Loading...
2008-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Tai 4. 120 WASMNGTON STREET.♦SALEM,MASSACNUS=01970 9��/MINE�N TELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DR;scoLL MAYOR is y -f o 0 AGENDA — m BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING December 17,2008 -6:30 P.M. T a 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET y Robin Stein, Chair , o c 1. Approval of Minutes—November 19, 2008 U a- 2. Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking variances from parking,maximum height, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit; and a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use • and structure, in order to convert the property located at 17 NORTH STREET, Salem, MA from an assembly hall to a six-unit condominium(R-2 zoning district). 3. Petition of D.L. COTE, seeking a variance for a third story on a 2 '/2 story single-family house located at 5 SUTTON AVENUE, Salem, MA (R-1 zoning district). 4. Petition of GEORGE BRANDENBURG, seeking a variance from the maximum number of stories (2 '/2 allowed)to allow for the construction of a third-floor dormer on the roof of a two-and-a-half story,two-family dwelling at 91 ESSEX STREET (R-2 zoning district). 5. Old/New Business o North Shore Traffic Management Association presentation: Andrea Leary 6. Adjournment this WIN posted on "Offlolgi Oulletltt gogtdf City Hell Salem, "lass, tyre gLL i at q /0 in : MCONOIfgq CITY OF SALEM 6-' Ot DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND n pi COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978-619-5685 FAx: 978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN, MCP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals CC: Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner ke.�u .2yt�)A-K� DATE: December 9, 2008 Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of November 19, 2008 ➢ Petitions and Materials for Items Notes on Agenda Items: There are three new agenda items with petitions and materials contained in this packet- 17 North Street, 91 Essex Street, and 5 Sutton Avenue. 17 North Street This item is first on the agenda because the petitioner must also attend the Historic Commission meeting the same night. 17 North Street was previously before the Board of Appeals, which granted a special permit for the following: a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum height (feet and stories), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third and fourth story and the conversion of the current assembly hall to seven residential condominiums. Attorney Scott Grover has submitted a new application, however, which reflects a new design created because of financial constraints presented by the original plan. The proposed building has been scaled down from its original size- it has six units instead of the originally proposed seven, eliminates the elevator, and has units ranging in size from 1,200 to 1,800 square feet, instead of the originally proposed 1,000 to 1,300 square feet. The following summarizes the differences between the zoning relief sought in the old and new applications: • ■ New plan has six parking spaces (for six units) instead of the originally approved eight (for seven units); R-2 zoning requires 11/2 spaces per unit ■ Lot area per unit is 1,012 square feet instead of the originally approved 867 square feet; R-2 zoning requires 7,500 square feet of lot area per unit • Building height is now 47' 8.5" instead of the originally approved 50% maximum building height in the R-2 zone is 35'. • Number of stories proposed is 4 (application states 3.5, but since the fourth floor dormers contain habitable space, they are considered a fourth floor); originally approved number of stories was also 4; R-2 zoning allows a maximum of 2.5 stories. A copy of the decision letter dated 9/4/08 is enclosed. 5 Sutton Avenue The petitioner seeks a variance for a third story on a 2 '/z story single-family house in the R-1 zoning district, where 2 '/2 stories is the maximum allowed. 91 Essex Street The petitioner seeks a variance for a third-floor dormer on the roof of a 2 '/2 story, two-family house in the R-2 zoning district, where 2 '/2 stories is the maximum allowed. North Shore TMA presentation Andrea Leary of Northeast Transit Planning and Management will be attending the meeting to discuss e North Shore Transportation Management Association's activities. The City of Salem is a founding ember of the TMA and Andrea's firm has been hired to implement the program. The North Shore TMA works to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle emissions through carpool arrangements within their member organizations; membership could potentially be a condition imposed by the Board of Appeals for certain projects, particularly relating to density increases. 2 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,December 17,2008 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair), Richard Dionne, Beth Debski, Annie Harris, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Absent: Rebecca Curran and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner. Approval of Minutes—November 19, 2008 Debski makes a motion to approve the minutes from last month, seconded by Dionne and approved (5-0). Pubic Hearin¢s Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking variances from parking, maximum height, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit; and a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use and structure, in order to convert the property located at 17 • NORTH STREET, Salem, MA from an assembly hall to a six-unit condominium (R- 2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He states that the petitioner has an agreement to purchase 17 North St. from the Elk's Lodge and reminds the board he was before them previously with a similar petition. However, certain design elements had made the original project economically unfeasible to build. The last design was single structure with two distinct components —one was a recreation of the original historic structure, and the back part was more contemporary. From a construction standpoint, melding the two together was expensive. Grover states that they came up with new design—a single stricture, and shows a rendering of the new building. He also shows a photo of the existing facade and the east and south elevations. He states the development program has changed enough that they felt they had to come back before the ZBA. The original proposal had 7 units, and this one has one less unit and is a lower density than what they received relief from last time. There are also two fewer parking spaces. The last proposal had had 7 units and 8 spaces; this has 6 units and 6 spaces. Grover shows where a parking space was lost and says this space could be used for something, but they are not counting it as a legal space for zoning purposes. Other than that, the development plan is the same. Grover states that the building is now less massive, and that they still need height relief, but less so. He shows the parking spaces along Eaton Place and states that these spaces are smaller than required. • Stein asks the board members if they have questions or comments. No one does. