of support were also submitted by John Hoskins (22 Larchmont Rd), ), • James Scanlan (13 Bayview Circle), and At-Large Councilor Thomas Furey. 15. A letter was submitted by Howard and Maryellen Sullivan (1 Orchard Street) requesting decisions be made in concordance with the NRCC Master Plan. 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: 1. The variances requested are not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions; a literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. 2. There are circumstances including soil conditions and use and condition of the existing buildings which especially affect the Locus but do not affect generally the zoning district in which the Locus is located. The contaminated soil must be remediated prior to redevelopment of the Locus. 3. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner. • 4. The proposed development complies with the goals of the NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District and the requirements set forth in § 7-21 (a) to achieve these goals, as follows: a. The Locus is being redeveloped for housing and commercial uses b. Public pedestrian access to and along the North River Canal will be provided. c. A public-private partnership to provide enhanced maintenance trees, sidewalks, benches, along the canal will be developed. d. The streetscape along Mason Street will be enhanced. e. The project is designed to enhance solutions to neighborhood traffic, including the granting of an easement to the City of Salem to allow it to construct an extension of the Commercial Street public roadway across the development site. Further the applicant will work with the City to incorporate reasonable recommendations from the Earth Tech, Inc. traffic study to improve travel along Flint Street. For these reasons, desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 4 1. To enable the proposed development, the petitioner may vary the following terms of the North River Canal Corridor Zoning District § 7-21: • • minimum lot area per dwelling unit may be reduced to 1440 sf/dwelling unit(from the 3,500 sf/dwelling unit required) § 7-21 (k)(1), • common building entrances can be used instead of having separate exterior entrances for each unit § 7-21 (e)(2)(a)(3) • a small percentage of two buildings, and a portion of the roadway and parking on the western side of the Locus are within the 50 ft buffer zone, therefore construction may take place in the buffer zone § 7-21 (m)(1)(c). 2. 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, six (5) in favor(Stein, Debski, Belair, Pinto, and Curran)none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for variances 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 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. 8. The Petitioner shall place an Affordable Housing Restriction on thirteen (13) of the one hundred and thirty (130) units in the form of a deed rider approved by the City Planner and registered with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. The affordable housing restrictions are to be in accordance with the eligibility criteria for the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development's Subsidized Housing Inventory for the purpose of ensuring that thirteen (13) dwelling units will be restricted as affordable housing for households whose annual incomes are eighty percent (80%) or less of area median income ("low • income households") with a sales price affordable to low income households for a period of ninety-nine (99) years from the date of the first occupancy permit. s • 9. Twelve (12) on site parking spaces are to be reserved for the sole use of Flint Street residents. The proposed mechanism for reserving the spaces is to be submitted and approved by the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 10. The applicant, upon taking title to the premises, will grant to the City of Salem and easement to construct an extension of the Commercial Street public roadway across the site in the location shown on the site plan at any time within a ten(10) year period after all necessary approvals for the project become final. Upon such construction, such easement shall automatically become a full and permanent easement to use and maintain the easement area as a public way in the City of Salem. �D�L4ul )11La►l /AL- Rob /AL- Robhi Stein, 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 Essex South Registry of Deeds. r �oflmrq.q CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR { o SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 trsr ve ooh FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday October 17, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, the Zoning Board voted upon the following items: Petition of: Edward Potivin, Bass River Inc. Location: 12 Hanson Street Request: Variance from the number of stories allowed (2 Y2) to allow a third floor roof deck and a Special Permit to modify an existing non-conforming building. Description: Petitioner proposed to construct a third floor roof deck approx. 28' x 9'. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk November 2, 2007. • Petition of: Hans Weedon Location: IA Daniels Street Court Request: Variances from rear yard setback and a Special Permit to modify an existing non- conforming building to allow for a second story balcony. Description: Petitioner proposes to construct a 3' x 10' second story balcony on the rear of the residence. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk November 2, 2007 Petition of: Riverview Place LLC Location: 72 Flint Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street Request: Variances to allow for a minimum lot area of 1,440 square feet per dwelling unit, common building entrances, and to allow construction within the 50 foot buffer area. Description: Petitioner proposed to erect three new structures with a total of 130 dwelling units, including 13 affordable units, and 5,540 sf of commercial space on the 4.14 acre site. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk November 2, 2007. This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A,Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. �i �e�fi II�S�p�. �� oR t CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTSiii. MA BOARD OF APPEAL CLI RK'S OFFICE • • » 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR l SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX: 978-740-9846 2081 SEP --S P 2: V181 MAYOR r AGENDA (Revised) BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING September 19, 2007- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Approval of Minutes o August 22, 2007 2. Petition of David L'heareux seeking a variance from number of stories allowed(2 '/2)to expand a third floor dormer and a special permit to modify an existing non-conforming building for the property located at 6 COUSINS STREET[R-2]. 3. Petition of Paul Campagna requesting variances from rear setback and side setbacks to construct an addition for the property located at 180 NORTH STREET[R-2]. • 4. Petition of Sean Pray and Richard Smith requesting to modify a previous special permit decision to allow an exterior sign to remain for the property located at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD [R-2]. 5. Petition of Mirash Begi requesting a variance from number of stories allowed(2'/2) to construct a rear dormer for the property located at 260 JEFFERSON AVE [B-1]. 6. Petition of Stephen Lovely requesting variances from lot width and side setbacks to construct a two-family residence for properties located at 6-8 POPE STREET[R-3]. 7. Petition of Stephen Lovely requesting variances from lot width and front setbacks to construct three two-family residences, and an addition to an existing single-family residence (making a two-family)for the properties located at 1-3 PARALLEL STREET [R-2]• 8. Petition of Carter and Kristen Vinson requesting variance from number of stories (2 '/2) to allow a third floor expansion for the property located at 32 BEACH AVE [R-1]. 9. Old/New Business • . Attorney Joseph Correnti requesting a six (6) month extension for variances granted October 18, 2006 for the property located at 28 GOODHUE STREET. 10. Adjournment 7hy� �y This noticeS1(}$#rl(� or, "{7,f?nldl }f (tR aoar4r City NaIilC "_, it� c'?� 8 % y1 Of 9,a -L, G City of Salem DPCD Meeting Sign In Sheet Board: Z-O m;,�y Date: 9 f ZO/v-4 Name Mailing Address J Phone # Email 4VI C /a4GN/q U 4JcK7V S'%. 978-arl -sS 4o NAVSJ711 Ma coo 1� � City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, September 19,2007 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein(chairperson), Rebecca Curran, Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Steve Pinto (alternate), and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Members absent: Beth Debski *Annie Harris entered part way through 260 Jefferson and did not participate in the vote;Steve Pinto left following 260 Jefferson and did not participate in the rest of the petitions. Business Items A motion was made by Steve Pinto to approve the August 22, 2007 meeting minutes, seconded by Richard Dionne, approved 5-0. Attorney Joseph Correnti requesting a six(6) month extension for variances granted October 18,2006 for the property located at 28 GOODHUE STREET. . Robin Stein said she would not be participating because she had a conflict and as long as the petitioner was comfortable having four members vote they could go forward. Bonnie Belair read the letter from Attorney Joseph Correnti requesting an extension. Joseph Correnti presented the request on behalf of North River Canal, LLC. He reported the project is going forward; 95% of engineering drawings are complete and the necessary funding and contracts are almost in place. He anticipates they will be applying for a building permit this fall. They didn't want to take a chance of having the Variance lapse. A motion was made by Bonnie Belair to approve the request for extension, seconded by Steve Pinto and approved 4-0 (Belair, Pinto,Curran, Dionne). Public Hearine Petition of David L'heareux seeking a variance from number of stories allowed (2 1/2) to expand a third floor dormer and a special permit to modify an existing non-conforming building for the property located at 6 COUSINS STREET [R-2]. The petitioner, David L'heareux, presented the petition. He said he wants to connect the two dormers on the right side of the home, which would allow him space to put up wall cabinets. Bonnie Belair asked if the kitchen was on the third floor. The petitioner said yes and that it was a three family. Thomas St. Pierre said it was in the R-2 zone and grandfathered. Paul Grocki of 8 Cousins Street asked if what the petitioner was proposing was just to . connect the two existing dormers. The petitioner said yes and clarified the location. Steve Pinto noted that the chimney is in poor condition. Thomas St. Pierre said the Board could certainly make it a condition that the chimney is made serviceable. • A motion was made by Steve Pinto to grant the variance and special permit subject to seven standard conditions, and one special condition relating to the chimney. The motion was seconded by Richard Dionne and approved 5-0 (Pinto,Dionne, Stein, Curran,Belair). Petition of Paul Campagna requesting variances from rear setback and side setbacks to construct an addition for the property located at 180 NORTH STREET [R-2]. The petitioner,Paul Campagna,presented the petition for the property he owns 180 North Street. He says he would like to construct a 10 ft. addition of the back of the home, which would be 11 ft. from the abutting property. He said the existing garage, which would be tom down is closer than 11 ft. He said he recently purchased and moved into the property with his family. He said the reason for the addition is they need more space for his daughter who is physically handicap, they currently have difficulty moving the wheelchair around. Richard Dionne asked if the petitioner lives there? He said yes, they recently moved in and since then have added a handicap ramp. Thomas St. Pierre said that handicap ramps are exempt from zoning.Tom St. Pierre confirmed that the one car garage would be traded for a one spot off street parking area. The petitioner said he plans to screen this from his neighbor. Tom St. Pierre said the grandfathered garage would be coming off and there would be less of an encroachment on the rear yard setback. The petitioner submitted letters from Nick Michaud(5 Liberty Hill Ave) and Laurie Besani (182 North Street) in support of the petition; Robin Stein read these letters into the record. • Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey also spoke in support of the petition,he said he has been working with Paul's wife Jennifer to get a handicap parking space put it. A motion was made by Richard Dionne to approve the variances subject to eight standard conditions, seconded by Bonnie Belair and approved 5-0. (Dionne, Belair, Stein, Curran,Pinto). Petition of Sean Pray and Richard Smith requesting to modify a previous special permit decision to allow an exterior sign to remain for the property located at 3 HAWTHORNE BLVD [R-2]. Petitioner Richard Smith presented the petition saying he was coming to the Board to get out of violation to allow his exterior signs to remain. Thomas St. Pierre explained that the Board had previously granted a special permit for a home occupation, and that a condition of that decision was that an interior sign could remain in the window. Rebecca Curran asked if it was still a home occupation and if he was living there. He said no,he did not live there. Robin Stein said that this information created a new issue. It was questioned whether the special permit decision may have ever been recorded with the registry. The petitioner was going to look into that and bring that information to Thomas St. Pierre. Robin Stein said that if the special permit wasn't acted on in a certain time period it may have gone void. She is concerned that at this time it is uncertain what relief should be granted, and what was advertised would not have explained the amount of relief needed. Rebecca Curran said that even if it was recorded it would need to be re-advertised. Tom St. Pierre said that either the special permit is in play, or there is a major zoning violation. Tom says that the City doesn't • grant use variances. This item was continued until October 17'h to figure out the proper relief the 2 petitioner should be seeking if any. The petitioner signed a time-extension form. Robin Stein • explained that the special permit runs with the Property,not the petitioner. Petition of Mirash Begi requesting a variance from number of stories allowed(2 1/2)to construct a rear dormer for the property located at 260 JEFFERSON AVE [B-11. Petitioner, Mirash Begi,presented the petition. He explained what party of his drawing exists and what is proposed. Board members questioned where it was just a dormer. The deck, which is on the drawing but not mentioned on the application does not currently exist making it more than a dormer. Robin Stein said the plans illustrate the application, despite what the application requests. Ward 3 Councilor Jean Pelletier said he was familiar with the property and said it's the one that is three stories with the street level basement. He said that he has no problems with the petition. He suggested that better drawings with dimensions be submitted. Tom St. Pierre said when the applicant goes to get building permit better drawings will be required. Tom said he understands it well enough at this point. The property is located in a business district. Annie Harris asked whether or not a condition should be added keeping the property to a single family. Robin Stein said she would rather not make such a condition. Robin Stein asked whether the applicant would rather build a deck with the condition stairs leading down from the deck could not be constructed? Or just build the dormer? The applicant said he would rather build the deck with the condition. • A motion was made by Rebecca Curran to approve the request for variance subject to eight standard conditions and one special condition relating to stairs not being permitted to lead down from the deck, seconded by Robin Stein and approved 5-0(Dionne, Pinto, Stein, Curran, Belair) Petition of Stephen Lovely requesting variances from lot width and side setbacks to construct a two-family residence for properties located at 6-8 POPE STREET [R-31. Petitioner, Stephen Lovely presented the petition. Sharon Marraffa owns the property, a letter of consent from the owner was submitted. Petitioner says it is a grandfathered lot; it is behind Salem Heights, and a rather odd shape. The Petitioner is asking for a variance from lot size for title insurance purposes. He mentioned that it is a wooded area, with lots of debris on it that will need to be removed. The petitioner is also requesting a variance front setback to provide more of a backyard. Rebecca Curran asked the petitioner-could get a building permit today? Tom said that by right he has a grandfathered lot. The petitioner said he was concerned about getting a building permit and having an expensive appeal, so he wanted to request the variance. The Petitioner could live with the setback, but believes that it would look better from the street if a variance were granted. Tom St. Pierre added that there are two driveways, and only one is allowed per property. Stephen Lovely asked if he would need to come back to ask for another curb cut? The relief, which was requested,and what is needed was discussed. Annie Harris said it is lot area, side setbacks, and front setbacks, which are being requested. Bonnie Belair mentioned that like the • previous petition where the board provided relief for what was on the plan, the curb cuts are also on the plan before the Board. 3 7 Annie Hams questioned when the lot was grandfathered from. Tom St. Pierre said 1965 • was the adoption of the zoning ordinance and that a title search should be required because that is the standard procedure for a grandfathered lot. Bonnie Belair noted the property was in an R-3 zone, and that it is unusual for somebody to come in looking to build less than the zoning allows. Annie Harris noted that a number of applications this week did not include any mention of hardship, Stephen. Stephen Lovely said he was not used to that being requested before the meeting. Annie Harris said agrees there are a lot of good arguments in this case. A motion was made by Bonnie Belair to approve variances from lot area, side setbacks, front setbacks, and curb cuts subject eight of standard conditions and two special conditions-the front setback can be ten feet, and a title search might must done and provided to Tom St. Pierre. Approved 5-0 (Stein,Harris, Curran, Belair, Dionne). Petition of Stephen Lovely requesting variances from lot width and front setbacks to construct three two-family residences, and an addition to an existing single-family residence (making a two-family) for the properties located at 1-3 PARALLEL STREET [R-21. Petitioner Stephen Lovely presented the petition for the property he owns at 1-3 Parallel Street. He said that by right he could put two units on each lot. He has already been to the Conservation Commission for 1 Parallel Street; he would have to return to the Conservation Commission for the other lots. Atty. Lovely said he has spoken to the neighbors who preferred single-family homes to the duplexes he first considered. He said they would be small cape-cod style homes and they would finish off the end of the street quite nicely. He said the home at the end of the street would be smaller than the structure that resent] exists they • presently e. He said that the lots are much larger than an other lots on the street eet in terms of square footage.q g He said the lot width would be consistent with the width of the other lots on the street. He knows there is a concern with drainage and will deal with this issue when going to the Conservation Commission. He explained that he will work with the Conservation Commission to deal with the surface water that pools at the end of Parallel Street. He said he has talked to the neighbors,he knows some of them would like to see nothing done there,but he does believe single families would better fit into the neighborhood than the duplexes. He said though he could live with the setbacks, though the neighbors suggested to bring the homes forward. Annie Harris confirmed the two things the petitioner is asking for is relief from lot width and front setbacks. She said she drove down there and thinks that single family homes are much more appropriate,and with the wetland putting the property closer to the street would make more sense. Stephen Lovely said he had spoken with the neighbors about doing pre-fab homes,which would keep the construction time to a minimum. Rebecca Curran asked if the Board could restrict the lots to single family homes. Stephen Lovely said he had thought about such a restriction when neighbors had asked what would keep the next person from coming in and adding another unit. He said the neighbors were more comfortable with somebody coming back to the Board of Appeals to remove the restriction. • 4 Chris Cannon of 9 Parallel Street has concerns that he has small children that play at the • end of the dead end street, adding more residences will increase traffic. In response to the concerns, Robin Stein explained that the petitioner does not need to come to the Zoning Board for relief and by right he could put up two duplexes. Annie Harris asked Tom if the petitioner could by right build two duplexes. It was concluded that the petitioner could do three new units-one unit could be added to 1 Parallel Street, and an additional duplex could be constructed on the remaining land. Tom said he would like to address the flooding issue-he said that the state building code has certain requirements for building in a floodplain. Tom said the flooding issue on Parallel Street is due to rainwater not having an outlet to go to and the overflow from the pond. Matthew Veno, Ward 5 Councilor,spoke at the hearing. He thanked Stephen for reaching out to the neighbors and talking to them. He said he prefers the single family homes, and feel that the neighbors, who are mostly home owners themselves,would prefer home owners to renters. He is concerned about additional cars. He feels that the flooding concerns are serious, he is glad to hear from Tom that there are building standards. He said that currently the buildings have been vacant because of the flooding and he is skeptical that houses can be built that people will actually want to live in. He said he had trouble visualizing how homes could fit on the lots when he went out there and saw the close proximity of the wetlands. He feels that the proposed lot width first the neighborhood. Robin ob Stem encouraged those interested in the petition to attend the Conservation Commission meeting. • Matthew Veno said he also spoke to the Health Agent and thinks there may be an opportunity for the Health Department to weigh in areas, which chronically flood. A motion was made by Rebecca Curran to grant variances subject to seven of standard conditions and seconded by Robin Stein an approved 5-0 (Stein, Curran,Pinto, Dionne, and Harris). Petition of Carter and Kristen Vinson requesting variance from number of stories (2 1/2) to allow a third floor expansion for the property located at 32 BEACH AVE [R-11. Petitioner Carter Vinson presented the petition for the property he owns at 32 Beach Ave. He said the expansion would allow for a master bedroom and a bathroom. He's lived in Salem for over twenty years,his wife for 15 years. The existing house is three bedrooms and 1 1/2 bathrooms. He said they have three children and need another bedroom and bathroom in the house. He belies the house is currently 1,925 square feet and the addition would be about 500 square feet. He brought pictures of other houses nearby, and said that non of the houses in the Willows comply with the zoning ordinance. He said they are doing some construction on the front porch right now. Tom St. Pierre added that things are being done correctly and a significant investment is being made into the home. Carter Vinson brought an artists rendering of the home with the addition and shared it with the Board. The question of building height came up. Tom said the height of a gabled building in Salem is measured at the average between the ridge and the socket so it would just be the number of stories. 