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. John Carr, 7 River St., has a law office next door. He expresses his preference for the new design over the original one. He felt that the combination of historic and contemporary styles of architecture did not meld well in the original proposal, and that the new design was much more cohesive. He states his support for the project. Edward Nelson, 262 Essex St., echoes what Carr said, and also speaks in support of the new proposal. Stein closes the public comment period. Harris asks St. Pierre if this project is in the historic district. St. Pierre is not sure. Carr says it is. Harris comments this has nice detail in it—do they have to keep all these details with the permit the board is granting? St. Pierre says yes, the approval is subject to the plans submitted. Harris says it's a lovely design. Stein says she wants to give the petitioner room to negotiate with the Historic Commission and allow them to make minor changes so that they would not have to come back to the ZBA if the Historic Commission requires alterations. Stein states that this certainly seems like an all around better project, and that lower density was preferred. St. Pierre asks Grover whether the building would involve new construction. Grover • states that they would be reusing the existing floors as much as possible. Harris asks what the conditions were last time. Stein states that the one different condition would be the number of parking spaces and that there were no other special conditions. Harris makes a motion to approve, subject to all conditions formerly required, as well as minor changes as required by the Historic Commission, and with six parking spaces. Dionne seconds the motion, and it passes 5-0 (Harris, Debski Stein, Dionne and Tsitsinos all in favor). Petition of D.L. COTE,seeking a variance for a third story on a 2 1/2 story single- family house located at 5 SUTTON AVENUE, Salem,MA (R-1 zoning district). Dee Cote presents his petition. Debski asks if there is a plot plan? McKnight says there is not; St. Pierre explains that one was not required because the building footprint isn't changing. Tsitsmos passes out photos of the building, which he obtained online. St. Pierre asks the ZBA members to show those photos to the petitioner—these are "before" photos. Debski asks if the construction is already done. Cote confirms that it is. Debski asks what is up in the tower space. Cote says it's just a small sitting area, 6 by 9 feet. Dionne refers to the stairs going into the tower and asks for confirmation that there is no living area in the tower. Cote says there is no living space— it's just a small sitting area with ocean views. Stein asks if the board has questions or comments; no one does. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Richard Roderick, 7 Sutton Ave., says that so far the construction looks very good, but if the variance requested allows a third floor, is the construction of that floor restricted only to what is on the proposed plan? Stein says that it is and confirms that the variance wouldn't allow a full third floor. John Doyle, 121 Columbus Ave, says that the back of his house faces the back of the project, and that the construction done looks nice, but he would be concerned if they could put a in whole third floor. Stein confirms they could not. Stein reads an email from resident Larry Spang of 125 Columbus Avenue into the record. The letter expresses Sprang's support of the project as long as the construction continues to be done in a way that enhances the historic character of the neighborhood. Mary Roderick 7 Sutton Ave., also says that the house looks nice, but if this variance is granted, how does it impact the rest of the neighborhood in terms of setting a precedent? • Stein says that each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Sharon Bickford of 8 Island Ave. echoes everyone else's sentiments. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Harris confirms there should be no more added to the house than what has already been built there. St. Pierre agrees, and confirms with Cote that this space is only 6' by 9.' St. Pierre says this should be a condition. Stein notes that this addition is consistent with what is in the neighborhood. Debski makes a motion to approve the petition, but then notes that Cote is not the owner of the property. McKnight confirms a letter was received by the Planning department signed by the owner authorizing Cote to represent him in this petition. Debski makes a motion to approve the petition, as per the plan submitted, with nine (9) standard conditions. The new third floor space is to be no larger than 6' by 9'. Tsitsinos seconds the motion. McKnight takes a role call vote: Harris: in favor Debski: in favor Stein: in favor • Dionne: in favor Tsitsinos: in favor The petition passes 5-0. Stein tells Cote to coordinate with St. Pierre to retrofit the permitting process, since construction has already taken place. Petition of GEORGE BRANDENBURG, seeking a variance from the maximum number of stories (2 r/2 allowed) to allow for the construction of a third-floor dormer on the roof of a two-and-a-half story, two-family dwelling at 91 ESSEX STREET (R-2 zoning district). George and Helen Brandenburg present the petition. They are seeking a variance for a single dormer in the roof of their house, which would allow a bathroom to be built. They say they have consulted with their neighbors, none of whom have a problem with the project. Stein asks if the Board has any questions. No one does. Stein opens the public comment portion of the hearing. No one comments, and Stein closes the public comment portion. Stein asks Brandenburg if they are under renovations now; he says they are not. Stein comments that this seems like a simple request; there is no additional living space, and it's limited to a bathroom, not a whole floor. Harris notes that it seems minor. Stein says the petition seems consistent with the bylaw. Tsitsinos makes motion to approve the petition with eight(8) standard conditions. Debski seconds the motion. McKnight takes a role vote: • Harris: in favor Debski: in favor Stein: in favor Dionne: in favor Tsitsinos: in favor The petition passes 5-0. Stein explains the process and timeline for the appeals period. Brandenburg asks if he can start construction; Stein replies that he can't until the appeal period is up. St. Pierre says he could;but he'd be at risk if someone appealed. Debski makes a motion to close the regular Board of Appeals meeting. Dionne seconds. The regular meeting is adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Stein then moves on to introduce a presentation by Andrea Leary, who discusses the North Shore Traffic Management Association (TMA) and reviews the ways in which the Board of Appeals might use TMA membership as a condition for certain projects as a means of traffic congestion mitigation. • The meeting adjourns at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner • • ioormr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS A 0 qQv BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 > FAX: 978-740-9846 :a < Fo KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR r 1J December 26, 2008 a Decision - City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 9 1; Petition of D.L. COTE requesting a variance from maximum number of stories, to allow for the construction of a third story on an existing two- and-a-half story house at 5 SUTTON AVENUE (11-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened and closed on December 17, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The following Zoning Board of Appeals members were present: Robin Stein (Chair), Beth Debski, Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a variance pursuant to Table I of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: • 1. The petitioner, D.L. Cote, represented himself at the hearing. 2. The property at 5 Sutton Avenue is owned by Robert J. Zakian. The owner submitted a letter authorizing the petitioner to file an application with the Board of Appeals. 3. The property at 5 Sutton Avenue is a two-and-a-half story, single family home in the Residential One Family(R-1) district. 4. In a petition dated November 25, 2008, the applicant requested a variance from maximum number of stories to allow for the construction of a third story at 5 Sutton Avenue. 5. The third-story space shown on the plan submitted by D.L. Cote, titled "Residential/Renovations for 5 Sutton Avenue, Salem, MA 01970," dated 10/27/08, is twelve (12) feet by six (6) feet. 6. D.L. Cote had already completed construction on the addition at the time of the hearing. The actual area of the completed third-story space is nine (9) feet by six (6) feet. . 7. At the public hearing, several members of the public expressed approval of the construction that has taken place, but also expressed concern that the addition should be limited only to the cupola constructed and that an entire third floor 2 `=1 should not be permitted. A resident also communicated via email his satisfaction with the project as long as any changes preserved the historic character of the • house. 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 substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. 2. There are circumstances including the size and shape of the lot and the use and condition of the existing building which especially affects the Locus but does not affect generally the zoning district in which the Locus is located. 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. A variance from the maximum number of stories allowed is granted to permit the exiting 6' by 9' addition to remain. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor • (Debski, Stein, Hams, Dionne and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests 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. The newly constructed third-floor area is not to exceed six (6) feet by nine (9) feet. 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. 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. . 3 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 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. �K /7n� o.� 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 Sled 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. • . ONDITA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL _.,. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �..�P FAX. 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL - MAYOR N !J December 26, 2008 Decision 77o City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals -0 Petition of GEORGE BRANDENBURG requesting a variance from maximum number of stories, to allow for the construction of a third- floor dormer on the roof of a two-and-a-half story, two-family dwelling at 91 ESSEX STREET (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened and closed on December 17, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The following Zoning Board of Appeals members were present: Robin Stein (Chair), Beth Debski, Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a variance pursuant to Table I of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner and owner, George Brandenburg, represented himself at the hearing. 2. The property at 91 Essex Street a two-and-a-half story, two-family home in the Residential Two Family (R-2) district. 3. In a petition dated November 26, 2008, the applicant requested a variance from maximum number of stories to allow for the construction of a third-floor dormer on the roof of the structure at 91 Essex Street. 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 substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. 2. There are circumstances including the size and shape of the lot and the use and condition of the existing building which especially affects the Locus but does not • affect generally the zoning district in which the Locus is located. 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: 1. To allow for the addition to the existing house as proposed the requested variance from maximum number of stories allowed is granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Debski, Stein, Harris, Dionne and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests 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 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. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does 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. �rn Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • 3 A COPY OF THIS DECISION PIAS BEEN PILED WITII 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 Pennit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been tiled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • �oNDIT4. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS .$v BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 1, { a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - �' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1094 JAN _5 P 12: 58 MAYOR i rl z January 6, 2009 C17 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum height (feet and stories), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third and fourth story and the conversion of the current assembly hall to seven residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened and closed on December 17, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The following Zoning Board of Appeals members were present: Robin Stein (Chair), Beth Debski, Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, • and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to Table I and a special permit pursuant to Section 8- 6. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The property at 17 North Street is owned by the Beverly/Salem Elks Lodge. The owner's attorney, Philip Moran, Esq. submitted a letter authorizing the petitioner to file an application with the Board of Appeals. The petitioner, William Wharff has signed an agreement to purchase the property. 3. The current use of the property at 17 North Street is an assembly hall, a nonconforming use in the Residential Two Family(R-2) district. 4. In a petition dated June 3, 2008, the applicant requested a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum number of stories, minimum lot area per dwelling units, and required parking to allow for the construction of a third story and conversion of the current assembly hall to six residential condominiums at 17 North Street. . 5. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on June 18, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was continued to July 16, 2008 and August 27, 2008. An amended petition was submitted 2 • following the hearing on July 16. The public hearing was closed on August 27, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Annie Harris, and Rick Dionne. 6. There was support for the project and requested relief at the first public hearing though several members of the public. 7. Following public comment from the public hearing on June 18, 2008, the applicant submitted an application to the Salem Historical Commission for their review. 8. The applicant appeared before the Board of Appeals on July 16, 2008 with revised plans which showed an additional story and an additional unit, making the proposal a total of four(4) stories and seven(7) units. 9. The applicant submitted an amended petition(stamped by the City Clerk August 13, 2008), which requested a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum height (feet and stories), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third and fourth story and the conversion of the current assembly hall to seven residential condominiums at 17 North Street. 10. At its meeting on August 27, 2008, the Board of Appeal voted four (4) in favor . and none (0) opposed to grant a special permit to allow for the change in nonconforming use, and to grant the requested variances from parking and dimensional requirements to allow for the redevelopment of the site as proposed. A decision letter to this effect was issued on September 4, 2008 and was stamped by the City Clerk on that date. This decision follows the September 4, 2008 decision. 11. In a new petition dated November 26, 2008, the applicant requested a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum number of stories, minimum lot area per dwelling units, and required parking to allow for the construction of a third story and conversion of the current assembly hall to six residential condominiums at 17 North Street. The plans submitted with the new application showed a smaller structure with six units (instead of the previously approved seven), and six parking spaces (instead of the previously approved eight). 