5 Robert McCarthy of 153 Bayview Ave said he spoke to a number of the neighbors and that they didn't have a problem with any of this. He said the he and his wife don't have a • problem with this. He understands why the family will need more space in the future, and it would be better to let me family remain in the neighborhood and allow them to expand their home. The Board reviewed the dimensions of the proposed addition. Tom St. Pierre said that as long as the bay window did not expand outside the existing footprint, additional relief wouldn't be needed. A motion was made by Bonnie Belair to approve the variance subject to eight standard conditions seconded by Robin Stein and approved 5-0 (Belair, Stein,Harris, Dionne,Curran). A motion was made by Richard Dionne to go into executive session seconded by Robin Stein and approved 5-0. Executive Session A motion was made by Rebecca Curran to authorize Beth Rennard, the City Solicitor to enter into an agreement for judgment, seconded by Robin Stein and approved 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm Respectfully submitted: Amy J. Lash Staff Planner • • 6 �oeorrA� CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 • `"MtNe Do�P FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday September 19, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, the Zoning Board voted upon the following items: Petition of: David L'heareux Request: Variance from number of stories allowed (2 ''/2), and a special permit to modify an existing non-conforming structure. Location: 6 Cousins Street. Description: Petitioner requesting a variance and special permit to remove the two existing third floor shed formers, and construct one long third floor dormer. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk October 2, 2007. Petition of: Paul Campagna Request: Variances from rear setback and side setbacks Location: 180 North Street Description: Petitioner requesting variances to construct an addition on the rear of the residence. • Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk October 2, 2007 Petition of. Mirash Begi Reguest: Variance from number of stories allowed(2 %) Location: 260 Jefferson Ave Description: Petitioner requesting a variance to construct a rear dormer. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk October 2, 2007 Petition of: Stephen Lovely Request: Variances from lot width and front setbacks Location: 1-3 Parallel Street Description: Requesting variances to construct three single family residences Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk October 2, 2007 Petition of: Carter Vinson Request: Variance from number of stories allowed (2 %x) Location: 32 Beach Ave Description: Requesting variance to allow for a third floor expansion. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk October 2, 2007 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any,shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. poNorTa9d CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL u 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 • � '�' '� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Doi FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decision At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday September 19, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, the Zoning Board voted upon the following item: Petition of: Stephen Lovely Request: Variances from lot area, side setbacks, front setbacks, and curb-cuts Location: 6-8 Pope Street Description: Requesting variances to construct a two family residence Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk October 5, 2007 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • co aqa CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET11 S BOARD OF APPEAL • i4' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR - Y SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 - ryE pG FAX: 978-740-9846 -•.: t R KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING August 22, 2007- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Approval of Minutes o July 18, 2007 2. CONTINUED: Petition of Joseph Gagnon requesting a Variance from number of stories W tjt{OEAt-N allowed(2'/z) to allow 3rd floor roof deck for the property located at 13 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R-1]. 3. CONTINUED: Petition of Mary Jinks requesting a Variance from side yard setback to extend existing deck for the property located at 64 TREMONT STREET [R-2]. 4. CONTINUED: Petition of Benjamin Richard seeking Variances from number of stories . W"q p�wN to allow expansion of a third floor dormer for the property located at 30 HATHORNE STREET UNIT 2 [R-2]. 5. Petition of Gregory M. Salamido requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow a third floor shed dormer for the property located at 7 CLIFTON AVE [R-1]. 6. Petition of Riverview Place LLC requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit(7- 21 (k),Variance from off street parking requirements 7-21 (1) and 7-3 (g), Variance from number of stories and height of three buildings 7-21 (m)(1), Variance from number of exterior entrances for dwelling units 7-21 (e)(2)(a), Variance of buffer area 7-21(m)(1)(c) at 72 FLINT STREET AND 67-69 & 71 MASON STREET [NRCC]. 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment ) x'115 AUG = _ �..�r" �/g.• h�t` -`.iY .A:k �n In vdIt.+�et• 'w bi4r�kU'f;,.. W A • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,August 22,2007 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (chairperson)Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran,Annie Harris, Steve Pinto(alternate), and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Members absent: Richard Dionne Business Items A motion was made by Steve Pinto approve the July 18, 2007 meeting minutes, seconded by Robin Stein. Robin Stein announced that two petitions have requested to withdraw without prejudice. Ms. Stein read the request letters aloud for the following petitions: • Petition of Joseph Gagnon requesting a Variance from number of stories allowed (2 1/2) to allow 3`d floor roof deck for the property located at 13 Columbus Ave [R-1]. • Motion made by Beth Debski , seconded by Robin Stein to allow withdrawal, approved (6-0). • Continued: Petition of Benjamin Richard seeking Variances from number of stories to allow expansion of a third floor dormer for the property located at 30 Hathorne Street Unit 2 [R-2]. Motion made by Annie Harris, seconded by Robin Stein to allow withdrawal. Approved (5-0) -Beth Debski did not take part in the vote. Public Hearing CONTINUED: Petition of Mary Jinks requesting a Variance from side yard setback to extend existing deck for the property located at 64 TREMONT STREET [R-2]. Petitioner explained that she would like to replace the porches on her home. Thomas St. Pierre explained that the existing porches are non-conforming and a variance is required for the porches to be torn down and enlarged. He mentioned that there was confusion at first on whether or not the applicant needed to come to the Board of Appeals and the application had to be continued from July, when there wasn't a quorum. Robin Stein mentioned that letters of support were submitted by Bill and Ilene Simons (79 School Street), and Ellen Talkowsky (3 Devereaux Ave) and Max Talkowsky(3 Devereaux Ave). Those who spoke at the hearing in support of the petition include Ward 6 City Councilor Paul Prevey, and Ward 7 City Councilor Joseph O'Keefe. i • A motion was made by Steve Pinto and seconded by Robin Stein to grant the variance subject to eight (8) standard conditions. The Salem Board of Appeals voted, five(5) in favor (Stein,Debski,Harris,Belair, and Pinto) none (0)opposed. Petition of Gregory M.Salamido requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow a third floor shed dormer for the property located at 7 CLIFTON AVE rR-11. Rebecca Curran disclosed that she had received an abutters notice for this property. Robin Stein noted that she would not need to vote because their were enough other eligible members present. Petitioner Gregory Salamido explained that the Salem Board of Appeals had granted him a variance for an opposing dormer in 2005. He explained that the dormer would provide more space and storage options for his family. The petitioner agreed that he would keep the residence as a single-family residence, and that it could be a condition where he would not be issued a certificate of occupancy until he updated the residence to single family status with the City. A motion was made by Bonnie Belair, and seconded by Robin Stein to grant the variance subject to eight(8)conditions. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted five(5) in favor(Stein, Debski,Harris,Belair, and Pinto and none (0) opposed. Petition of Riverview Place LLC requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit(7.21 (k),Variance from off street parking requirements 7-21 (1) and 7-3 (g),Variance from number of stories and height of three buildings 7-21 (m)(1),Variance from number of exterior entrances for dwelling units 7-21 (e)(2)(a),Variance of buffer area 7-21(m)(1)(c) at 72 FLINT STREET AND 67-69 & 71 MASON STREET INRCCI. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition. He introduced Mike O'Brian,David Walsh, and David Zion, who are leading the redevelopment. He mentioned past development projects they had been involved in. He also introduced the other professional involved in the project- Steve Livermoore of H.H.Morrant, who is the architect, and Jim MacDowell of Eastern Land Survey. Attorney Grover explained that Mr. O'Brian,Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Zion have entered into a purchase and sale agreement to purchase the two parcels which make up the redevelopment site. One parcel is Salem Suede, the other is the Bonfanti Site. Attorney Grover explained the location of the site,and that it would be a multi use site in the new North River Canal Corridor zoning district. He said this redevelopment will also have to go through the Planning Board, Design Review Board and Conservation Commission. He said state approval under Chapter 91 would also be necessary. Attorney Grover explained that they had held a number of meetings with neighbors and City Officials since they had first filed in July. He acknowledged that concerns that have consistently come up include density, traffic, and parking. He said that if the City were to extend Commercial Street, parking on the site would be relocated. • A conceptual drawing of what one of the buildings would look like was presented. Attorney Grover said that their would actually be a reduction in lot coverage from what is their now(80,000 sq. ft existing, 50,000 sq. ft. proposed). 2 ' 1 • Attorney Grover explained the four requested variances. He mentioned that it would not be possible to meet conflicting conditions of the North River Zoning District-having both townhouses with separate entrances, as well as first floor commercial. Attorney Grover reviewed the requirements for granting a variance, and why this application requires variances. He said that first, there is hardship due to the environmental clean up costs being about$4 million dollars, which would equal$27,000 per unit. He said the redevelopment would serve the public good by removing an eyesore and safety hazard. $34,000 is the current tax revenue, ten (10)times the tax revenue, approximately $300,000 would be generated by the redevelopment. He said the redevelopment plans do not detract from the intent of the zoning. The architect, Steve Livermoore described the design. He said the eave height would be 49 ft. above grade, which is the same as what is existing. Bonnie Belair asked if their would be decks. Steve Livermoore answered that they propose Juliet balconies. Steve Pinto asked how many entrance there would be. Steve Livermoore replied that it would be one main entrance per building. Bonnie Belair asked about the results of the preliminary contamination reports done by SP Engineering . Scott Grover said they were pleased to find out that there are not public safety issues, but for residential use some soil should be removed. He explained that MassDevelopment came to the site and will be providing a loan. • Scott Grover explained that they had also retained Earth Tech to do a traffic study, and that traffic counts would be don on the 2nd Tuesday in September, once school was back in session. Beth Debski inquired if they had been incontact with the Fire Department. Scott Grover said this would not happen until Site Plan Review and that a Planning Board application had not been filed at this time. Steve was asked if the parking on Flint Street had been addressed. He said they would be happy to do a residential parking program with extra spaces. Annie Harris asked Attorney Grover to talk about the easement. The easement would allow the City of Salem to extend commercial street within ten years following approval. Annie Harris said that it really looks like 5 stories, with some of the underground parking really being above ground. Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre said he would have to look into how a story is defined. Annie Harris mentioned the success of the Salem Laundry/Derby Loft project, which some of the development team was involved with. The following members of the public spoke on the points summarized below. • Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey-Described the removal of the building as an opportunity. Feels the proposal exceeds appropriate density. Is concerned about added traffic on Flint Street. 3 • • Jim Treadwell,Ward 6, NRCC Working Group-Provided background for NRCC Master Plan and Zoning. Spoke about relative density saying what is proposed (34 units/acre) is far higher than the density the zoning allows (13 units/acre)and higher than what is existing in the area(8 units/acre). Questioned whether the parking, which is somewhat below the surface is actually a fifth story. Feels that there must be a sensitive transition into what is existing, cited the JPI townhouses as an example. Questioned hardship, saying the purchase price discussed is above the assessed value. • John Carr, 7 River St,NRCC Working Group Is scared by the scale and density. Feels the Master Plan does not intend to promote this type of development. • John Haves-Concerned about parking and traffic. Wants to see a separate northbound Flint Street. • Robin Amara 18 Bar Street-Feels what is proposed is better than what is there. Feels residences will increase revenue of the City and that more people will shop in Salem. • Pat Donahue,Ward 6, NRCC Working Group-Concerned about density and traffic and feels that the requests for variances are far too excessive. • Dave Pellitier-Acknowledged that the proposal is a work in progress. • Liz Bratt, 22 Larchmont-Owns veterinary practice on Commercial Street and feels that there is a housing shortage and that her employees must commute to Salem from other places. • Martin Dem, 143 Federal St, NRCC WorkingGroup roup-Wants message to get out that Salem wants development. Feels that the NRCC zoning is a consensus about what people want. Feels that the combination of housing and jobs is a plus. Wants the developer to come in with a by-right project and explain why it won't work. That would then be the basis to work from. • • (At-Large) Councilor Joan Lovely, 14 Story Street-Feels that the community can support additional rental units. Said that the City Council in the future may have to limit parking on the streets in the area surrounding the proposed redevelopment. Pointed out that other North River projects like Flynntan and Franklin St will be coming in front of the Board of Appeals in the future and asking for zoning relief because of the nature of the projects. • Betsy Burnes, 22 Beckford St-Wanted to know if the project could go before the Design Review Board before the ZBA voted. • Beverlie McSwiggin, 30 Japonica St- Said the scale of the building would not compliment the congested area. Would like something that fits better. Feels that office space would provide more revenue and be less of a drain on services. • Jeannie Pitman, 82 Flint St-Is in favor of the project and says that there have been many problems with the factory over the years. • Ward 2 Councilor Mike Sosnowski- Supports cleaning up an eyesore, does not support the density. Says that is the Councilors who deal with the repercussions of decisions,not the Board of Appeals. Thinks there is roof for compromise. Thinks the acquisition cost is asking more than the property is worth. Says the cost of school kids will take away any revenue gain. • Teasie Riley Goggin-Says more information is needed. Too many units are proposed and she would like Salem to remain a quaint seaside community. • Rich Lapechia, Oak Street-Feels board should wait until there is a traffic study. The public hearing was closed and the board had a brief concluding discussion. The developers were complimented for their efforts working with the neighborhood. It was decided that it would . premature to vote tonight,not knowing how this density would really impact the neighborhood. Many board members requested that the density be lowered before the next meeting and wanted to see more compromise. Board members said a traffic study was needed, Scott Grover said they 4 would have this for the next meeting. A figure of what could be built out as of right was g g g requested. Whether this is truly four stories was questioned. Tom St. Pierre said that the percentage, which is below grade, would determine that and that it would have to be looked at more closely to ensure the right relief is being requested. Scott Grover suggested that perhaps at the next meeting they could talk more about the financial aspect of the project. Beth Debski questioned whether people wanted all residential or some commercial space-this is a another topic of discussion for the next meeting. Robin Stein summarized a letter from Councilor Furey in support of the redevelopement, acknowledging the challenges of the sight. A letter of support from Jame Scnlan of 13 Bayview Circle was submitted by Scott Grover. Adjournment There being no further business before the Board,a motion to adjourn was made by Robin Stein, seconded by Steve Pinto and approved 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15. Respectfully submitted: Amy Y. Lash Staff Planner&Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Clerk 5 i City of Salem DPCD Meeting Sign In Sheet Board: Date: Name Mailing Address Phone # Email Gre 0. r r `7 G/i 9 �8�yr zgsz -0` erg Z - Sorr-ey 7,P-749-tff4- E �� - a 97� Sto Lisa G\Ibano 121 t,�ce�h s�- # hq q� 8-�y5 363 3�gnn��c w i q P,4m 35� a/k L Z ,/,- )" / 9 -79 - 7YY-7rco �e11� ©u'v q 70 gtt(-ZS7I WxTk.S`F E cCvl �oK SQ.1-S� 26 r' 1( / Ua� S7� �ry� ?�s� a�s�2 J . 'MoeOca�,�� r �w 1--a�o S�F,.cy ��,�a\ S31 • � �2) Ja-We- Curd's hrloA (e,- (n3 %2cQeral �Sf 97k 7yy -09/)�, j „ r2wicl q -78-a0cl- 1000 ooNmrq,go CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL - - �' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • � 'd TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 DDS FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday August 22, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, the Zoning Board voted upon the following items: Petition of: Mary Jinks Request: Variance from side yard setback. Location: 64 Tremont Street . Description: Petitioner requesting variance from side yard setback to reconstruct and extend two levels of rear decks. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk August 30, 2007 Petition of: Gregory Salamida Request: Variance from number of stories. Location: 7 Clifton Ave • Description: Petitioner requesting a variance from number of stories to allow a third floor shed dormer. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk August 30, 2007 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 & 15 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. ,e� �oNDtTA. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS _ .. BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ,• SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 rtnsDo�P FAX: 978-740-9846 L + ,I KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Rescheduled Meeting You are hereby notified that the regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, to be held on August 15, 2007 at 6:30, has been rescheduled to Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 6:30 pm in City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street. Robin Stein Chair • This notion posted on WOfficial Bulleft 808rda �P@ i°111 40 ,als✓t�, bass, an utY ateet 1r l if, rte, eh C hV- . y . �ONDITA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR _ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • '„d ,�3TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 'hili, E e� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL JULY 18, 2007 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 — 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. CONTINUED: Petition of Joseph Gagnon requesting Variance from number of stories allowed (2 ''/3)to allow 3rd floor roof deck for the property located at 13 COLUMBUS AVENUE R-1. 2. CONTINUED: Petition of Mary Jinks requesting a Variance from side yard setback to extend existing deck for the property located at 64 TREMONT STREET R-2. 3. Petition of Michael McNiff seeking Variances from lot size, lot width,front and rear yard setbacks to construct a single family house for the property located at 74 ENDICOTT STREET R-2. 4. Petition of Theresa McCarthy seeking Variances from front and rear yard setback to construct an addition for the property located at 14 %MEADOW STREET R-2. • 5. Petition of Benjamin Richard seeking Variances from number of stories to allow expansion of a third floor dormer for the property located at 30 HATHORNE STREET UNIT 2 R-2. 6. Petition of Riverview Place LLC requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit (7-21-K), Variance fro off street parking requirements 7-21 (1), Variance from number of stories and height of one building 7-21 (M) (1), Variance from 7-21 (e) (3) regarding exterior entrances for the property located at 72 FLINT STREET AND 67-69 & 71 MASON STREET NRCC. 7. Old/New Business i City of Salem DPCD MeetingSign S g In Sheet eet Board: Date: ameMailin Address Phone # Email ec n - v s Aoe ai s 7 qq v Ev-er; l L{ I q C,lu'Ad 11.S A4� e X175 ?Uy o7 r City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,July 18,2007 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Elizabeth Debski (acting chairperson), Rebecca Curran Richard Dionne and Annie Harris. Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Members absent: Robin Stein (Chair), Bonnie Belair (Alternate), Steve Pinto (Alternate) Public Hearing Elizabeth Debski made a motion to continue petition of Joseph Gagnon regarding a variance for property located at 13 Columbus Avenue. Petition was continued to a possible date of Wednesday, August 22, 2007. *Note: this item was continued due to the • lack of a quorum. Letters from abutters of 13 Columbus Avenue were submitted into the record by Colleen Young, 19 Columbus Avenue. *Note: this item was continued due to the lack of a quorum. Elizabeth Debski made a motion to continue petition of Mary Jinks regarding a variance for property located at 64 Tremont Street, seconded by Richard Dionne. *Note: this item was continued due to the lack of a quorum. Petition of Benjamin Richard concerning a variance for property located at 30 Hathorne Street was continued. *Note: this item was continued due to the lack of a quorum. Elizabeth Debski made a motion to continue petition of Riverview Place LLC regarding a variance for property located at 72 Flint Street and 67-69 and 71 Mason Street. Such motion was seconded by Richard Dionne. *Note: this item was continued due to a written request from the applicant. Elizabeth Debski reminded the petitioners at the meeting that they have the option to continue their petitions to August, 2007 given that only four (4) members of the Salem ZBA were present. • • Petition of Michael McNiff seekine variances from lot size, lot width, front and rear yard setbacks to construct a sinele family home for the property located at 74 Endicott Street (R-2). Petitioner was represented by Robert H. Griffin, a professional engineer. The lot in question was previously contained a home that was burned and the petitioner intends to construct a single family home on the lot in question. The home will be of colonial character, similar to the previous home. Petitioner is seeking a variance from front yard setback to 3 feet. Further, petitioner seeks a variance from rear yard setback to 4.4 feet because of the proposed deck at the rear of the property. Annie Harris inquired into the proposed detached garage which as proposed would be 12' x 22'. The petitioner, Michael McNiff has an agreement with the current owner Bernard J. Mulligan to purchase the property in question subject to receiving approval from the Salem ZBA. Elizabeth Debski offered comment from the public. • • Dorothy Momeau (72 Endicott Street) —objected to the proposed parking, concerned that vehicles would be close her property line. • Alex Foustoukos (76 Endicott Street) —raised concern that the structure was not conforming. Mr. Griffin in opposition stated that the proposed structure is more in conformance than the previous structure. • Maggie Brobeck (76 Endicott Street)—raised concerns that the proposed structure would interfere with views from her property. • Donna Doucette (34 Winthrop Street) —talked about parking in the general area surrounding the property in question. In reaction to concerns raised by Ms. Momeau and Ms. Brobeck, Mr. Griffin offered to remove the proposed detached garage from the petitioner's plans. Councillor Jean M. Pelletier (Ward Three)raised several questions regarding the parking for 74 Endicott Street and in support of Ms. Momeau asked that the vehicles for 74 Endicott Street be parked one behind the other for the proposed driveway. • Discussions regarding the parking resulted in the conclusion that there would still be enough space on either side of the driveway for the cars to be parked side by side. A ,r condition was included which requires that there be landscaping between the driveway and the property line of Ms. Morneau. A motion was made by Ms. Debski to grant the variances, seconded by Ms. Hams. Four members (Debski, Curran,Dionne and Harris) voted to grant the petitioner's request for variances subject to certain standard conditions and three (3) special conditions. Petition of Thereas McCarthy seeking variances from side and rear yard setback to construct an addition for the property located at 14 th Meadow Street ER L The petitioner was represented by her son. Ms. Debski reminded the petitioner's son that he has a right to continue the petition until August, due to the fact that only four (4) members of the Salem ZBA were present at the current meeting. Petitioner was seeking variances from side and rear setback to enable the construction of an addition to the first floor of her single family home. There was no public opposition. Teasie Riley Goggin (9 Wisteria Street) spoke in • favor of the petition. Motion made by Richard Dionne to approve the petition, seconded by Ms. Harris and subject to 8 conditions. Adjournment There being no further business before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Debski, seconded by Mr. Dionne and approved 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: John P. Bosse Salem Zoning Board of Appeals otoir�,� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 9 - SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970L1 S QEF ILE TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 . �`trMnygoo� FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL BOARD OF APPEALS MAYOR JUNE 20, 2007 6:30 P.M. 101 JUI'v -U A 10 3RD FLOOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Petition of Claudia Chuber seeking a Special Permit to allow property to be used for Professional Use (McLaughlin Financial) for the property located at 90 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 2. Petition of Donna Mattarazzo seeking a Variance from number of stories Allowed (2 %2) to construct a third floor dormer for the property located at 43R WALTER STREET R-2. 3. Petition of Tom &Dina Calef seeking a Variance from front yard setback and Lot coverage to expand and enclose existing porch. Setback w3ill be 4' instead of the required 10 and lot coverage will be 42.5 % instead of the 35% for the property located at 34 LINDEN STREET R-2. 4. Petition of Groom Realty LLC seeking a Variance from the height requirement of accessory structure (18 feet) to allow a wind turbine of 41 feet • for the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD BPD. 5, Petition of Brian Boches seeking a Special Permit to expand a non conforming Structure to allow more livable space for the property located at 60-62 PERKINS STREET R-3 6 Petition of Mary Jinks requesting a Variance from side yard setback to expand existing deck for the property located at 64 TREMONT STREET R-2. 7. Petition of lgreia Evangelica Pentecostal seeking a determination regarding off street parking regulations per Section 7-9 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for the property located at 430 ESSEX STREET B-l. 8. Petition of Henry Boucher seeking Variances from lot size, density, front and Side setbacks to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 13 PUTMAN STREET R-1. 9. Petition of Joseph Gagnon requesting Variance from number of stories Allowed (2 %2) to allow 3`d floor roof deck for the property located at 13 COLUMBUS AVENUE R-1. This notice posted on "OffICI&I Bulletin 10SW City Hs#I ,R19m, Maus. on S�kc_ �i, a0e7 at l�' l5 Ari in �GW(6; a� with� Chap. 38 pec, 23A & 23D Of M.G.L. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS z BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (• �� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 9 78-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL - MAYOR r= CD Ln c C�-- V rt City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting N Wednesday,June 20, 2007 o Z' A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne and Steve Pinto. Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre and John P. Bosse. Members absent: Annie Harris. Public Hearing �• Members Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto and Robin Stein voted 4— 0 to elect Robin Stein as the new chairperson of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Stein offered the public the opportunity to speak on her new position as chairperson and no member of the public came forward to speak. Petition of Igreia Evan2elica Pentecostal Regarding Off Street Parking Per Section 7-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre stated that the petition of Irgeia Evangelica Pentecostal was withdrawn because the petitioner intends to operate a place of worship at 430 Essex Street. Pursuant to Salem Zoning Ordinance Sec. 7-3(c) "off- street parking shall not be required for any church or other place or worship." Chairperson Robin Stein informed the petitioners that because only 4 members of the Salem ZBA were present, petitioners had the option of not coming forward with their respective petition and to continue such petition until the Salem ZBA's July meeting. Ms. Stein stated that the grant of a petition requires 4 votes by members of the Salem ZBA in favor of granting the petition. Petion of Groom Realty LLC Seeking a Variance from the Height Requirement of AccessoryStructurre 18 feet to Allow a Wind Turbine of 41 Feet for the Property ( ) D tV • Located at 96 Swampscott Road. The petitioner, Groom Realty LLC, respectfully requested the Salem ZBA to make the first presentation of the night, which was granted by the Salem ZBA. The petitioner, was represent by Susan St. Pierre, a principal of Vine Associates, Inc. Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner for the City of Salem made a public disclosure that he was a cousin to Ms. Susan St. Pierre. The proposed wind turbine for property located at 96 Swampscott Road is an accessory structure under the Salem Zoning Ordinance and requires a variance from the maximum height requirement of 18 feet to 41. See Salem Zoning Ordinance Sec. 7-8(4). The proposed wind turbine will operate as a model according to Thomas Dowd. Ms. St. Pierre stated that the noise from the turbine is similar to an air conditioner on top of a commercial or industrial building. Ms. Stein read a letter into the record on behalf of Robert DeRosier, in support of the proposed wind turbine. Steve Berson, 45 Britania Circle, inquired whether a notice study has been conducted for the proposed wind turbine. Mr. Pinto inquired how far away Mr. Berson's condominium was away from proposed wind turbine. Ms. Stein was comfortable with the fact that the proposed wind turbine would not interfere with neighbors use and enjoyment of their property given the information from manufacturer and the distance between the turbine and condominiums. Mr. Dowd explained that at a certain speed the turbine turns off. c Ms. Stein moved that the board approve the petition of Groom Realty LLC for a variance. Five conditions were placed upon the variance. The board voted 4 to 0, to grant the variance, with five conditions. Petition of Claudia Churber Seeking a Special Permit to Allow Propertyto be Used for Professional Use (McLaughlin Financial) for the Property Located at 90 Highland Avenue. The petitioner, Claudia Chuber("petitioner"), sought a special permit to allow professional use of real property located at 90 Highland Avenue, Salem, located within a multifamily residential (R-3) zoning district. Petitioner was represented by Claudia Chuber, who stated that when she and her husband, Michael A. McLaughlin purchased the property it was being used as a single-family dwelling. Additionally, the house prior to its use as a single-family dwelling, was used for medical offices. Petitioners currently operate their mortgage company on the first floor of the property at ( • 90 Highland Avenue. The upper level of 90 Highland Avenue consists of two residential dwelling units that the petitioners lease. Petitioner is seeking a special permit to allow for C. business use that is not limited to medical use. Petitioner noted that 90 Highland Avenue abuts other properties that are used for business purposes. Petitioners property has 6 parking spaces within the property lines, as well as, 11 parking spaces in front. Chairperson Stein moved that the petition for a special permit for 90 Highland Avenue be granted. The board voted 4 to 0 to grant the petitioners special permit for property at 90 Highland Avenue, subject to 9 conditions. The last condition that that the first floor shall be limited to professional business use, and the second floor limited to residential use. Petition of Donna Mattarazzo Seekine a Variance from Number of Stories Allowed (2 %:) to Construct a Third Floor Dormer for the Prooerty Located at 43R Walter Street. Petitioner Donna Mattarazzo and her husband request a variance to allow for a third floor dormer for their home at 43R Walter Street. The variance will enable three bedrooms and possibly a bathroom. Petitioner's husband noted that the hardship is due being too close to the property line and the fact that they are on a right of way. Arnold Nadler of 43 Walter Street spoke in favor of the variance. �. Robin Stein made a motion to grant the variance. The ZBA voted to grant the petition 4 to 0, subject to nine conditions. Before hearing the next petition, Robin Stein remind the petitioners that 4 votes is needed to grant a variance and that the petitioners have the right to withhold their petitions until the next ZBA meeting in July. Petition of Tom & Dina Calef Seeking a Variance from Front Yard Setback and Lot Covera a to Ex and and Enclose Existing Porch for the Property Located at 34 Linden Street. The petitioners, Tom and Dina Calef sought a variance from the 15 foot front yard setback under the existing zoning ordinance to a 4 foot front yard setback for real property at 34 Linden Street, Salem, located within atwo-famil residential R-2 Y ( ) zoning district. Petitioners also sought a variance from the maximum lot coverage of 35 percent to 42.5 percent. Petitioners were represented by an employee of A & A Services, located in Salem, MA. Robin Stein moved that the ZBA grant the variance for the property at 34 Linden Street, and noted that the lot size was very tight. Four member of the ZBA voted to grant the variance and zero members voted to deny the variance, subject to nine conditions. 1, • Petition of Brian ROCIIOSROP[rina A S ecial Permit to Ex and a Non Conformin Structure to Allow Move Liveable Space for the Prove Located at 60-62 Perkins Street. Petitioner is Brian Boches. Petitioner seeks to add onto existing dormer by 13 feet. Peter Hackbyer, owner of 55 Perkins Street, spoke in favor of the special permit. Robin Stein stated that the project is in conformance with the City' by-laws and moved to approve the special permit, seconded by Mr. Dionne, subject to 9 conditions. The board voted 4 to 0 to approve the special permit. Petiton of Mary Jinks Requesting a Variance from Side Yard Setback to Expand Existing Deck for the Property Located at 64 Tremont Street Petitioner Mary Jinks seeks a variance from side yard setback to extend existing decks on first floor and second floor. Tom St. Pierre stated that it does not seem as though petitioner did not need variance. Petitioner's contractor was told to see Tom St. Pierre. If petitioner does need variance she will be asked to seek such variance at the July ZBA meeting. Tom St. Pierre apparently there was some miscommunication with the contractor. The Board voted to continue the matter to July if need be. C• Petition of Henry Boucher Seeking a Variance From Lot Size Density Front and Side Setbacks to Construct a Sm le Famil Dwellin for the Pro er Located n 13 Putnam Street. Petitioner is seeking to construct a single family home. A factor is directly across the street from 13 Putnam Street. Dimensions of home is 36 x 24 and only 2 stories. Parking will be in a driveway directly behind home. No comments from the public and no opposition from any neighbors. No opposition from 15 Putnam Street. Steven Pinto stated that home would only enhance the area. Pinto moved to grant the petition, which was seconded. There was 8 eight conditions, one of which required construction to be completed within 9 months from when building permit is issued. Petition of Joseph Gagnon Requesting a Variance From Number of Stories Allowed 2 %z to Allow Third Floor Roof Deck for the Propertv Located 13 Columbus Avenue. C . Steve Pinto and Robin Stein both reside on Columbus Avenue and made that disclosure. r 't C. Joseph Gagnon is rehabbing the property and will be selling property for a profit. Gagnon would like to add a roof deck. The property will be single family. Colleen Young an abutter spoke in opposition to the roof top deck. She cited extra noise and infringement of privacy as her reasons for opposition. Susan Olson spoke in favor of the petition. She is a Willows Resident and was the real estate agent for the petitioner, Mr. Gagnon. An issue arose over the distance between Gagnon's property and Ms. Young's property. Steve Pinto stated that 28 feet is a lot of roof deck. Pinto suggested making the roof deck smaller and gave the parties the opportunity to negotiate and come back in July. Gagnon was willing to negotiate. Gagnon recommended a 16 foot roof deck. Tom St. Pierre said this case is ripe for a continuance due to Ms. Young's opposition, and suggested such continuance to Mr. Gagnon. Gagnon asked for a continuance. Adiournment There being no further business before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. �. Dionne, seconded by Ms. Debski and approved 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted: JJJhn P. Bosse Salem Zoning Board of Appeals i UNIIIT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHlL.1 T.TS BOARD OF APPEAL Uf 'MILK t1a CLERK'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR C. f SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 - KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL� `"100 MAY'-8A: 10: 03 MAYOR \ AGENDA C� `J BOARD OF APPEAL MAY 16, 2007 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 — 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Petition of Claudia Chuber seeking a Special Permit to allow property to be used for Professional Use (McLaughlin Financial Inc) for the property located at 90 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1. 2. Petition of Donna Mattarazzo seeking a Variance from number of stories allowed(2 %)to construct a third floor dormer for the property located at 43R WALTER STREET R-2. 3. Petition of Tom& Dina Calef seeking a Variance from front yard setback and lot coverage to expand and enclose existing porch Setback will be 4' instead of the required 15' and lot coverage will be 42/5 instead of the 35 %for the property located at 34 LINDEN STREET R-2. • 4. Petition of Groom Realty LLC seeking a Variance from the height requirement of accessory structure(18 feet)to allow a wind turbine of 41 feet for the property located at 96 SWAMPACOTT ROAD BPD. 5. Old/New Business This City Hallos posted on Salem, Mass!aon ?-no gBoard" % at /o)0 a a rQ in a�rw_4ar W v yjj Ch,,v Sec., 23A A 238 Of M.G.L. M MASSACHU� ' �S ALEM, MA oNDITA CITY OF SALE , 1 +1 S OFFICE BOARD OF APPEAL co n t 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR r � SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 2001 APR -cl P I: ub KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL APRIL 18, 2007- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Petition of Vicki MacLean seeking a Variance from lot size to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 0 DEFRANSISCO AVENUE R-1 2. Petition of John Capece seeking a Variance from number of stories allowed (2v2) to create a third floor dormer& a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming structure for the property located at 8 HIGH STREET R-2. 3. Petition of Habitat for Humanity seeking relief from off street regulations and a Variance from density requirements to allow an existing building to be converted to two dwelling units for the property located at 1 HARRISON AVENUE R-3. Q •`_. 4. Petition of Richard Leavens seeking a Variance from rear yard setback andlot coverage to construct a single story addition for the property located at 19 FOWLER STREET R-2. 5, Petition of Nina Cohen & Craig Barrows seeking a Variance from side yard setback to allow construction of rear addition for the property located at 22 CHESTNUT STREET R-1. 6. Petition of Corinna Spinale seeking a Special Permit to go from one non- conforming use to another( Law Office to Professional Offices) for the property located at 40 BOSTON STREET R-2 7. Petition of Edward Byrne seeking a Variance from side yard setback to construct A 10 x 8 mudroom for the property located at 10 CONANT STREET R-2. 8. Petition of Edward & Heather Mercier seeking a Variance from number of stories allowed ( 2 %Z) to construct a third story addition for the property located at 10 SCOTIA STREET R-1. 9. Old/New Business This notice posted on "Ol{1cI&I Bulletin Bcl*d" 10 "Hill Avt3 , `i �, Na, ? atis y6 Pa in .