12. A public hearing on the new Petition was opened and closed on December 17, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein(Chair), Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Beth Debski, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). • 13. At the hearing, several members of the public expressed support for the new petition and stated their preference for the new plan over the one previously approved. 3 • 14. On December 17, 2008, the petitioner also appeared before the Salem Historical Commission with the new application. 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 change in nonconforming use to a multifamily residential use is a better fit in terms of the quality, character, and effect on the already residential neighborhood. The change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing assembly hall used for large gatherings. 2. 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 substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. 3. There are circumstances including the size and shape of the lot and the use and condition of the existing building which especially affects the Locus but does not affect generally the zoning district in which the Locus is located. 4. The proposed redevelopment will enhance the historic neighborhood and more closely match the structure which had originally existing on the site in 1800s. • The proposed redevelopment has received a great deal of support at the public hearing; therefore 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 Salem Zoning 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 change in nonconforming use, a special permit is granted. 2. To allow for the redevelopment of the site as proposed the requested variances from parking and dimensional requirements are granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Debski, Stein, Harris, Tsitsinos and Dionne) and 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, subject to any minor changes required by the Salem Historical Commission. A 4 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. 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. 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 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. 10. There are to be six (6) parking spaces as shown on the plan. 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. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 'ftLE:978-619-5685♦FAX:978-740-0404 KmMER EYDRiscoLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of: D.L Cote Location: 5 Sutton Avenue, Salem, MA Request: Variance Description: Variance requested from the number of stories; 2.5 are permitted, and 3 were requested (R-1). Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on December 26, 2008 Petition of: George Brandenburg Location: 91 Essex Street, Salem, MA Request: Variance Description: Variance requested from the number of stories; 2.5 are permitted, and 3 were requested(R-2). Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on December 26, 2008 Petition of: William Wharff Location: 17 North Street, Salem, MA Request: Variance and Special Permit Description: Variance requested from parking, maximum height, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit; and Special Permit requested to change a nonconforming use and structure, in order to convert the property from an assembly hall to a six-unit condominium (R-2). Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on January 6, 2009 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. • 1 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board &,,j I c Date �_/ -- /0_ Name Mailing Address Phone # Email �n0 7 �G, 910 `7WV(JY7 hr4r p16k 2 �Gl�l(/V , T-e- � CA�e a �%3� 5 a«K�9 Via,4n a �IaZ �55c, S ll l �l5111 e1AJt5SovOV\C>q t-C_k2 7L �O 1�0136 ,ru'ZeL,ld,-c C, F—dz f-ol c-Y-. 978-7 -q-5 7/ Page of �4,6 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL pf � . -�� 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,_MASSACFR$ETTS 01970 Q�flNB TI$ :978-745-9595♦FAx:978- t KIMBERLEYDRISCO7LL bf b -J P 103 MAYOR FILE CITY CLER , SALEM,MASS. AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING November 19, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stein,Chair 1. Approval of Minutes—October 15, 2008 2. Petition of JOHN GRANESE, TRUSTEE OF GRANESE BROS. REALTY TRUST, seeking a variance from minimum width of side yard for the property located at 59 JEFFERSON AVENUE, Salem, MA (Industrial District) 3. Petition of UNITED FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC seeking variances for lot area; lot width; front, side, and rear yard setbacks; allowance of two dwelling structures on the lot; and • allowance of five parking spaces; and a special permit to reconstruct a nonconforming structure for the property located at 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE, Salem, MA (B1 zoning district) 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment This notice posted on W�ity Hall "Official Bulletin Board" 3SaIGM, MaSS, on r;�A238St1 aCCQWa3r, lV9r"�'p a'o, waq- cif i 3A LO callo�r�,, CITY OF SALEM yPv� 7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Appeals CC: Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner FROM: Lynn Duncan, Director' 1/� DATE: November 5, 2008 V Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of October 15, 2008 • ➢ Petitions and Materials for Items Notes on Agenda Items: There are two new agenda items with petitions and materials contained in this packet—272 Jefferson Avenue and 59 Jefferson Avenue. 272 Jefferson Avenue has a complex history. Tom St. Pierre will be at the meeting and can explain the history. Danielle McKnight, our new staff planner, is starting on November 101h and will be at the Board of Appeals meeting. I will review these projects with her. In the absence of a staff planner, I am not doing a detailed memo for this meeting. • City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Zoning PP Board of Appeals Date and Time: Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor, Room 313, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair(Alternate), Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate) Members Absent: Others Present: Staff Planner Danielle McKnight Building Commissioner Tom St. Pierre Chair Stein calls the meeting to order. 1. Approval of Minutes: October 15, 2008 Meeting The members review the minutes; no amendments are suggested. Dionne: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Stein. Passes 5-0. 