��z��, 6 5� t11�. ° , 23A & 23B of MLI, • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, April 18, 2007 A Meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 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, Richard Dionne and Annie Harris. Also present was Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre and Associate Attorney John P Bosse. Members absent: Steve Pinto Public Hearing - Request for a Variance from lot size to construct a single family dwellingfor r the property - 0 Defransisco Avenue -R-2 District- Vicki MacLean Mr. St. Pierre stated that this petition was on the agenda due to an error in his office, explaining that it did not require a variance. • At this point Ms. Harris joined the meeting. Public Hearing -Request for a Variance from number of stories allowed (21/2) to create a third floor dormer and a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming structure for the property- 8 High Street -R-2 District -John Capece Mr. Capece representing his father John Capece Sr., addressed the Board of Appeals in regard to a request for a Variance from number of stories allowed (21/2) to create a third floor dormer and a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming structure for the property for 8 High Street. Mr. Capece stated that he was renovating a three-family property and wished to add a dormer on the west side of the building, adding a third floor to the rear of the building which would line up with the roof line. Mr. Capece noted that the plan involved removing a fire escape and connecting the dormer to a hallway accessing a staircase. Ms. Cohen asked if the applicant had addressed the neighbors in regard to the project. Mr. Capece Sr. stated that he had and that the approved of the project. He made the distinction that they would be adding a room, not an entire floor. Ms. Debski asked if the applicant had a plot plan. Mr. Capece stated that he did not. Ms. Belair asked if there was off-street parking. Mr. Capece stated that there were two spaces off the side of the house • Ms. Cohen asked if the applicant was living on the property. Mr. Capece stated that neither lived there, and that it was an investment property. He added that Mr. Capece Sr. owned two properties across the street. Ms. Cohen stated that if the applicant was adding living space to the house he would need to also provide extra parking spaces. Mr. Capece noted that they were not adding a bedroom. Ms. Harris asked if the staircase was new. Mr. Capece Sr. stated that it was, adding that he had replaced the original staircase because it was rotting. Ward 3 City Councilor Jean Pelletier commented that he disagreed with the parking issue. The petition was postponed until later in the evening so that Mr. St. Pierre could clarify an issue regarding the building code of the property. Public Hearing - Petition seeking relief from off street regulations and a Variance from density requirements to allow an existingbuilding uilding to be converted to two dwelling units - 1 Harrison Avenue - R-3 District - Habitat for Humanity • Ms. Cohen withdrew from this hearing citing her financial interest in one of the petitioning parties. Ms. Stein made a public disclosure that she has volunteered for Habitat for Humanity. James Michael Sullivan, representing Habitat from Humanity, addressed the Board of Appeals in regard to a petition seeking relief from off street regulations and a Variance from density requirements to allow an existing building to be converted to two dwelling units, one a four bedroom and the other a three bedroom, for 1 Harrison Avenue. Mr. Sullivan stated that the building was originally intended as a community development center and had been vacant for several years. He stated that the proposal was to convert the building into a two family, owner occupied residence, to be built through volunteer help. He stated that the plan was demolish a portion of the building in order to provide the required parking spaces. Mr. Sullivan stated that the building would feature clapboard siding, double hung windows, and a flat roof. Warren Sawyer from Habitat for Humanity stated that construction on the property was slated for June 1st 2007. Ms. Harris asked if the applicant had a plot plan. Mr. Sullivan provided the Board with a • plot plan, noting that the plan decreased the footprint of the building. • Mr. Dionne asked if there would be a roof deck. Mr. Sullivan stated that there would not be a roof deck. Ms. Hams asked why the applicant chose a flat roof over a pitched roof. Mr. Sullivan stated that it was a simpler design and it conformed with the style of the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Belair asked what the foundation would be made of, and whether it would need to be reinforced. Mr. Sullivan stated it would be stone, and that they felt it would not need to be reinforced. Mr. St. Pierre asked if the roof would have a storm water leader. Mr. Sullivan stated that it would. At this point the meeting was opened to public comment.. Michael Whalen voiced his support for the project, stating he felt that it would be an improvement on the neighborhood. Ward 1 City Councilor Lucy Corchado read aloud a correspondence on behalf of Altagracia Gomez, President of the Point Neighborhood Association, in support of the petition. Mr. Dionne asked what the square footage would be for each unit. Mr. Sullivan stated • that it would be 1,600 square feet per floor. Ms. Harris requested that the applicant explain their proposal for affordability and home ownership. Mr. Sawyer explained that the applicants would be screened, and typically the owners would be required to contribute 40% of their income, adding that between 30 and 50 years the owners may be required to make a payment of up to 80% of their income. Ms. Debski asked if there would be a preference to Salem residents. Mr. Sawyer stated that at least one of the owners would previously be Salem residents. Ms. Harris stated she disapproved of the proposed flat roof, and requested that they consider a pitched roof, noting that it would require less maintenance. Mr. Sullivan stated that they had originally considered having a roof deck, and they would like to keep that option available. He added that there was significant precedence for a flat roof in the neighborhood. Roberta Hussey of 18 Crombie Street voiced her support of the petition, citing her personal involvement with Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Stein asked if there was on street parking. Mr. Sullivan stated that it was difficult to find a parking space in the area, adding that the applicants were adding a parking space. • At this point the conditions for the petition were read by Ms. Stein • There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter, a motion was made by Ms. Debski to approve the petition, subject to conditions, seconded by Ms. Stein, and approved (5-0). Return to Public Hearing -Request for a Variance from number of stories allowed (21/2) to create a third floor dormer and a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming_ structure for the property - 8 High Street -R-2 District - John Capece At this point the Board of Appeals returned to the petition of Mr. Capece. Ms. Cohen stated that Mr. St. Pierre had confirmed that the property was a legal three family. She asked if the 3 family status had been granted as a grandfather status or if it had been granted as a variance. Mr. St. Pierre stated that the legality of a grandfather status was determined by the 1964-65 time period, adding that voter registration records and tax assessments were sometimes referenced. Councilor Pelletier suggested that additional parking spaces would be required in the surrounding neighborhood, adding that he approved of the petition. Ms. Cohen asked if the applicant would be renting the property. Mr. Capece Sr. stated that he would be. • There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter, a motion was made by Ms. Cohen to approve the petition, subject to conditions, seconded by Ms. Stein, and approved (5-0). Ms. Stein did not vote on the approval of the petition. Public Hearing -Request for a Variance from rear yard setback and lot coverage to construct a single story addition - 22 Chestnut Street- R-1 District - Richard Leavens Robert Leavens, representing the owner occupant, addressed the Board of Appeals in regard to a request for a Variance from rear yard setback and lot coverage to construct a single story addition for 22 Chestnut Street. Mr. Leavens explained that the plan was to build a laundry room and an exterior porch, stating that they had already received approval from the Historical Commission. He stated that the rear set back would be no more than the existing minimum, extending the non-conformity six feet. Mr. Leavens explained that the owner was handicapped and was unable to access the basement. Ms. Stein asked if the current lot coverage required a Special Permit or a Variance. Mr. St. Pierre stated that the plan required a Variance. Ms. Harris asked if the Historical Commission had approved the drawings Mr. Leavens • had provided. He stated that they had approved the drawings. • Ms. Stein stated she felt that it was an appropriate project. Ms. Cohen concurred. There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter, a motion was made by Ms. Hams to approve the Variance, subject to conditions, seconded by Ms. Stein, and approved (5-0). At this point Ms. Cohen stepped down as Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Public Hearing - Request for a Variance from side yard setback to allow construction of rear addition - 22 Chestnut Street -R-1 District -Nina Cohen &Craig Barrows Nina Cohen & Craig Barrows addressed the Board of Appeals in regard to a request for a Variance from side yard setback to allow construction of rear addition for 22 Chestnut Street. Ms. Cohen read her submitted statement, stating that the house was a single family attached townhouse built in 1835. She stated that the project required a variance because it was an existing non-conformity with zero setback. Ms. Cohen stated that the existing footprint would be altered, but not increased, adding that the reconstruction would include updating the heating system, an expansion of the kitchen area and a reconditioning of the rear entry way. • Ms. Stein, as chair of the Board, addressed the issue that one could perceive a perception of bias amongst the Board of Appeals members in regard to this hearing, and assured the public that Ms. Cohen would not be favored by the Board. Mr. St. Pierre stated that section 8485 allowed the building of an additional as long as it meets the dimensional setbacks, which the property does, with the exception of the side lot line which shares the party wall. He stated that this was what required a variance, adding that the Special Permit did not apply because it is not a three family house. At this point the meeting was opened to public comment. Anthony Stella of 24 Chestnut Street asked if the project had been approved by the Historical Commission. Ms. Cohen stated that it had been approved. He also asked what the roof height of the addition would be. Ms. Cohen stated that roof height of the addition would be the same as the current roof. Ms. Stein commented she felt that the project was a minimal dimensional change and that it met the requirements for granting a Variance. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Ms. Stein to approve the Variance, subject to conditions, seconded by Ms. Belair, and approved (5-0). • • At this point Ms. Stein recognized Ms. Cohen's last night as a member of the Board of Appeals and thanked her for her contributions. Public Hearing - Request for Special Permit to go from one non-conforming use to another (Law Office to Professional Office) - 40 Boston Street - R-2 District- Corinna Spinale Ms. Spinale addressed the Board of Appeals in regard to a Request for Special Permit to go from one non-conforming use to another(Law Office to Professional Office) for 40 Boston Street. She stated that she wished to purchase the property and tum it into a photography studio, noting that she did not intend to make any architectural changes to the building. She added that the hours of operation would by from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and by special appointment, noting that she did not expect much foot traffic on the property. Ms. Stein asked how many employees she expected to have. Ms. Spinale stated that for the time being she would be the only employee on the property and she intended to possibly have another employee in the future. Ms. Belair asked if there was any off street parking. Mr. Spinale stated that there wasn't • any off street parking. Mr. St. Pierre noted that the property had a history of granted Special Permits. Ms. Stein stated she felt the application seemed like a consistent and less impacting use of the property. At this point the meeting was opened to public comment. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street requested that the hours of operation and number of employees be included in the application. Michael Citroe voiced his support for Ms. Spinale's application. Mr. St. Pierre asked space would be dedicated to the applicant's business. Ms. Spinale stated that it was two offices. Ms. Stein stated she would prefer to limit the property to a maximum of 5 employees. Ms. Spinale stated she would like to have the maximum be 6 employees Ms. Twohey stated that the building was located in a densely populated neighborhood and suggested that six employees would be too many. Ms. Belair reiterated that it be limited to 5 employees. Mr. St. Pierre noted that the conditions of a Special Permit were not final and could be amended. • I • Ms. Stein suggested that the hours of operation should be broadened to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and by appointment. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was by Ms. Stein, subject to conditions, seconded by Ms. Debski, and approved (5-0). Public Hearing - Request for Variance from side yard setback to construct a 10 x 8 mudroom- 10 Conant Street - R-2 District - Edward Byrne Mr. Byrne addressed the Board of Appeals in regard to a request for Variance from side yard setback to construct a 10 x 8 mudroom for 10 Conant Street. Mr. Byrne stated that the Vriance required because the construction would be about six feet into the setbacks, adding that he had notified his neighbors and they had no objection to the project. Ms. Stein commented that it seemed like a reasonable request, citing a surplus of lot coverage. Ms. Harris concurred. Ms. Belair asked what material would be used. Mr. Byrne stated that he would use vinyl siding. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made • by Ms. Stein to approve the Variance, subject to conditions, seconded by Ms. Harris, and approved (5-0). Public Hearing - Request for Variance from number of stories allowed(2 '/2) to construct a third story addition - 10 Scotia Street- R-1 District-Edward&Heather Mericer Mr. Mercier addressed the Board of Appeals in regard to a request for Variance from number of stories allowed (2 '/2) to construct a third story addition for 10 Scotia Street. Mr. Mercier explained that he wished to refinish his attic and turn it into a livable space. He noted that the addition would not go father out than the porch and would not go higher than the current roof line. James Hoyghton, contractor for the project, stated that it was a single family house, built in 1853, with a mansard roof and a chimney. He indicated on the drawings where the dormer would be. He stated that there would be 3 double hung windows installed, adding that the project would not involve any additional plumbing. Ms. Stein asked if they would use the same siding. Mr. Mercier said that the existing siding is aluminum and they would use vinyl for the project. • • There being no further questions or comments regard this matter, a motion was made by Ms. Stein to approve the Variance, subject to conditions, seconded Mr. Dionne, and approved (5-0). Adjournment There being no further business before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Dionne, seconded by Ms. Debski and approved 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Ian Fullerton, Clerk Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • • f 1- oeotrAlo CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTIr` 01' 5.F LEh'9, MA BOARD OF APPEAL Ci,ERK'S11,0FFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR >` q SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 ZGOI MAR--1 A 9x50 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING March 21, 2007- 6:30 P.M. 3"FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Continuation of Petition of James Tsitsinos requesting a Variance from height regulations from the Salem Sign Ordinance for the property located at 33 BRIDGE STREET—B-4 DISTRICT. 2. Petition of Melissa Shea requesting a Variance from lot size to subdivide a parcel for the property located at 12 LARKIN LANE—R-1 DISTRICT. 3. Petition of John Swenbeck requesting a Special Permit to re-construct a residence for the property located at 28 ESSEX STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 4. Petition of Michael I. Giller requesting for an automobile electronics business on the site, and a Special Permit to allow two uses on the same site for the property located at 471 HIGHLAND AVENUE—B-2 DISTRICT. • 5. Petition of Sandy Norton and Lisa Pennick requesting a Variance from the height requirement of two and one-half(2 '/2) stories to three (3) stories to construct an addition for the property located at 4 FAIRVIEW AVENUE—R-1 DISTRICT. 6. Petition of Carroll Ayers requesting Variances from lot area, side yard setback and rear yard setback to adjust property lines for the property located at 2-4 and 6-8 HAYWARD STREET—R-1 DISTRICT. 7. Petition of Jason and Stephanie Wachtel requesting a Variance from the required number of stories of two and one-half(2 '/2)to construct a dormer addition for the property located at 3135 NORTH STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 8. Petition of Douglas Hayes requesting a Special Permit to allow a third (3) unit at the site and a Variance from side yard setback to allow construction of a three(3) story deck for the property located at 38 ESSEX STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 9. Petition of Linda Turner requesting a Variance from side yard setback from the required ten (10) foot setback to approximately four(4)feet to construct a kitchen addition for the property located at 11A ANDREW STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 10. Petition of Linda Tull requesting Variances from rear yard setback from the required thirty (30)foot setback to approximately sixteen (16)feet and from lot coverage from the required thirty-five percent(35%) to approximately forty-three percent(43%) from the existing forty percent(40%)to construct a kitchen addition for the property located at 26 BRIGGS STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. This notice pocked on *Official BaH*ft BarMW City Hell Ave., Salem, Mass- ori hw . 7 ao&q a3A 2 of Sv3 .1 L; rd 1 wr lh Cflap. , 11. Old/New Business 12. Adjournment Nina Cohen, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals • • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, March 21, 2007 A Meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Nina Cohen, Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski, Robin Stein and Steve Pinto. Also present was Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre and Staff Planner Dan Merhalski. Discussion about election of new chair Ms. Cohen stated that this would be her last ZBA meeting and that she had enjoyed working with the board, but it was time for her to step down. She stated that she would be submitting a letter of resignation to the Mayor shortly and suggested that the board elect a new chair for the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 18a', 2007. Ms. Debski stated that there were a number of members who's terms were expiring in May and that she thought that they should wait until then to discuss the election of a new chair. • Mr. Pinto agreed with M. Cohen and stated that they weren't sure if they would all be reappointed or not and it made sense to wait until the Mayor had decided the board's makeup before electing another chair. Ms. Harris agreed with Ms. Debski and Mr. Pinto. No members of the board objected to waiting until the re-appointments/appointments had been made in May to elect the new chair. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for a Variance from heieht regulations from the Salem Sign Ordinance - 33 Bridge Street—B4 District-James Tsitsinos. The Petitioner, Mr. Tsitsinos gave the board a brief presentation with pictures detailing the location of the proposed sign on the structure. He also provide a copy of an e-mail sent to him and the City from Earl Washington of National Grid stating that the petitioner did not need to receive approval from National Grid to erect their sign as it would not extend above the roof line of the existing, structure. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public who wished to speak on the petition. • At this time Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. Page 1 of 7 • A motion was made by Richard Dionne to approve the request for a variance, with conditions, seconded by Nina Cohen, and approved (5-0). Public Hearing — Request for Variances from rear yard setback from the required thirty (30) foot setback to approximately sixteen (16) feet and from lot coverage from the required thirty-five percent (35%) to approximately forty-three percent (43%) from the existing forty percent (40%) to construct a kitchen addition — 26 Briggs Street — R-2 District—Linda Tull. The petitioner, Linda Tull gave the board a brief presentation detailing the proposed addition. She stated that the footprint of the structure would require a Variance, but that it would only extend out one (1) additional foot from the exiting deck. Mr. St. Pierre pointed out that the proposed bay window for the addition would have to be included in the setback and would result in a setback variance of fourteen and one-half (14 1/2) feet. The petitioner stated that the addition would be a kitchen addition and that her neighbors were in support of her petition. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. • No members of the public wished to comment on this petition. At this time Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Annie Harris to approve the requested variances, with conditions, seconded by Richard Dionne and approved (5-0). Public Hearing — Request for a Variance from lot size to subdivide a parcel — 12 Larkin Lane—R-1 District—Melissa Shea. The petitioner, Melissa Shea, gave a brief presentation to the board describing the proposed division of the existing lot into two (2) new lots without the required area or frontage. Mr. Pinto stated that the lots in the subject area are of a similar size to that which was proposed. Mr. St. Pierre stated that the petitioner was planning on going before the Planning Board for an Approval Not Required (ANR) decision following the ZBA's decision this evening. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. • Page 2 of 7 • Brian Norris of 10 Larkin Lane asked if the division would put the lots back to their original configuration. Ms. Shea stated that they would and that they had been combined in the past but would now be re-divided. Paul Kelly of 14 Larkin Lane stated that he had various water issues with drainage on his lot after an adjacent house was built, but that he did not object to the proposed lot split. There being no further members of the public wishing to speak, Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Nina Cohen to approve the request for variances from lot area for both parcels and for a waiver from frontage for the parcel to be created at 19 Victory Road, with conditions, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0). At this time Mr. Pinto left the meeting. Public Hearing — Request for a Special Permit to re-construct a residence — 28 Essex Street—R-2 District—John Swenbeck The petitioner, John Swenbeck or 10 1/2 Bentley Street gave a brief presentation to the • board detailing his request for a special permit. He explained that he had been doing interior renovations at the site and that the total cost had gone above fifty percent (50%) of the building's value and had therefore triggered the need for a special permit to be obtained. He also stated that the site would be a two-family residence and that it would be owner-occupied. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public who wished to speak on the petition, Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Robin Stein to approve the request for a special permit, with conditions, seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0). Public Hearing — Request for a Special Permit to allow for an automobile electronics business—471 Highland Avenue—B-2 District—Michael I. Giller. The petitioner, Michael Giller, gave a brief presentation to the board in which he described the kind of business he was proposing for the site and that he would be leasing space from the existing business, Malone Fence Company, which would continue to operate on the site. • The owner of Malone Fence Company gave his verbal consent to allow the petitioner to lease the site and apply for the Special Permit. Page 3 of 7 • At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. Mary Jane Trembly spoke in favor of the petition. Ward Three Councilor Jean Pelletier spoke in favor of the petition. There being no further members of the public wishing to speak on the petition, Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Annie Harris to approve the special permit, with conditions, seconded by Nina Cohen, and approved (5-0). Public Hearing — Request for Variance from the height requirement of two and one-half (2 '/2) stories to three (3) stories to construct an addition — 4 Fairview Avenue — R-1 District—Sandy Norton and Lisa Pennick The petitioner was represented by Richard Griffin, Architect, who gave the board a brief presentation describing the proposed addition. He stated that the height of the roof would remain the same as it is presently. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. • There being no members of the public wishing to speak on this petition, Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Beth Debski to approve the request for a variance, with conditions, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0). Public Hearing — Request for Variances from lot area, side yard setback and rear yard setback to adjust property lines — 2-4 and 6-8 Hayward Street — R-1 District — Carroll Avers. The petitioner, represented by a member of Carol Ayer's law firm, gave a brief presentation describing the proposed land swap on the adjacent parcels of 2-4 Hayward and 6-8 Hayward street. She stated that on the plans lot "Al" would be combined with lot B, and lot `B1" would be combined with lot A. She further stated that the petitioner would apply to the Planning Board for an Approval Not Required (ANR) approval to divide the lots along the new property lines. Tom St. Pierre stated that lot B would need a waiver of frontage with the new division. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. • Mary Jane Trembly stated that she is the real estate agent for the owners of the parcels and is in favor of the petition. Page 4 of 7 f • Mary Woodcock representing Clark Realty of 29 Foster Street stated that she had concerns with the project about drainage and debris that had built up near her property line adjacent to the site and that the owners of lot B would be inheriting these issue, but she is not opposed to the division. There being no further members of the public wishing to speak on this petition, Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Annie Harris to approve the petition, with conditions, and a waiver from frontage for lot B, seconded by Beth Debski, and approved (5-0). Public Hearing — Request for Variance from the required number of stories of two and one-half (2 '/2) to construct a dormer addition — 135 North Street — R-2 District — Jason and Stephanie Wachtel. The petitioner, Stephanie Wachtel, gave a brief presentation to the board detailing the proposed dormer addition for a new nursery. She stated that she had sent notices to the abutters, but had only been able to speak with half of them. Those that she spoke to were in favor of the petition. She also presented the board with a letter in support of the petition from Ward six councilor Paul Prevey. • Ms, Cohen asked the petitioner if she would consider double-hung windows and changing the design of the dormer to better fit in with the area. Ms. Wachtel stated that she would be willing to consider it. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public wishing to speak on this petition, Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Nina Cohen to approve the petition, with conditions, seconded by Robin Stein, and approved (5-0). Public Hearing — Request for a Special Permit to allow a third (3) unit at the site and a Variance from side yard setback to allow construction of a three (3) story deck — 38 Essex Street—R-2 District—Douglas Haves The petitioner was represented by Nathan Bosolides of Peabody. Mr. Bosolides gave a brief presentation to the Board detailing their request for a Special Permit and variances. to allow a third (3) unit at the site and a Variance from side yard setback to allow construction of a three (3) story deck for the property. He also stated that the on site garages were rented out to the residents of the site with one (1) garage rented to an off- site individual who used it to repair antique cars. Page 5 of 7 At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. Arty. John Carr spoke on behalf of Linda Moustakis and stated that they opposed the petition on the basis that there were no grounds for the variance. Linda Chambers, the next door neighbor, stated that she was in support of the petition. Mr. Bosolides gave a brief rebuttal to Arty. Carr's statement regarding grounds for a variance. He stated that the project was not derogating from the intent of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as many properties in the area are multi-family residences. At this time Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. Ms. Harris stated that she was uncomfortable with the concept of a use variance, which is what this petition amounted to. Ms. Cohen stated that this would seem like spot zoning. Ms. Stein stated that page 54 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance contains language that seems to give the board the right to pass use variances. Ms, Cohen stated to the petitioner that there did not appear to be support for the petition • from the board and asked if the petitioner would like to withdraw their application without prejudice and return to the board with a better project in the future. The petitioner requested to withdraw the application without prejudice. Ally. Can objected to the request and the board's suggesting it to them. A motion was made by Nina Cohen to accept the petitioner's request for a withdrawal without prejudice, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0). Public Hearing — Request for a Variance from side yard setback from the required ten (10) foot setback to approximately four (4) feet to construct a kitchen addition — 11A Andrew Street—R-2 District—Lynn Turner The petitioner, Lynn tumer, gave a brief presentation to the board detailing the project and presented pictures of the site for the kitchen addition. She also presented a letter written by the co-owner of 11 Andrew Street in support of her petition. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public wishing to speak on this matter, Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. • Page 6 of 7 A motion was made by Richard Dionne to approve the petition, with conditions, seconded by Robin Stein, and approved (5-0). Old/New Business None, Adjournment There being no further business before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Nina Cohen, seconded by Richard Dionne and approved 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Daniel J. Merhalski, Staff Planner/Clerk Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Page 7 of 7 oNUtr( CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • - m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �v TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR c=': April 6, 2007 .r,y Decision Petition of Theodore Morris requesting Variances for the properties at 2-4 and 6-8 Hayward Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioner,Theodore Morris sought variances from lot area, side yard setback and rear yard setback to adjust property lines for the properties located at 2-4 and 6-8 Hayward 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 petitioner was represented by Carroll Ayers, attorney. 2. The subject properties are in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) district and are a pre-existing, non-conforming lots in a residential neighborhood. 3. The petitioner was requesting variances from lot area, side yard setback and rear yard setback to adjust property lines of the adjacent parcels. 4. The frontage of the lots also required a waiver from frontage for Lot B by the ZBA. 5. The petitioner indicated that they will be going before the Salem Planning Board for an Approval Not Required (ANR) approval, following the Board's decision. 6. The plans submitted indicated that the portion of the lots labeled "Lot A 1" will be combined with "Lot B", and the portion of the lot labeled "Lot B 1" will be combined with Lot A. • 7. The petitioner presented a document, signed by all of the parties involved, indicating that they were seeking to combine the portions of the lots as described in the plan. 8. One member of the public spoke in favor of the petition. 9. One member of the public addressed the Board regarding concerns about debris on her adjacent parcel. 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 Variances does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as the lot lines will be shifting on pre-existing lots that are both pre-existing, non-conforming lots. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 district and the use of the lots is not changing. • 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, five (5) in favor (Cohen, Dionne, Harris, Debski, Stein) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for Variances and to grant a waiver of frontage to Lot B (2-4 Hayward Street), subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 3. The petitioner agrees to address the issues of debris raised during the public hearing. Annie Harris Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ,F • 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. • • oNwt CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • n �' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE. 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 C' KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR `-='• f i March 28, 2007 n Decision Petition of Michael Giller requesting a Special Permit for the property at 471 Highland Avenue City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioner, Michael Giller sought a Special Permit for an automobile electronics business for the property located at 471 Highland Avenue, 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. Petitioner's property is in the Business Highway (B-2) district and is currently used as a commercial business. 2. The petitioner was requesting a Special Permit to allow an automobile electronics business to be run separately, but at the same location with, the existing fencing business. 3. The petitioner will lease the space from the owner. 4. The a representative of the owner of the site, Malone Fence Company, Inc., gave verbal approval that the petition had their consent to seek a Special Permit for their site. 5. One (1) 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: 7 e • 1. The petitioner's request to for a Variance does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as automobile related businesses are permitted in the Business Highway (B-2)District and other businesses of a similar nature and intensity are located within the same area as the petitioner's site. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as automobile sales and service establishments are permitted by Special Permit in the Business Highway (B-2) District. 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, five (5) in favor (Cohen, Dionne,Harris, Debski, Stein) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for Variances, 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. 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. f ,4 i Annie Hams 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 -�I 04 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • • ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR f SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 '' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR C , c� March 29, 2007 -: �f Decision ,y Petition of James Tsitsinos requesting a Variance 5� for the property at 33 Bridge Street y z City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on February 21, 2007 and continued a to March 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski and Steven Pinto. The petitioner, James Tsitsinos sought a variance from height regulations from the Salem Sign Ordinance for the property located at 33 Bridge Street, Salem, in the Wholesale 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. Petitioner's property is in the Wholesale Automotive (B-4) district and is a permitted use as a restaurant. 2. The petitioner was requesting a variance from height regulations from the Salem Sign Ordinance to locate a sign above the roof line of the existing structure. 3. The petition was continued at the February 21, 2007 meeting to the March 21, 2007 meeting following receipt of correspondence from National Grid requesting that the petitioner contact them to discuss locating a sign within National Grid's easement. 4. At the March 21, 2007 meeting the petitioner presented a copy of an e-mail from National Grid stating that the location of the sign was acceptable to them and did not require a permit from National Grid. 5. No members of the public wished to speak on the petition at the public hearing. • • 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 sign will be in compliance with all other requirements of the Salem Sign Ordinance and will not negatively impact the public's safety. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five 5) in favorquest for (Cohen, Dionne, Harris, Debski, Pinto) and none (0) opposed, grant Variances, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: Richard Dionne 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�yN Is CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS L - BOARD OF APPEAL CLERi( S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • a f SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 L FAX: 978-740-9846 Zlb] OR -3 A,11: 2b KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR March 29, 2007 Decision Petition of John Swenbeck requesting a Special Permit for the property at 28 Essex Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioner, John Swenbeck sought a Special Permit to allow for the reconstruction of the residence located at 28 Essex 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. Petitioner's property is in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) district and is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure in a residential neighborhood. 2. The petitioner was requesting a Special Permit under Section 8-4 to allow for the reconstruction of more than 50% of the interior structure and/or value of the original structure to allow for a remodel of the existing, two(2) unit non- conforming structure. 3. The petitioner stated that one of the units would be owner-occupied. 4. The construction for the site has already begun or is substantially finished. 5. No members of the public spoke on 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 request to for a Special Permit does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as residential uses are permitted in the R-2 • district and the use and intensity of use are not changing from the previous use at the site. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as two-family residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 district. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner of a financial means and would severely hinder the use of the lot as a two-family residential dwelling. 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, Dionne, Harris,Debski, Stein) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for . Variances, 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. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to 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. 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. 1 • � / 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. • • o ONDIT,( CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETY S.__ JAA `Lr`j, �tA BOARD OF APPEAL m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE • 9 . �. + ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 DDS FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2G01 MAR 29^ P j: 2 MAYOR March 29, 2007 Douglas P. Hayes 15 Lothrop Street Beverly, MA 01915 RE: 38 Essex Street Dear Mr. Hayes: The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,March 21, 2007 to hear the petition for a • Variance to add a third dwelling unit and a Variance from side yard setback for the property at 38 Essex Street. During the course of the public hearing, you requested to withdraw your petition with respect to both variance requests. The Board decided by a vote of four (4) in favor (Dionne, Harris, Debski, Stein) and one (1) opposed (Cohen) to grant the request for withdrawal without prejudice. If you have any questions or require farther information, please feel free to contact me in the Department of Planning& Community Development at (978) 619-5685. Sincerely, Daniel J. Methalski Staff Planner Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • ONiMT 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 r March 29, 2007 Decision ,Y, Petition of Sandy Norton and Lisa Pennick requesting a Variance o c for the property at 4 Fairview Avenue ➢ _T1 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 1 �n A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 21, 2007 pursuant to N Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members - were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioners, Sandy Norton and Lisa Pennick, sought a Variance from the height requirement of two and one-half(2 '/2) stories to three (3)stories to construct an addition for the property located at 4 Fairview Avenue, Salem, in the Single-Family Residential (R-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 petitioner was represented by Richard Griffin, Architect. 2. Petitioner's property is in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) district. 3. The petitioner was requesting a variance from the height requirement of two and one-half(2 '/z) stories to three (3) stories to construct a dormer addition 4. The petitioner stated that the height of the roof was no longer going to be raised, but would remain at its current height. 5. No members of the public spoke on 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 Zonitig 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 residential uses are permitted in the R-1 district and additions are common in this district. J i .' 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-1 district. 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, five (5) in favor (Cohen, Dionne, Hams, Debski, Stein) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for Variances, 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 Occupancy 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. 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. Eliza th 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 tiling 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 0 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS� 3L �, BOARD OF APPEAL - ng' 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE • > ,a. + �' q SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 n TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 0o FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL :MAR 2''9 P 5: 25 MAYOR March 29, 2007 Decision Petition of Melissa Shea requesting a Variance for the property at 12 Larkin Lane City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioner, Melissa Shea sought a variance from lot size to subdivide a parcel for the property located at 12 Larkin Lane, Salem, in the Single-Family Residential (R-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. Petitioner's property is in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) district and is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot in a residential neighborhood. 2. The petitioner was requesting a variance from lot size to subdivide the front and rear portions of the parcel, which front on different streets. 3. The existing frontage was also below the required one-hundred (100) feet in the Single-Family(R-1) zoning district and a waiver from frontage was sought for the proposed new lot to be located at 19 Victory Road. 4. The petitioner acknowledged that they will be going to the Planning Board to seek an Approval Not required (ANR) division of the parcel, should the ZBA approve the relief requested. 5. The petitioner stated that they would probably try to sell the proposed new lot as a residential lot. • 6. Two members of the public spoke on the petition, none were opposed to the requested variance and waiver from frontage. .s 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 and waiver from frontage does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as residential uses are permitted in the R-1 district and the lot size in the area is similar to that which is proposed by the subdivision of these parcels 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-1 district and the lot will most likely be used for construction of a single-family home. 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, five (5) in favor (Cohen, Dionne, Harris, Debski, Stein) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for Variances, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and • regulations. 2. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. A-� 4:�.-,4 low 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. • T o mr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, CLARK'S OFF 3RD FLOOk!1 V^l)r L L'_M, hA ( ICE SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 _ • — TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 7C�1. RR: 29 R 5: 2C: March 29, 2007 Decision Petition of Jason and Stephanie Wachtel requesting a Variance for the property at 135 North Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioners, Jason and Stephanie Wachtel sought a Variance from the required number of stories of two and one-half(2 %2) to construct a dormer addition for the property located at 135 North 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. Petitioner's property is in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) district and is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure in a residential neighborhood. 2. The petitioner requested a Variance from the required number of stories from the existing two and one-half(2 %2) stories to a proposed three (stories) to construct a dormer addition to the existing residential structure. 3. The petitioner stated that she had spoken to approximately I/2 of her neighbors and that they were in support of the petition. 4. The petitioner stated that she would consider the use of double-hung windows and a revision of the dormer design to match the surrounding area. 5. A letter from Ward Six Councilor Paul Prevey in support of the petition was received and filed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 6. No members of the public spoke in opposition to 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 request to for a Variance does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as residential uses are permitted in the R-2 district and additions are common to these pre-existing non-conforming lots and structures. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 district. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner by restricting the allowed use of the site. Alternatives would create a substantial financial 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 (Cohen, Dionne, Harris, Debski, Stein) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for • Variances, 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 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 0 fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its J floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 8. The petitioner shall consider the use of double-hung windows and consider a change in the architecture of the proposed dormer to better match the surrounding area. 1 La.�v CCS l �. 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. • lip f o�olT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSEI I'' Uf 3� ( Em mp BOARD OF APPEAL C,ERK'S.:OFFICE - m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 n TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 k FAX: 978-740-9846 2-9 --P jt L� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL - MAYOR March 28, 2007 Decision Petition of Linda Tull requesting Variances for the property at 26 Briggs Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioner, Linda Tull sought Variances from rear yard setback from the required thirty (30) foot setback to approximately sixteen (16) feet and from lot coverage from the required thirty-five percent (35%) to approximately forty-three percent (43%) from the • existing forty percent (40%) to construct a kitchen addition for the property located at 26 Briggs 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. Petitioner's property is in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) district and is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure in a residential neighborhood. 2. The petitioner was requesting variances from rear yard setback from the required thirty (30) foot setback to approximately sixteen (16) feet and from lot coverage from the required thirty-five percent (35%) to approximately forty-three percent (43%) from the existing forty percent (40%) to construct a kitchen addition. 3. The required setback was increased to fourteen (14) feet to accommodate a bay window appearing in the plans 4. The petitioner stated that her neighbors were supportive of the requested variances. • 5. No members of the public spoke on the petition. _r • 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. Elizabeth D�ebski 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. • „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 a Variance does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as residential uses are permitted in the R-2 district and additions are common to these pre-existing non-conforming lots and structures. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 district. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner of a financial means. 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,Dionne, Harris,Debski, Stein) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for Variances, 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • 9. Unless this decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structures(s) f ora CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS ', ALE 9 i'1A BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE • _ f SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Jfi]�IAAn 29 P 5: 21' MAYOR March 29, 2007 Decision Petition of Lynn Turner requesting a Variance for the property at 11A Andrew Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski and Robin Stein. The petitioner, Lynn Turner sought a Variance from side yard setback from the required ten (10)foot setback to approximately four(4)feet to construct a kitchen addition for the property located at I IA Andrew Street, Salem, in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3) 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. Petitioner's property is in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3) district and is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure in a residential neighborhood. 2. The petitioner was requesting a variance from the required ten (10) foot setback to approximately four(4) feet to construct a kitchen addition. 3. The petitioner submitted a letter from the co-owner of 11 Andrews Street, Pamela Putnam of 1113 Andrew Street in support of the petitioner's request. 4. No members of the public spoke wished to speak on 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 request to for a Variance does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as residential uses are permitted in the R-3 • district and additions are common to these pre-existing non-conforming lots and structures. • 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-3 district. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial financial 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 (Cohen, Dionne, Harris, Debski, Stein) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for Variances, 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 Occupancy 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. 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. • Richard Dionne 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. • aAM CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR f o SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �p TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX' 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING r; February 21, 2007- 6:30 P.M. r- 3RIFLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET rn :9 o x 1. Continuation of Petition of Peter and Cheryl Bagarella requesting a Variance from cr1 0 7' maximum height of fences and boundary walls to allow a six (6)foot stockade fence-V T m be constructed on top of a newly constructed stone wall for the property located at 28c-3- MARLBOROUGH ROAD—R-1 DISTRICT. q�i rn w v 2. Continued Petition of Joseph Reither requesting Variances from lot size and lot width to allow a structure to be relocated to the lot. Lot width is 45.5 feet instead of the required 100 feet and lot size is 7,383 sq.ft. instead of the required 15,000 sq.ft. The property is located at 14 BUTLER STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 3. Petition of James Tsitsinos requesting a Variance from height regulations from the Salem Sign Ordinance for the property located at 33 BRIDGE STREET—B-4 DISTRICT. 4. Petition of Mathew Kaminski requesting a Variance from side yard setback to construct an addition. Side yard setback will be three (3) feet instead of the required ten (10) feet for the property located at 23 LEMON STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 5. Petition of Jay Salem requesting a Variance from rear yard setback from the required thirty (30) foot setback to twenty-three (23) feet for to construct a new suaroom for the property located at 3 HENRY STREET—R-1 DISTRICT. 6. Continuation of Petition of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC requesting a Comprehensive Permit to allow the renovation of the former rectory and school buildings, and the construction of a new six-story building on the site for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET—ST.JOSEPH'S REDEVELOPMENT—R-3 DISTRICT. 7. Old/New Business a. Adoption of 2007 Yearly schedule of meetings 8. Adjournment Nina Cohen, Chair smalo oning Board of Appeals • TMs ncltice poP+®d on " €icl�l JuNt� city Hall Ave., i �, � P:S. 0n �� 7 at r:3 9 Pm. In a=rdor EzO Wmd Gila, . 23A i 23B Of .�,. • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, February 21, 2007 A Meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Nina Cohen, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Steve Pinto. Also present was Assistant Building Inspector Joe Barbeau, Director of Planning and Community Development Lynn Duncan and Staff Planner Dan Merhalski. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for a Variance from maximum height of fences and boundary walls to allow a six (6) foot stockade fence to be constructed on ton of a newly constructed stone wall — 28 Marlborough Road — R-1 District - Peter and Cheryl Bagarella. The Petitioner, Peter Bagarella gave a brief presentation to the Board regarding the project site and the location of the proposed fence for the site. He described the reasons for the request and told the Board that the drainage on the site had required a modification of the grade and this grade change is partly responsible for the need for a • taller fence to keep his German Sheppard guard dog within the back yard of the property. At this time Nina Cohen opened the public hearing. Ward Four Councilor Leonard O'Leary spoke in opposition to the petition. He stated that the wall the petitioner is seeking to build the fence on top of is actually on city land and this issue needed to be resolved before any fence is constructed on the site. Dennis Foley of 32 Marlborough Road stated that he is an abutter and he is in favor of the petition. Tara Barton of 26 Marlborough Road also spoke in favor of the petition. There being no other members of the public wishing to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed at this time. Nina Cohen asked the petitioner if the height of the fence to be added could be reduced to five feet and still serve as an effective means of keeping the dog inside the fence. Mr. Bagarella stated that five feet would be acceptable. Ms. Cohen asked if the petitioner would be amenable to a condition that he pursue the • matter of resolving the location of the fence with the City as a part of the decision. Page 1 of 8 • Mr. Bagarella agreed that this would be an acceptable condition. A motion was made by Nina Cohen to approve the request for a variance, with conditions, seconded by Bonnie Belair, and approved(5-0) Continuation of Public Hearing — Request for Variances from lot size and lot width to allow a structure to be relocated to the lot— 14 Butler Street — R-2 District — Joseph Reither Attorney Jack Keilty gave a brief presentation on behalf of the petitioner, Joseph Reither, for his request for variances for the property at 14 Butler Street from lot size and lot width to allow a structure to be relocated to the lot. Lot width is 45.5 feet instead of the required 100 feet and lot size is 7,383 sq.ft. instead of the required 15,000 sq.ft. Attorney Keilty stated that his client would include up to six (6) off-street parking spaces for the site. He stated that the new structure discussed at the last public hearing in January would be constructed in place of the originally requested historic house and that the residence would be owner occupied. At this time Nina Cohen opened the public hearing. Charles Pelletier of 12 Butler Street presented a petition in opposition to the proposed • variances and spoke in opposition to the petition. George Sands of 18 Butler Street spoke against the petition due to a lack of parking. Lori Peckham of 9 Butler Street spoke in opposition to the petition. Jim Mouskovitz of the Ward 4 Neighborhood Group stated that parking was bad on the street. Marie Pelletier of 12 Butler Street also stated that parking on Butler Street was difficult. Councilor Leonard O'Leary spoke in opposition to the petition. Nina Cohen stated that the applicant had offered to have a condition in the decision that would require him to provide off-street parking for up to six (6) vehicles. There being no other members of the public wishing to speak on this petition, Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Beth Debski to approve the requested ordinance, with conditions, seconded by Steve Pinto and approved (5-0). • Public Hearing — Request for a Variance from height regulations from the Salem Sign Ordinance—33 Bridge Street—B-4 District—James Tsitsinos. Page 2 of 8 • Ms. Cohen read a letter from Nation Grid requesting that the petitioner apply to them for permission to located a sign within their power easement. The petitioner, James Tsitsinos, agreed to contact National Grid and to postpone the public hearing until the March 21" Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. A motion to continue the public hearing to 6:30 pm March 21", 2007 was made by Bonnie Belair, seconded by Nina Cohen and approved (6-0). Public Hearing—Request for a Variance from side yard setback to construct an addition— 23 Lemon Street—R-2 District—Mathew Kaminski Petition of Mathew Kaminski requesting a Variance from side yard setback to construct an addition. Side yard setback will be three (3) feet instead of the required ten (10) feet for the property located at 23 LEMON STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. The petitioner gave a brief presentation on his request for a variance from side yard setback to construct an addition. The side yard setback will be three (3) feet instead of the required ten (10) feet for the property. Rick Dionne asked the petitioner if he would be building with a fire-proof material due to the close proximity to the neighborhood and the danger of fire. • The petitioner stated that they would be willing to look into building with fireproof materials. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. James Bonner or 27 Lemon Street spoke in favor of the petitioner's request. Eleanor Robinson of 40 Northey Street spoke in favor of the request. There being no further members of the public wishing to comment on this petition, Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Nina Cohen to approve the request for a variance, with conditions, seconded by Beth Debski and approved (4-1) Mr. Dionne dissenting. Public Hearing — Request for a Variance from rear yard setback — 3 Henry Street — R-1 District—Jay Salem. The petitioner gave a brief presentation to the Board detailing their request for a Variance from rear yard setback from the required thirty (30) foot setback to twenty-three (23) feet for to construct a new sunroom for the property. • Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing at this time. Page 3 of 8 • Carmen Valveri spoke in favor of the petition. There being no further members of the public wishing to comment on this petition, Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Nina Cohen to approve the petition, with conditions, seconded by Richard Dionne, and approved (5-0). Continuation of Public Hearing — Request for a Comprehensive Permit to allow the renovation of the former rectory and school buildings, and the construction of a new six- story building— 135 Lafayette Street—R-3 District—Salem Lafayette Development,LLC Lisa Albergini, David Armitage, Joseph Correnti and Michel Vay appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Salem Lafayette Development, LLC. Arty. Michael Vay spoke of behalf of the petitioner, the Salem Lafayette Development, LLC and gave a summary presentation from the February 12, 2007 special meeting of the ZBA. Lisa Albergini of the Planning Office for Urban Affairs, a partner of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC, addressed the Board and gave a presentation detailing the parking for the site and amending their application from the previously proposed six (6) stories to a • revised total height of four (4) stories and changing the amount of units from ninety- sev4en (97) to a total of sixty-seven (67) units. She also stated that all forty-five (45) of the units in the new four story building would be affordable units. The remaining twenty- two (22) units in the rectory and school building for the site would be market-rate units. She added that of the 45 units in the new building, fifteen (15) would be condominium units, the remaining thirty (30) units would be rental units. Further, the new parking design would eliminate the underground parking structure and would result in a total of one0hundref fifteen (1156) above ground parking spaces with forty-five (45) reserved for the proposed Community Life Center on the first floor of the proposed four-story building, and seventy (70) for the housing units. The affordable units in the new building would be preserved as affordable units, in perpetuity. Ms. Cohen reviewed the aspect of the 40B statute that requires all comprehensive permits to provide a community benefit. She stated that the need for affordable housing is great in Salem and that the affordable units, would be a great benefit to the residents of the city. She further stated that the community life center would also be a good benefit to the residents of the community, however, she also has some design concerns. She also stated that she thought a recommendation could be to have the Design Review Board review the project to address these concerns. Ms. Albergini stated that there has been a lot of design input provided through the planning board process and that the design has been changed considerably through that • process. Page 4 of 8 • Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development stated that many communities use the Planning Board in lieu of a Design Review board and that Salem uses the Planning Board in this capacity when the project is not within the Design Review Board's jurisdiction, as with this project. Rick Dionne stated and that he liked the design and the community life center, but wanted the density to be reduced. Steve Pinto asked about the original design of the building and for a summary of the changes. Ms. Albergini described the changes in the design on the artist's rendering for the site. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. T.C. Reilly-Gogin spoke about a regional plan for the area that the developer referenced and asked if the developer included the senior center in the data. Ms. Albergini stated that they did not.. Meg Twoey of 122 Federal Street said that she spoke on behalf of Historic Salem and stated that the Design Review Board should see the proposal and comment to the ZBA • before the ZBA takes action on the petition. Jerry Parisella, the Assistant City Solicitor, stated that the statute prohibits sending the petition to another board for review. Ward Two Councilor Michael Sosnowski asked if the ZBA was there to review a friendly 40B application or if they were just looking at details? Ms. Cohen stated that the application they were reviewing was for a friendly 40B project. Councilor Sosnowski stated that a 40B application essentially allows the zoning ordinance to be set aside. Attorney John Carr addressed the board and stated the project was going to be six stories and 97 units, and now it is reduced to four stories and 67 units, and that the developer should have submitted the correct design height and density. He further stated that the ZBA can reject this proposal as it is a friendly 40B and that the project could set a dangerous precedent of other 40B applications in Salem. He added that the Board should wait until the public hearing is over before they stated their opinions on the project. Councilor-At-Large Joan Lovely stated that the financial cost per square foot is too high for the proposed Community Life Center and the ownership for the city of the parcel is • not yet determined. Page 5 of 8 • Ms. Albergini stated that the ownership is not determined because the financing vehicle has not yet been decided upon and won't be until the project move forward. There could be any number of different types of ownership options from leasing to condoization to donations, etc. At this time Rick Dionne left the meeting due to a prior commitment. Darrell Lebivici of 122 Federal Street questioned the appropriateness of a 40B and stated that the massing is ok now with the revision to four stories. Cheryl Walker of Lafayette Street stated that the process has taken too long. Mr. Blatty stated that it is disturbing that the funding and ownership of the Community Life Center are not set yet. Traffic is also a consideration that is not resolved yet. Kathy Meadowcroft stated that 1 parking space per unit is not enough. Jim Moskowitz of 10 Rawlins Street stated that the project with the 40B process and said that this is a good project compared to Peabody's project. John Walsh stated that seniors usually use the existing senior center is mostly used during the day and that the proposed center will have enough parking spaces. • Arbella Ciciano of 25 Perkins Street stated that the affordable housing for the project is a great benefit for the community. Frank Silva of 6 Gable Circle stated that there is a need for affordable housing in the point neighborhood. Ward One Councilor Lucy Corchado stated her support for the project and submitted a petition of residents in favor of the project. She further stated that this project addresses the needs of the community for affordable housing and will be a good project for the city. Ms. Cohen asked if David Jaquith of the Design Review Board wanted to speak. Mr. Jaquith stated that the Design Review Board has performed review services for other projects for the ZBA in the past, but that they have plenty of work to do in the area that they have jurisdiction over. Ms. Cohen asked the Board if they wanted the Design Review Board to review the project as it had been considered a bad design by Historic Salem, Inc. Ms. Harris asked if the public hearing was closed? • Ms. Debski said that the request should come in the form of a motion but that there were other members of the public who may wish to speak tonight. Page 6 of 8 • Ms. Cohen asked if there were any other members of the public who wished to address the Board tonight? Linda Locke stated that she thinks that there is a need for a children's center to be open beyond 4:00 pm and on the weekend, but that many seniors want their own location. Lynn Duncan stated that she did not think that the Design Review Board in the past did not go beyond their jurisdictional area. Eleana Servich stated that the Community Life Center is a good part of the project, but that parking and traffic are an issue that should be resolved. John Carr addressed the board again and stated that the Board needed more information. At this time Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. Ms. Harris stated that she thought the project was greatly improved as revised to four stories and that she would like to move the project forward tonight, with conditions. Ms. Belair stated that she thought that the Board had hear all of the information they needed to make a decision, the project is improved with the revisions, and even thought • the funding is not certain, she has faith in the developer that they are not going to leave overnight and that the project should be voted on tonight. She also stated that affordable housing is a great benefit for the city. Ms. Debski echoed Ms. Belair's comments and stated that this is a great project for the city. She also stated that the affordable housing will be created and the Community Life Center is a good addition to the project. The funding will be worked out by the city council and she thought that the Board should work to put together a decision tonight. Mr. Pinto stated that the reduction to a four-story building took away a lot of the density questions and that the project with affordable housing was good for the community. He also stated that he thought the Board should go forward with a vote tonight. Beth Debski stated that the Planning Board chair spoke about the project's design changes and that the Planning Board worked very hard to work through the process of deign review and that they did not need to go to the Design Review Board. Ms. Duncan stated that she had a draft decision with conditions that she had prepared for the board in anticipation of a possible vote this evening and that she could guide the board through the decision. John Carr objected stating that the public hearing was over and left the meeting. • Ms. Duncan led the board in a review of the draft decision. Page 7 of 8 Following the discussion of the draft decision, a motion was made by Nina Cohen to approve the Comprehensive Permit, with conditions, seconded by Annie Harris and approved (5-0). Old/New Business None. 