2. Petition of JOHN GRANESE, TRUSTEE OF GRANESE BROS. REALTY • TRUST, seeking a variance from minimum width of side yard for the property at 59 JEFFERSON AVENUE (Industrial District). George Atkins represents Granese Bros. Realty Trust. Atkins explains that the plan requires the building's encroachment on the side yard setback required in the Industrial Zone in order to take advantage of the most usable portion of the land. He states the use will not be changing. Parking required is one space per 1,000 square feet; with approval of this petition, six spaces would be required plus one space for each two employees. Curran asks if the addition must be 45 feet wide in order to function with the type of equipment the company will be using there. Atkins responds that that is correct. Stein opens this issue for public comment. No comments are made. Stein closes the public portion. Dionne notes that the right-hand side of the property is also industrial and says he sees no problems with the plan. Blair says she thinks the petition is reasonable considering the scheme of the area. Stein says she thinks the dimensional relief requested would be minimal and consistent with guidelines in the bylaw. ZBA November 19,2008 Page 2 of 9 . A motion is made by Belair and seconded by Dionne to approve the petition of John Granese of Granese Bros. Realty Trust seeking a variance from minimum width side yard for the property located at 59 Jefferson Avenue in Salem in the Industrial District, subject to the following terms and conditions: 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 9 P Y 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 is to obtain approval from any City board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. St. Pierre adds that the petitioner has been storing things in the front yard; the property is located in the Entrance Corridor and this is not allowed. St. Pierre asks if the Board wants to condition this. Stein responds that they need to just comply by not storing things there and that a separate condition isn't necessary. Atkins does not believe 59 Jefferson Avenue is located in the Entrance Corridor. Stein says that the first condition would cover this, and that the Board would also check on whether this property was in the Entrance Corridor. St. Pierre checks and confirms it is not. Stein asks McKnight to do a role call vote: Stein: In favor Curran: In favor Debski: In favor Dionne: In favor Belair: In favor The petition passes 5-0. 3. Petition of UNITED FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC, seeking variances for lot area; lot width; front, side and rear years setbacks; allowance of two dwelling structures on the lot; and allowance of five parking spaces; and a special permit to reconstruct a nonconforming structure for the property located at 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE (Bl zoning district). • ZBA November 19, 2008 Page 3 of 9 • George Atkins represents petitioner United Financial Consultants, LLC (UFC). Atkins indicates there is also a group present represented by Attorney Anthony Keck, who would be addressing the Board when opened to public portion. Atkins states there is a difficult history to the project. UFC made a loan to the former developer of the condominium and the loan was not repaid. UFC foreclosed and became the owner of the rights in unit one, in a two-structure condominium. The petitioner has included in the application packet the original plans that are at the Registry. That original plan provides for two structures: an existing structure at the front of the lot, and a new structure at the rear. Atkins says his team tried to assess situation in an effort to resolve the issue for all parties involved. The team consists of Jonathon Gold, who is here representing UFC as the General Counsel for the organization. Paul Durand of Winter Street Architects, who has been working on the design, is also present. Atkins states that the petitioner is a foreclosing party, and that this matter has previously been before the ZBA. A decision was rendered at that time which contained 18 conditions. Atkins says many of them were not complied with by the prior owner/developer. The prior owner also demolished, in part, the building to the rear, to the extent the building inspector found it a hazard and ordered the remainder taken down. The owner/developer then applied for a building permit to rebuild that building, and at the consultation with the ZBA, that request was denied. Since that time, says Atkins, the owners of four units in the front building have had difficulty selling and refinancing their units because of the obvious questions related to the lack of a fifth unit. • Atkins asks the Board to look at the original plan, consisting of a site plan and floor plans for unit one and the four-story structure in front. He calls attention to the three parking spaces depicted on the site plan opposite the building. Atkins states that those three spaces were not really going to work—they were not "real" spaces. Atkins says they want to balance the needs to provide parking on site, create a unit that could be marketable so client could recover some costs, and provide a fifth unit to satisfy the mortgagees of the units in the front building. Looking at the actual footprint, Atkins says it was clear they could not fit five parking spaces. The new plan reduces the size of the unit from a two-bedroom to a one-bedroom unit with the entire living space on the second floor and a parking space underneath. Atkins says that in the old proposal, the length from Jefferson Avenue going west was 31 feet long at the interior, and with the deck, 24 feet across the back line of the property. The new proposal is 25 feet running from Jefferson Avenue going West, 6 feet less than what was originally planned. It also goes to the south along the property line 32 feet, which is 8 feet more than the original plan. The total area of the new unit is 855 square feet, compared to the old plan, which totaled (without its basement plan) 837 feet. The original footprint was 640 square feet. The new plan shows that the shadow of the second floor over the site is 800 square feet; however, the actual footprint is 55. Atkins suggests that the advantage to this plan is increased onsite parking, which he says adds value to all the units, not just the one belonging to his client. Atkins says he has spoken with some of the unit owners; some like the new plan, others • don't. He also acknowledges concerns that his client has not paid condominium ZBA November 19, 2008 Page 4 of 9 • association dues, and that is something that he is willing to resolve. Atkins notes that he thinks a key concern of the neighbors is where this unit is located. They could have done it exactly according to the original plans, but that would have meant the loss of one, perhaps two or three parking spaces on the site. Atkins also acknowledges that there had been mistrust of the original developer, which perhaps is why 18 conditions were imposed. He indicates that he would be agreeable to conditions imposed by the ZBA in order to go forward. He says he is before ZBA now because this is a non-conforming lot; it does not have the correct area, width, and there are setbacks to existing building less than required. This is a B-1 zone, not a residential zone,but multifamily housing is an allowed use. The variances he is asking for are 1) two principle use buildings in the same lot; 2) five parking spaces as opposed to the required eight; and 3) encroachments into the setbacks to the side and rear yards. Stein asks if Board members have any questions. Belair asks what Atkins anticipates the unit would sell for. Atkins responds he's unsure, but it would be a small amount; his client would certainly not recoup all his losses. Belair speculates the losses must already have been significant and asks if they have considered offering the unit as a rental, given the market. Atkins says no, they wish to offer it for sale. Stein asks if St. Pierre wishes to elaborate on any of the property's history before moving on. St. Pierre says no. Stein states this is complicated from a zoning perspective and she wants to understand the status of the property. St. Pierre says the original developer tore • down everything but two walls; St. Pierre stopped him. The developer then came back to the ZBA, and got a special permit to construct, when the conditions were imposed. That dragged on to the point that the two walls were exposed to the elements for so long it had to be torn down; the condo association actually tore it down, and that's where we are today. Stein says that once the building was torn down it would have lost its grandfathered status. St. Pierre concurs; the building did lose its status, which is why he came to the board originally. Stein asks if the whole lot is affected. St. Pierre says the issue relates to the structure. Curran asks if there is a special permit now allowing the five units, and also if that special permit has expired? St. Pierre