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 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Daniel J. Merhalski, Staff Planner/Clerk Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • • Page 8 of 8 . ONWT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • �, �- Y SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O1970 �n TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Bn� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR March 2, 2007 Decision Petition of Jay Salem requesting a Variance for the property at 3 Henry Street r, City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals xc' Ui cr: A public hearing on the above petition was opened on February 21, 2007 pursuant to J' C) ; Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members c>- were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie r^ v Belair and Annie Harris. cn The petitioner,Jay Salem, sought a Variance from rear yard setback to construct a sunroom for the property located at 3 Henry Street, Salem, in the Single-Family Residential (R-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. Petitioner's property is in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) district. 2. A preexisting deck is located in the proposed area for the new construction and will be removed for the addition. 3. The petitioner was requesting a variance to allow for construction of a one- story sunroom addition to be located in place of an existing non-conforming deck. 4. The depth of the rear yard setback would be twenty-three (23) feet instead of the required thirty(30) feet. 5. One (1) resident 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: .i i 1. The petitioner's request to for a Variance does not constitute substantial • detriment to the public good as residential additions are common in the R-1 district and the proposed addition will not substantially impact the abutters. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-1 district. 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, five (5) in favor (Cohen, Belair, Debski, Dionne, Harris) 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted doe not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s)located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area of 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. Z6 Nina Cohen Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • iA COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH 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. • • oA� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR 1I SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR O v � - 9 N y March 2, 2007 01 T - Decision Petition of Matthew Kaminski requesting a Variance s for the property at 23 Lemon Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on February 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair and Annie Hams. The petitioner, Matthew Kaminski, sought a Variance from side yard setback to construct an addition to the property located at 23 Lemon 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. Petitioner's property is in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) district and is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure in a residential neighborhood. 2. The petitioner was requesting a variance to allow for construction of a one- story addition to be located flush with the side of the existing structure. 3. The width of the side yard setback would be three (3) feet instead of the required ten (10) feet. 4. One (1) abutter 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 request to for a Variance does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as residential uses are permitted in the R-2 district and additions are common to these pre-existing non-conforming lots • and structures. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent • or purpose of the zoning ordinance as residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 district. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner as the addition would require substantial reconstruction of the foundation entrance to the basement level. 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, Belair, Debski, Harris) and one (1) opposed (Dionne), 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. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted doe not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area of 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. Petitioner shall investigate suitable fire resistant materials for the wall facing the direct abutter and shall confer with the Building Inspector. /lJ • Nina Cohen Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH 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 -'� BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR r SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • - TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ti C7 MAYOR o n� r rrt March 1, 2007 a D T m= DeC1SlOri Petition of Peter Bagarella requesting a Variance w m3 for the property at 28 Marlborough Road Ln v City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on February 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair and Annie Harris. The petitioner, Peter Bagarella, sought a Variance from maximum height for fences to construct a six (6) foot stockade fence on top of an existing stone wall for the property located at 28 Marlborough Road, Salem, in the Single-Family Residential (R-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. Petitioner's property is in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) district. The lot is ringed by an existing stone wall around the rear perimeter and a portion of the front yard. 2. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow construction of a six (6) foot stockade fence on top of the existing stone wall, in violation of the zoning ordinance height limit for fences of six (6) feet in the R-1 District. 3. The height of the stone wall ranges from approximately two (2) feet to four (4) feet. The height of the proposed stockade fence would therefore vary from eight (8) feet to ten (10) feet from ground level. 4. The applicant states that basis for hardship is his ownership of a large German Shepherd guard dog that he seeks to contain within the fenced-in yard... S. Ward Four Councilor Leonard O'Leary spoke against the petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to resolve on ongoing encroachment that he caused relative to a City of Salem sidewalk that petitioner allegedly • removed. Councilor O'Leary argued that the variance should not be granted until the land dispute is resolved. j • 6. Two abutters spoke in favor of the petition on the ground that the fence is a useful way to gain privacy from traffic passing by on Marlborough Road. 7. Petitioner ultimately agreed that a five (5) foot stockade fence would provide some privacy and some protection for his pet dog. 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 fence will help secure the premises and provide privacy from car traffic on Marlborough Road.. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as fencing is a permitted use in the R-1 district. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner as the site would have to be excavated to allow for a six foot fence to provide the requested enclosure for the site. • 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, Dionne, Debski, Belair, Harris) 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. The fence shall only be a five (5) foot stockade fence, not a six (6) foot fence. 5. The petitioner shall continue discussions with the City regarding the disputed land where the existing stone wall is located and shall reach a conclusion with the City before the spring. • Nina Cohen Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH 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 tiled 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. • <f ONDITA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �+ FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR ^ n o C7- T rn March 1, 2007 Decision C) Petition of Joseph Reither requesting Variances3 for the property at 14 Butler Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals D A public hearing on the above petition was opened on January 17, 2007 and continued to February 21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair and Annie Harris. The petitioner, Joseph Reither, sought Variances from lot size and width to allow a single family residence to be built on an existing nonconforming lot located at 14 Butler 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 petitioner was represented by Attorney John Keilty of Peabody. 2. Petitioner's property is in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) district and is a non-conforming lot in a residential neighborhood. 3. The petitioner initially filed an application to allow an historic structure to be relocated to the site. Petitioner later amended his request to seek a variance to allow a new residential structure to be built on the site, 4. The width of the lot would be 45.5 feet instead of the required 100 feet. 5. The lot size would be 7,383 sq.ft. instead of the required 15,000 sq.ft. 6. The petitioner would provide four (4) off-street parking spaces on the site. 7. A requirement of owner-occupancy would remain attached to the residence. 8. Twenty seven residents signed a petition in opposition to the the petitioner's • request. An abutter, Charles Pelletier, argued that the neighborhood was congested with insufficient off-street parking, and that the additional residence • would add to the general congestion in the neighborhood. Mrs. Pelletier and three other neighbors also said they opposed the proposed new construction. 9. Ward Four Councilor Leonard O'Leary opposed the petition on the grounds that because of the small size of the lots, housing in the area is very tight. 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 as residential uses are permitted in the R-2 district and the neighborhood makeup of the area is residential. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as single-family residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 district. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner as the site would remain unbuildable in this zoning district. • 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, Dionne, Debski, Pinto, Harris) 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. 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. 8. The structure shall be owner occupied. 9. 1 The parking area shall be paved with a stone-like permeable type of paving. 10. There shall be at least four (4) off-street parking spaces on the site. 11. No blasting shall be permitted on the site. 12. The developer shall notify the neighbors prior to beginning construction on the site. Nina Cohen Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH 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. • osntrA CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL CI I Y OF QA' I;M. .P1A 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR CLERKS OFFICE "a ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ooh FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEISCOLL 2001 JAN 2S P MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING February 12, 2007- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Petition of Salem Lafayette Development,LLC requesting a Comprehensive Permit to allow the renovation of the former rectory and school buildings, and the construction of a new six-story building on the site for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET—ST.JOSEPH'S REDEVELOPMENT—R-3 DISTRICT. 2. Continuation of Petition of National Grid Wireless requesting Variances from side and rear setback to construct a free-standing structure for the property at 132-142 CANAL STREET—I-DISTRICT. 3. Old/New Business 4. Adjournment Nina Cohen, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals This notice post(4d on "C°#Ycial Bull®t1n Board' Clty H211 Ave., m Pass on sem - as at 2si3�1 In �a do, .,,�,�� Chap. 39 n^o o@ M.G.L. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n w 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • ' 4'a s TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR February 23, 2007 Decision , Petition of National Grid Wireless requesting a Variance ' CD for the property at 134-143 Canal Street ' City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals � A public hearing on the above petition was opened on January 17, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski and Annie Harris. The petition was continued to a Special Meeting on Tuesday,February 12, 2007. The petitioner, National Grid Wireless, sought a Variance from side/rear setback to construct a one-story structure for the property located at 134-142 Canal Street, Salem, in the Industrial (.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 petitioner was represented by Joseph Correnti of Serafini, Serafini, Darling and Correnti and Tom Wahl, Project Manager for National Grid Wireless. 2. Petitioner's property presently consists of an existing ten (10) foot by twelve (12) foot fiber optic cable regeneration facility, which is to be replaced. 3. The subject property is within the Industrial (I) zoning district. 4. The petitioner is requesting variances from side/rear setback to construct a new 1.200 sq.ft. regeneration structure to be made of sectional concrete with 51 reddish/brown brick exterior. The building would be remotely monitored 24- hours a day, seven (7) days a week and would be periodically visited by customers performing routine maintenance tasks on fiber optic cable equipment. 5. The requested relief would allow construction to be approximately eight (8) feet from the Canal St. lot line , instead of the required thirty (30) feet. I� d � 6. The applicant stated that the proposed reconstruction has the support of the property owner and of abutting business owners. 7. At the Public Hearing on January 17`h, 2007 Ward Three Councilor Jean Pelletier stated that the abutting property owners had not been notified. S. It was found at the January 17`' meeting that the applicant had listed an incorrect address on their application resulting in inadequate notification being sent out to parcel abutters. 9. The petition was continued to a Special Meeting on Tuesday, February 12'h 2007 at 6:30 pm. 10. Prior to the Special Meeting on February 12°', 9007, a supplemental notice was sent out to abutters, using the correct parcel address.. 11. The Public Hearing was re-opened on Tuesday,February 12`h, 2007 at 6:30 pm. 12. The petitioner stated that the building noise from Air Conditioning and Generator units would be approximately 70 db. 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 construction of a new, enclosed building would not significantly impact the abutters to the site. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as the use was a pre-existing use and is permitted in the Industrial District. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner as the structure wouild have to be relocated closer to the other buildings on the site, decreasing the amount of parking availability for the entire site. 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, Dionne. Pinto, Debsld, Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a Variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. 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 Inspection is to be obtained. &;4 , 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 V ranted 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. oawt CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTSt I-.+ BOARD OF APPEAL;1 . 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD IFLOORi,, • 1 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �- FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING January 17,2007- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 1. Discussion of Chapter 40B (Comprehensive Permit Law)—Jerry Parisella 2. Continuation of 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. Continuation of 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. 4. Continuation of 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. 5. Petition of Richard Ness requesting a Special Permit to construct an addition to a non- conforming structure for the property located at 27-29 ALBION STREET—R-1 DISTRICT. 6. Petition of Joseph Reither requesting Variances from lot size and lot width to allow a structure to be relocated to the lot. Lot width is 45.5 feet instead of the required 100 feet and lot size is 7,383 sq.ft. instead of the required 15,000 sq.ft. The property is located at 14 BUTLER STREET—R-2 DISTRICT. 7. Petition of National Grid Wireless requesting Variances from side and rear setback to construct a free-standing structure for the property at 134 CANAL STREET—I- DISTRICT. 8. 