says no—there were historically five units. The four units had been redeveloped and sold at the point when the fifth one was tackled. Stein asks if the parking spaces were assigned by way of the master deed. Atkins replies no, that it was left to the trustees to determine how the spaces were used. Stein opens the public comment portion of the meeting. Councillor Jean Pelletier: Since these units are part of a condominium association, if one new developer comes in to make a change like this, doesn't he need permission from the • condo association as a whole, because they own the property together? Is it for the board ZBA November 19, 2008 Page 5 of 9 to decide whether this one party can bring the project forward to the ZBA without including the other condo association owners, if those owners don't already accept the proposal? Stein says she thinks their master deed probably controls who has authority to act on behalf of whom and what. Attorney Anthony Keck states that he is representing three unit owners (5, 4 and 2). He raises the issue of acquiring the common area without seeking the permission of other unit owners to re-site the structure there. Stein asks what approval is needed to use a common area; Keck states that 100% approval from other owners is required if a common area is to be taken from everyone else. They also must have permission from all lenders. He says this vacant space is a problem for the other owners and lenders, but that they are not seeking to punish the original developer; they simply want to be sure the best design is chosen, and are also concerned that the petition does not take into account the rights of the other owners, who should have input. He states that simply reducing the footprint of the structure is not necessarily ideal, and also expresses concern about a post holding up a unit. He says the way the unit is sitting in the corner of a property now allows better vehicular access and says that currently, residents are able to park along the wall. The four owners had been able to get their cars in; turning the building to the side now takes away some of the current parking and snow removal area. He acknowledges that by not having a fifth unit, no lender wants to touch the property, and that this has been going on for three years without resolution. • Keck passes around photos residents have taken of the parking area from units above to illustrate the problems. Keck says the unit owners haven't said they don't want anything at all to be built there— they are just concerned that the ground area currently used for parking is being taken away from the other residents, without their input, all to help UFC recoup their losses. He also feels the plan would not even be cost effective. He requests the ZBA deny petition. Stein says before moving on, she would like to hear if the other unit owners have any suggestions for how they would like to see this problem resolved, other than rebuilding on the old footprint. If it's not rebuilt, there will be a continuing problem. Keck says that is probably the best solution. Stein says Keck does not have to answer the question, but she is curious as to whether there has been any discussion of the other owners buying out the unit—economically, this could be the best solution. Keck says yes, they had that discussion with their prior counsel. Harris asks what would be involved in a buyout; Keck responds that all owners and their lenders would have to agree to that. In this case, unit one "is" the bank, since that unit is owned outright. The other owners would need their lenders to agree since this would be eliminating ownership of this unit, and that would be a significant change. Harris notes • that there would be greater costs to the other owners, including higher shares of condo ZBA November 19,2008 Page 6 of 9 fees. Harris also said says with three owners already opposed to that solution, this . wouldn't be feasible. Stein asks Keck if he doesn't agree that they would have to have all owners on board with allowing the taking of a common space. Keck says he is unsure of that, and reminds the Board that this is a separated unit—its own building. The question of on the ground usage of the common area is the question,not the building itself. Stein says the site plan shows that the open space appears to be all common, so the Board may be deciding something tonight that the petitioner can't do anything with. Keck says yes, to some degree, this is a first step, and that in order to go to a lender and get an agreement among unit owners, they need permission to do it. Keck noted he thought getting the other unit owners to agree to end that one unit would be a good idea; the only person who would be � g Y left with nothing in this case would be the owner of unit one, and he currently has nothing. Keck says that if the unit were rebuilt on the original footprint with parking under the building, there would be less opposition from the other unit owners. He suggests putting parking where a basement would have gone—since the foundation needed to be done anyway, why not build a ramp there for a parking garage? Belair asks if Keck's clients are opposed to buying out unit one; Keck responds they are not, but it would depend on the price offered. Keck notes there has been discussion of this before, but a price could not be agreed on. Atkins says the photo shown by Keck's clients does not do justice to the plan submitted, • which was based on a survey, which Keck feels shows the space on the lot accurately, and that the survey plan is a more legitimate depiction of the space. Atkins says that the loss of common space shown by their plan is justified by the addition on their plan of "legitimate"parking. If they built on the same footprint, says Keck, they would be eliminating parking spaces, and one has to presume that that parking is of value to each unit owner and their lenders, and this parking would be lost if the building were rebuilt on its original footprint. Stein notes that the parking spaces on the original condo plan are not on the same places as the spaces shown in the pictures. She suggests that if the unit owners are happy to have the building rebuilt where it was and don't care if it makes parking tight, then why not just rebuild on the original footprint? Atkins says he supposes they could do that, but his client had made a judgment that it would be of higher value to all the owners, their lenders, and the abutters to have more parking on the site. Paul Durand, the architect who worked on the design, says they had assumed it would be unprofessional to propose a site with too many non-compliant parking spaces, and that they had anticipated the ZBA and Keck's clients would place a higher priority on the value of parking than they are. They had only planned the site this way in an attempt to be more compliant with the parking requirements, but they would happily rebuild the building as it was. • ZBA November 19,2008 Page 7 of 9 Stein says she appreciates that, if those who live there don't mind, and notes that two pre- 1965 buildings would not need parking at all. Atkins says they need a variance for putting in fewer parking than zoning allows. Curran asks why, since they had one for this approved plan. Stein asks why the variance is required at all, since the site existed legally pre-zoning; Atkins says any alteration to the site would require a variance for parking. Parking becomes up for grabs every time the site comes before zoning. Stein asks if this means the parking just for Atkins' structure, or the whole site? Atkins says the entire site. Atkins says the zoning question is irrelevant if people don't want onsite parking, and if the ZBA didn't require a variance; however, he'd be more comfortable from a lender's perspective having the variance. Dionne says that because the original pre-zoning structure is gone, the board does have to look at the fact that the proposed building is right on the property line, not far from the adjoining property. In terms of fire safety, what standards must be adhered to? St. Pierre responds that the buildings would have to comply with today's (Seventh Edition) codes if the buildings were to be placed that close together. Dionne asks how many feet the new building would be located from the abutting property; St. Pierre says it looks like a one- foot setback. He is unsure exactly how far the building is located from the abutting structures; however, he notes that the apparent close proximity would mean very restrictive standards for glazing and other requirements. It is also noted that the post holding up the proposed new unit over the parking space would have to be very durable in case a car struck it. . Pelletier says he doesn't expect the ZBA to vote on this issue tonight, but asks the board to consider the hardship this situation has caused for the other unit owners in the past two years. Kevin McGrath of 3 Arthur Street comments that the site has been discussed before and nothing came of it—none of the conditions imposed were met. As an abutter, he asks what rights he has, and notes the original footprint of the building is on his property line. He does not want anything there; he's used to the site as it is. Raylene McGrath, also of 3 Arthur Street, says the proposed structure is larger than originally planned and is too big, in her opinion. Laura Trellopoulos of unit 4 notes that the lenders have lost money; if someone hits the proposed post and the building collapses, it will cost more. She says the developer has not listened to any of the other owners' concerns, that parking is a problem currently and will not work the way the site is proposed. Bob Levesque of 268 Jefferson Avenue says he and his son, Joshua Levesque,bought the property next door and have been renovating it. As abutters, they are disappointed with the proposal and are concerned it will affect their ability to sell the house they are renovating, particularly considering the market. • ZBA November 19,2008 Page 8 of 9 Michael Gederre of 272 Jefferson Avenue (unit 5), states his opposition to the project and • notes that when he bought his unit, the plans for unit 1 were to renovate it, not add or rebuild. He says this situation came about as a result of that lender's poor decision and the previous owner's failure to pay his mortgage, and the other owners shouldn't have to bail out the lender/owner. He says they have told the petitioner these plans were not acceptable. He says the parking doesn't work and is worse in winter. Shannon Kauler of 274 Jefferson Avenue comments on the inadequacy of space on the property for snow removal without putting snow onto her property. She says there is no room for additional parking on the site, notes her fence was once hit, and states her opposition to the project. Sylvia Updegrave of 272 Jefferson Avenue (unit 2) states her opposition. Colin Martin of 272 Jefferson Avenue (unit 3) says this is the first time they have heard everyone's point of view and notes the other owners have been through three lawyers and two pending foreclosures. He supports the plan to reconstruct the unit and says they can compromise on parking. He has been unable to sell his unit and feels the best solution is to rebuild as proposed. Laura Trellopoulous says she would prefer to sell but did not want to do so at the expense of all the other owners. • Atkins says he understands the other unit owners' concerns, but the common area to be taken away is minimal. However, he wants to see if he and Keck could establish some middle ground and listen to the owners and abutters. Atkins requests to continue the matter. Stein says there are two solutions: one, to talk about a buyout, or two, if the ZBA gives the petitioner permission to rebuild. However, all the unit owners still must agree before either can be done. Stein says there is no point in the ZBA giving permission for something they cannot do without the condo association's permission anyway. Atkins says he will discuss a compromise with the other owners and come back to the ZBA. He also notes he'd been unaware that the other unit owners and their lenders would accept less parking, and that they could come up with another design based on this. Gederre says he prefers a buyout. Harris asks if, when the original building was there, could residents fit four parking spaces. Gederre replies yes, they could get four, but not five. Belair encourages the petitioner to allow the other owners to buy him out and says the plan is not economic. She says she would never approve what is before them tonight— it's too large and lacks character. She urges him to act quickly, since the owners have been waiting so long for resolution. ZBA November 19,2008 Page 9 of 9 Stein makes a motion to continue the hearing to January 21, 2009 to give the parties and • their lawyers time to discuss a solution. Curran seconds the motion, and all vote in favor. Stein makes a motion to close the meeting. Dionne seconds the motion. The meeting is adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner • • goNDlT,/gO CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL c+ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2009 DEC -3 P 2: 11 MAYOR CITY Cl.:....,. 5 .: i`:i I, il.", S December 3, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of John Granese, Trustee of the Granese Bros. Realty Trust, seeking a variance from side yard setback to modify an existing structure, to accommodate an expansion of the building, located at 59 JEFFERSON AVENUE. A public hearing on the above petition was held on November 19, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Beth Debski, Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair and Jimmy Tsitsinos. • Petitioner seeks a variance pursuant to Section 9-5 of the City of Salem Zoning By-law.. 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 George W. Atkins, representative of the petitioner, John Granese, Trustee of Granese Bros. Realty Trust, presented the petition for the property Mr. Granese owns at 59 Jefferson Avenue in the I Zoning District. 2. Petitioner proposes to expand the existing 3,600 square foot garage structure by 2,400 square feet, resulting in a five-foot encroachment Into the existing side yard. 3. The proposed expansion is shown on the plans titled "Plan Showing Proposed Addition, No. 59 Jefferson Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts," prepared by N. Granese and Sons, Inc., and "Proposed Plot Plan, 59 Jefferson Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts," prepared by Parsons and Faia, Inc. 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 • I. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Industrial Zoning District to enable the proposed development, which development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 1ng EC -3 2 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certaip,al5 rop ia)g, t;ASS. conditions and safeguards as noted below. Cil Y C__.•, 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 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 er the plans and dimensions submitted to and P 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. • 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. r/�1 "lJ e-i,L 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. • 2 BC?Eit ED oN�r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEC 1 8 2008 BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR DEPT. OF PLANNING& J SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 COAMV"-yV"pM(DEVELOPKd 1T • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL10tn ; `� MAYOR o DECDLC _3 FILE 4 CITY CLER"i, SP-LEM- MASS. We the undersigned do hereby waive all rights with regard to time requirements for the Zoning Board of Appeal relative to hearing the following applicaDk4tion: Property Location 22- f� A (- Original Meeting Date U —/9 r 0i New Meeting Date l "a! — 6 Signature of Petitioner and/or s/her Represe QTY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL : 120 WASHINGTON STREET*SALEM,MASSACHUSEM 01970 SLE:978-745-9595 ♦FAx:978-7449846 KIMRERLEYDRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, November 19,2008 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of: John Granese, Trustee of the Granese Bros. Realty Trust Location: 59 Jefferson Avenue, Salem, MA Request: Variance Description: Variance requested from side yard setback in the Industrial Zoning District (I) to allow for the 2,400 square foot expansion of a garage. Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on December 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. • 1 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Zo&,(✓� Loccrd o &2O__LE , ti o Date 2008 ameMailing Address Phone # Email J N st. ?TR-- I -2 0 / V � a Lexltjz 6i✓ie 975-ap3 — 0799 iet)1,4 a � 9 '2 �7elf Z/9/ 'i �Rn D-;�V (—, S 0179, _NS_ 33x`3 �P �P I b ;-705r�v�a 5� y4ye �rj F/&,1 7r -3/G-y90� lk-Tye I I zq;? q q� l (�, u q7� 7yS-33 drl tips noa w y`bti�l� Te vSn u �, uf�^7`f`�'G2a�f Qr74 -TP:4c -_--M ltr-- q-7,S I73 9 boa l� 7 2 7.2- Tr{L6-✓a 4Ve Page of CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 9 { SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Doi FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZOO OCT —q P 3; ,1-2 MAYOR FII-Ey` AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING October 15,2008 -6:30 P.M. 3'FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stein,Chau 1. Approval of Minutes—September 17, 2008 2. Continued: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). 3. Petition of SHAWN DONOVAN requesting a variance from off—street parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 215 DERBY STEET (B5). 4. Petition of ATLANTIC COAST HOMES, LLC, appealing Building Inspector's decision that property is a two-family dwelling not three-family dwelling located at 28 '/: GROVE STREET (R-1) F 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment This notice p®str—d =r1 "Of;`id:ll Bulletin Board" . City Hall SLd r", iviaSS. on OCT - 9 2008 p/a���t/gqpp 3 , i app{n .ti i■/n.�y jaccorda� wraith Chap. 39 Ste. 233 & 238 a8 E6HO MAI. 'g;z9' City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date 10 / t S / ZOOS Name Mailing Address Phone # Email FRED MAS, 7CHUPCHilLsT 9-7�-7�p�=6M FMA1Tti cj6&6,ovks c (/vc` F d Cwu,6�1SF Qd VV 170 722-fibo ^O l Va . N bp�ei,.r�•� Page_of 3 C,on F, j �G 6 e -r- i sly ZBA ACTION FORM BOARD MEMBERS MOTION SECOND VOTE / Robin Stein (Chair) Date: - _ I�j o Rebecca Curran Petitioner: t Elizabeth Debski n Annie Harris Address: fol, I Richard Dionne Bonnie Belair (Alternate) Total: Conditions: ❑Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. ❑All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. ❑All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. ❑ Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. ❑Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • ❑A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. ❑A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. ❑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. ❑Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board. ❑Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does 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 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. D� �� 2� City of Salem Massachusetts • Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Zoning Board of Appeals Date and Time: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor, Room 313, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Robin Stein,Rebecca Curran,Beth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair (Alternate), Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate) Members Absent: Others Present: Staff Planner Tyson Lynch Building Commissioner Tom St. Pierre Recorder: Andrea Bray Chair Stein calls the meeting to order. 1. Approval of Minutes: September 17, 2008 Meeting The members review the minutes and suggest amendments. Debski: Motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Curran. Passes 5-0. • 2. Continued: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). Michael Ferris of AAA Enterprises states that he held a demonstration of the rock- crushing operation, and presents the list of attendees. Stein reads the following letters into the record: • Dated October 14, 2008, from Doyle Sail Makers, in opposition to the Special Permit. • From Thermal Circuits, 1 Technology way, expressing reservations regarding the potential noise and airborne particle issues of the rock-crushing operation. He requests a Federal Air Quality Permit be required for this site. Belair asks if they will wait to receive the environmental information. Stein states that the board should see the environmental information before making a decision, but she wishes to hear from the pubic tonight. She adds the DEP requires the road to be widened for the trucks. • Stein opens this issue for public comment. CI ZBA October 15,2008 Page 2 of 7 • Jack O'Neil of 96 Swampscott Road, who owns a food manufacturing business in the area, speaks in opposition to the Special Permit. David Groom, owner of Groom Construction and Groom Energy, states that he was not notified of this hearing. Stein advises Groom that notices are not mailed for any continued hearings. David Groom states that he is in the construction business and knows that the rock- crushing operation is the filthiest part of any construction process. He adds that the cakes of stone dust found on his property present an ongoing daily clean-up chore, and he moved from his original operation because of the filth. He expresses concerns about potential respiratory problems with his 120 employees. He claims that there will be an exodus of businesses in that area if the rock-crushing operation is approved. Attorney Patrick Violas, representing the petitioner, asks the board to consider voting on this issue this evening, rather than wait for the consent order from DEP. Ward 3 City Councilor Jean Pelletier reads the following letter into the record: • From City Councilor O'Keefe, in which he describes the demonstration of the • rock-crushing machine. O'Keefe writes in favor of the petition. Pelletier says that this area was formerly zoned industrial, and the zoning change has imposed new restrictions on this site,which existed prior to the zoning change. He expresses disappointment with the Board for postponing the site visit. He adds that the new neighbors, who spoke in opposition, came to this area after the new zoning was imposed because they were offered a TIF from the City. He states that the DEP has no bearing on this operation except to order them to widen the road. Stein states that the Board's concern with the DEP is that the road must be widened for increased wide truck activity. Stein adds that she isn't prepared to make a decision tonight, but if pushed, she will take a vote. Pelletier states that the DEP consent order states that they have to have the paperwork in by February. Groom clarifies that they did not move to Salem because they got a TIF; they moved to a beautiful area in a beautiful building, and he grew up in Salem. Stein states that the use was never a legal use up there. St. Pierre states that he does not know if it was ever allowed, and they would have to go • back and see what the zoning was. ZBA October 15,2008 Page 3 of 7 Stein states that they would not be here right now if this was a legally grandfathered use. She iterates that she doesn't have all of the information that she would like to make a decision. There being no further questions or comments from the public Stein closes the public hearing. The members review the bylaws. Belair states that she is happy to vote if the