0(d/New Business a. Adoption of 2007 Yearly schedule of meetings 9. Adjournment <�:04 /z Ci0`$Si�v IS?i i P"� oe . �10, 11 00/ Hall ��ta o 4 , r �, e S� t� , aN Nina Cohen, Chair ryp pp 6', �3 g9 g l :; 3 �T° ` "2 Zoning Board of Appeals ' � I • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, January 17, 2007 A Meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Nina Cohen, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Robin Stein and Steve Pinto. Also present was Lynn Duncan, Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development; Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre and Staff Planner Dan Merhalski. Discussion of Chapter 40B (Comprehensive Permit Law) —Jerry Parisella Assistant City Solicitor Jerry Parisella provided the Board members with handouts and gave a brief presentation on the Comprehensive Permit Law, also known as Chapter 40B. Mr. Parisella stated that the City of Salem had never had a 40B project presented to it before. He further stated that while an application had not been filed yet, it was his understanding that an application for 40B would be coming to the ZBA soon for the St. Joseph's project and he wanted to give the ZBA a general overview of the 40B process to have some understanding before the application comes to the Board at a public hearing. • He highlighted that the 40B process allows a ZBA to permit a project and circumvent the local zoning ordinance if the Board should find that it is in the city's best interests to approve the permit. The proposed project must have a t least 25% of the units to be affordable units. It is a streamlining process for permitting that makes the ZBA the only Board to vote and review the application, but it will be commented on from other departments and Boards. A Public hearing must be held within 30 days of the application and a written decision must be filed within 40 days of the close of the public hearing. The state must first find that the project is "consistent with local needs" and the ZBA must determine that the need for affordable housing is such that the ZBA feels it is appropriate to circumvent the zoning of the city to allow the project to continue. Mr. Pinto asked for a clarification of the ten percent (10%) requirement in Salem. Mr. Parisella stated that Salem is above the ten percent (10%) threshold and that Salem's 40B applications will be different because the city is above that requirement and the ZBA will have a lot more discretion than in cities that are below that threshold. The ZBA must determine that the site is consistent with local needs. Mr. Parisella went on to state that there where four criteria to consider when reviewing an application: regional needs for affordable housing, public safety, improved site design and preservation of open space. Conditions may be imposed as the Board feels is appropriate, but they cannot be so onerous that make the project uneconomic to proceed • with the project. The public hearing will be conducted as any other Chapter 40A public hearing; the public can speak and owners can speak on the project. Page 1 of 9 Mr. Parisella also stated that the state of Massachusetts will review all projects prior to their coming the Salem ZBA. The Department of Housing and Community Development will conduct their own review and they will notify the Mayor so that the Mayor has a chance to comment before the state will issue its site approval letter. Mr. Pinto asked if the project to come to the ZBA had already received that approval. Mr. Parisella stated that it was his understanding that that process was currently underway and that it was a prerequisite to the ZBA approving the project. Mr. Pinto asked when the ZBA could expect to see that letter. Mr. Parisella stated that the developer did not need to have the letter by the time of the public hearing, but that the ZBA would have to have it before they made a decision on the project. Ms. Cohen asked who would send the letter? Mr. Parisella stated that the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) would send the letter. He further stated that the ZBA can approve a 40B application even if the city has met its ten percent (10%) obligation. He cited a case in • Amherst that demonstrated a need for affordable housing through a waiting list even though they had met their ten percent (10%) threshold. Ms. Stein asked about the requirement for public safety. Mr. Parisella stated that the board could, for example, find that there was too much traffic generated by a project and that this would generate a safety concern for the city. He further stated that one thing the Board couldn't look at that was decided in a recent court case was the impact the project would have on property values surrounding it. Ms. Cohen asked if community policing was a safety issue? Mr. Parisella stated that it could be, but that the Board couldn't impose more onerous conditions than they could under a 40A application. Ms. Duncan addressed the Board and stated that the criteria would have to be applied to each individual site. In the case of an undeveloped site, open space might be a valid consideration, but the project the board will possibly be looking at has been fully developed and that while open space was valid in the Amherst case, it may not be in this project. The issue of protecting safety also had a presumption that the Planning Board looks at safety too, but in the same way that a new subdivision couldn't be turned down by the Planning Board for a need for more policing, a 40B application couldn't be • rejected for the same reason. Traffic issues would be an example or safety concerns or a lack of infrastructure for emergency vehicles or hydrants. Page 2 of 9 • Ms. Cohen stated that open space did not just apply to undeveloped lots because you could require a pocket park to offset a higher amount of development on the site. Ms. Duncan stated that the proposed project was not new to the city or the ZBA as it had come back to the Board after receiving a variance. The validity test for the ZBA would be very similar to what the Planning Board had reviewed for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit, which was weighing the benefits to the city with a more flexible type of zoning. The ZBA will be able to review the comments of the other Boards and departments. Ms. Cohen stated that she didn't want to get into a specific discussion about the St. Joseph's project because she wanted to have a healthy understanding of the process as a whole, but she did have a question as it related generally to the discussion and that was relating to an aspect of the St. Joseph's site, that being the proposed Community Center. Under what branch would that fit into the four criteria for demonstrating community need? Is there something else that the Board could review to allow them to take that part of the project into account? Mr. Parisella stated that one of the issues was whether a 40B project can include a component other than affordable housing and other aspects to it. The state would review this as well but there is a project in Ipswich in which a YMCA has a commercial day care • center and a bank as components to it and Superior Court has said that is fine. So he believes that the Board would want to look at if there is a community benefit to having a community life center, not just a benefit to the affordable housing. Ms. Cohen asked if some of the other departments of the city have not commented on a project before the public hearing, if the board can continue the public hearing? Mr. Parisella stated that they could continue the public hearing for as reasonable a time as they feel is appropriate, but if it is "unreasonably delayed" it could be constructively approved. Ms. Duncan stated that the process would only be a long process if the ZBA feels that there are issue that haven't been vetted. She stated that her view is that the affordable housing would be viewed under the Comprehensive Permit, not the Community Life Center, except for the impact the center would have on the city. For example in Ipswich, they didn't look at the bank, but at the impact of the entire project, but the Board would have to look at parking, etc. Mr. Parisella stated that in the Ipswich case the board looked at the community benefit of the daycare center and not at the commercial bank. He further stated that there is a limit on the profit margin for a 40B project as well and he believed it was twenty percent (20%). • Ms. Cohen asked if there was a date set for the public hearing yet? Page 3 of 9 • Dan Merhalski stated that they weren't certain yet but it would probably be February 12a, 2007 at 6:30 pm and that we were waiting for the applicant to verify that they will be able to attend. Elizabeth Debski asked if the project were to be denied if there was an appeal process since Salem already meets its 40B threshold? Mr. Parisella stated that he believed the appeal would go to the Superior Court instead of the Housing Appeals Committee because the threshold requirement in Salem is met. Ms. Cohen asked if there were any other questions? There were none. Ms. Cohen asked if the application materials could be sent to the ZBA members as early in February as possible. She then asked to see the purchase and sales agreement for the Community Life Center. Ms. Duncan stated that the city is not that far along on the project and that material is not available at this time. Ms. Cohen stated that she believe it to be important. Ms. Duncan stated that that was an issue for the City Council and the Mayor, but not • relevant to the ZBA's review under 40B. Ms. Cohen stated that as the ZBA is asked to consider the Community Life Center as a part of this project, that document should be apart of their packets, or a memorandum of understanding for what kind of ballpark figures where being discussed. Ms, Cohen then thanked Mr. Parisella and Ms. Duncan for their time. Approval of Minutes Ms. Cohen asked if there were any amendments to the draft meeting minutes from the December 20, 2006 minutes. Ms. Cohen made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Ms., Stein, and approved (5-0). 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 to withdraw their application. A motion was made by Robin Stein, seconded by Steve Pinto and approved (5-0) to withdraw the petition without prejudice. • Page 4 of 9 Public Hearing — Request for Variance from maximum height of fences and boundary • walls —28 Marlborough Road—R-1 District—Peter and Cheryl Ba arg ells. Nina Cohen read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuation of the Public Hearing until February 21, 2007. A motion was made by Nina Cohen, seconded by Elizabeth Debski and approved (5-0) to continue the Public Hearing to February 21, 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. Ms. Cohen asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Merhalski stated that he had tried to contact the petitioner last week and again this morning and had not been able to reach them. He said that he had received to notifications or correspondence from the petitioner, but suggested that the ZBA may want to continue the public hearing to March of 2007. Ms. Debski asked if the petition had signed a waiver of the time for the Board to make a decision? • Mr. Merhalski stated that they had not turned one in and that at the last meeting they were granted a continuation conditioned upon the signing of such a waiver. He further stated that the application was dated October 30, 2006 and that the applicant would receive constructive approval if the Board did not take action on the application this evening. Tom St. Pierre suggested that the Board withdraw the petition without prejudice and allow the applicant to reapply if they wished to do so. A motion was made by Nina Cohen, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0) to withdraw the petition without prejudice. At this time Robin Stein left the meeting. Public Hearing — Request for a Special Permit to construct an addition to a non- conforming structure—27-29 Albion Street—R-1 District—Richard Ness Mr. Ness gave the Board a brief presentation to the Board and described the project. He has an existing structure with two-bedroom units and wishes to receive a Special Permit to construct an addition to an existing non-conforming structure to create three-bedroom units. He further stated that the structure was occupied by four (4) tenants: the owner, the owners two family members in one (1) unit each and a tenant in the 4a' unit. He stated • that there were no objections from the neighbors, but did not submit a petition. He is requesting Special Permits for both non-conforming use and a non-conforming structure. Page 5 of 9 • At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. Dick Avigian of 33 Albion Street stated that he had no objections to the project. Ms. Cohen asked if there were any other members of the public who wanted to speak on this issue. There being none, she closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Ms. Cohen, seconded by Ms. Debski to approve the Special Permits for non-conforming use and non-conforming structure, with conditions, and approved 5-0. Public Hearing —Request for Variances from lot size and lot width to allow a structure to be relocated to the lot— 14 Butler Street—R-2 District—Joseph Reither Arty. John Keilty spoke on behalf of his client, Joseph Reither. Mr. Keilty gave a brief presentation to the Board regarding the petition and plans of the site. He stated that a purchase and sales agreement had expired for the proposed relocation of an historic residential structure to the site but that his client would like to receive the same relief for new construction of a structure of the same dimensions as that originally proposed. The dimensions would be approximately twenty-four (24) feet by • thirty-eight (38) feet and would include on-site parking behind the structure. The relief requested is from frontage and lot area. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. John Jordan of 9 Butler Street spoke against the petition citing that parking was a problem on the street. He also asked if the structure would be owner occupied or a rental? Charlie Pelletier of 12 Pyburn Avenue spoke in opposition stating that he had been told years ago that a house could never have been built on the lot when he thought about buying the parcel and that there was no parking for the site. He also stated that he owns the site abutting this parcel. Karen Flaherty of 16 Butler Street spoke in opposition to the petition stating that she also was told that the lot was unbuildable and that she had wanted to purchase it earlier as well. James Hannon of 18 Butler Street spoke in opposition to the petition citing that parking for the site was terrible. Ward Three Councilor Jean Pelletier spoke against the petition citing that there was no adequate parking along Butler Street. He also added that he is of no relation to Charlie • Pelletier of 12 Pybum Avenue. Page 6 of 9 • John Keilty stated that his client is willing to add more off-street parking spaces to the two (2) proposed for the site. Karen Flaherty of 16 Butler Street spoke again about the location of the ledge on the site and asked if there would be blasting and would it burst her pipes and crack her residence's foundation? John Keilty stated that there may be blasting but they could hammer out the ledge if necessary instead. Ms. Cohen asked if there were any other questions from the audience. There were none. At this time Ms. Cohen closed the public hearing. Ms. Cohen stated that blasting is mandated by state law and suggested that the residents take photographs of their foundations prior to any construction to ensure that any damage done as a result of construction would be able to be remediated by the contractors. Ms. Harris stated that she didn't think that the petition should go forward as the neighbors seemed to object to the petition and she didn't hear a good demonstration to prove hardship. Ms., Debski stated that the issues of objections raised were dealing with parking, which • the petitioner was willing to add more parking off street and to blasting which the petitioner agreed to jack hammer instead. Ms. Cohen asked Mr. Keilty to describe the hardship to the Board. Mr. Keilty stated that the hardship was found in the shape and topography of the lot and that it was not self-inflicted as the lots were all carved out around the term of the century. Ms. Harris stated that the petitioner did not own the land and that the petitioner did not have a hardship unless he purchased the land, which would be a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Keilty stated that the hardship is with the land no matter who owns the lot and that the hardship is also pertaining to the lot size and frontage. Mt. St. Pierre stated that a similar parcel was approved by the Board but that if there is any doubt that the Board should ask the city solicitor for an opinion and continue the public hearing for thirty days until the next ZBA meeting. Ms. Cohen asked the petitioner if they would be willing to continue their petition until February 21", 2007. Mr. Keilty agreed. • Page 7 of 9 • Ms. Cohen made a motion to continue the public hearing until February 21, 2007 at 6:30 pm, seconded by Elizabeth Debski and approved (4-1), Mr. Pinto opposed. Public Hearing — Request for Variances from side and rear setbacks — 134 Canal Street — I District—National Grid Wireless Atty. Joseph Correnti spoke of behalf of the petitioner, National Grid Wireless. Mr. Correnti gave a brief presentation to the Board regarding the project to construct an equipment shelter on the southwest portion of the lot to house optical regeneration equipment for National Grid Wireless. The project manager, Tom Wahl, described the operations of the equipment and the design of the structure. Photographs were presented for the Board's inspection. At this time Ms. Cohen opened the public hearing. Ward Three Councilor Jean Pelletier addressed the Board and asked why notification was not sent to the direct abutters to the south of the project site. He asked to see the abutters list. Mr. Merhalski gave Mr. Pelletier a copy of the abutters list. • Mr. Pelletier stated that the addresses in question were not on the abutters list and asked why. Mr. Merhalski stated that the abutters list is generated by the City Assessors office and that notices are sent out to all abutters and abutters to abutters within three hundred (300) feet of the project location. Tom St. Pierre suggested that the project site may be incorrect on the application as the project site indicated on the assessor's map was a parcel of land abutting the subject of the petition to the north. Mr. Merhalski left the room at this time and returned with a copy of the assessor's map showing that the parcel in question was actually numbered 142 Canal Street and that the abutters notices had not gone out to the direct abutters as the parcel to the south of that selected in the Assessor's list was more than three hundred (300) feet long, and therefore, would be outside the distance of the report. It was determined that the application had the incorrect parcel number on it as the two parcels in question were both owned by the petitioner, but were not combined and resulted in notices not being sent to the proper abutters. • It was decided that the public hearing could not go forward at this time. Page 8 of 9 • Ms. Cohen asked if the applicant could come back on the night of thetentative special meeting on February 12, 2007. Mr. Correnti said that he could. A motion was made by Nina Cohen, seconded by Richard Dionne and approved (5-0) to continue the item to the special meeting on Tuesday February 12, 2007 at 6:30pm. 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 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Daniel J. Merhalski, Staff Planner/Clerk Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Page 9 of 9 I n o�n1r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL LI I Y U.F_SALEM. MA • ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S"OFFICE • SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 /f TELEPHONE: 978.745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 _ —. KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ' � '2001 JAN 23 P 2: 41 MAYOR January 18, 2007 Decision Petition of Carlos Pacheco requesting a Special Perrnit for the property at 27-29 Albion Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on January 17, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski and Annie Harris. The petitioner, Carlos Pacheco, sought Special Permits to alter a pre-existing non- conforming use and to make an addition to a pre-existing non-conforming structure for the property located at 27-19 Albion Street, Salem, in the Single-Family Residential (R- 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. 27-29 Albion Street is an existing multi-family structure and a nonconforming residential use located in the R-1 zoning district. The Petitioner wishes to occupy one of the four(4) units on the site, with family members occupying two (2) of the other units, and renting out the last of the four(4) units. 2. The petitioner is requesting Special Permits to add a two-story addition to the existing non-conforming structure and to continue the use as an existing non- conforming use (multi-family) in an R-1 district. 3. The subject property consists of two (2) bedroom units. The proposed addition will create four(4) three (3) bedroom units. 4. The applicant was represented by Mr. Richard Ness, Architect. 5. The petitioners stated that they had spoken to their neighbors and had not heard any objections to the proposed addition. • • 6. The petitioner agreed to comply with the City of Salem's requirements for on- site parking and screening. The existing parking areas will be consolidated into a single, six (6) stalled parking area on the south side of the building. 7. Dick Avigian of 33 Albion Street stated that he had no objections to the proposed project. 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 Special Permits does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as the use of the dwelling is pre-existing and will not increase the density of the use or the impact on the neighborhood. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance as residential uses are constant with the Single-Family Residential district and not inconsistent with the area. 3. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner as the structure would have to be demolished to greater than 50% of it's size and the existing protection of a non-conforming • use would be denied. 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, Dionne, Pinto, Debski, Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for Special Permits, 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. f' • 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 petitioner is to observe the two (2) foot parking stall buffer for the site and shall install a vegetated buffer to screen all parking areas from abutting residential uses, such screen to be of sufficient height and density as to prevent the migration of light from automobiles onto the adjacent parcels. Such screening shall be presented to the City Planner for review and approval before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. tf- 6 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. • . 041DNCITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS,„ A BOARD OF APPEAL 1'J 1 '- OF SALEM. MA 0 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OFFICE • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 �1 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL JAN 1'9 A 10: 12 MAYOR January 18, 2007 Michael Viola 4 Butterfield Road Saugus, MA 01906 RE: 17-19 Salem Street Dear Mr. Viola: • The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,January 17, 2007 to discuss the application for the special permit petition for 17-19 Salem Street. As you or your representative were not present, and had not notified the Board of a request to continue the item, the Board was forced to act within the statutory 100 day period for a Zoning Variance. The Board decided by a unanimous vote (5-0) to approve a Withdrawal Without Prejudice for the project site. This will allow the petitioner to re-apply to the Board without having to wait the statutory 2-year period for a new petition. While it is unfortunate that the Board was forced to take this action,it was required by state law to avoid constructive approval. If you would like to re-apply to the Zoning Boar of Appeals,please contact Sally Murtagh in the Building Department. If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me in the Department of Planning& Community Development at (978) 619-5685. Sincerely, /Qttr� DanielJ. erhalski Staff Planner Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS uv r BOARD OF APPEAL Cl I 't lJF S�LLP�i;. ti Y - 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR CLERK'S OMCE • j SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL -2001 ',JAN 19 A-6 12 MAYOR January 18, 2007 Lewis Legon 37 Walter Street Salem,MA 01970 RE: 48 Bridge Street Dear Mr. Legon: • The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,January 17, 2007 to discuss the request by Lewis Legon for a Withdrawal Without Prejudice for the special permit petition for 48 Bridge Street. The Board decided by a unanimous vote (5-0) to approve the request for Withdrawal Without Prejudice. If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me in the Department of Planning& Community Development at (978) 619-5685. Sincerely, Ataa.,lll Daniel J. Merhalski Staff Planner Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk •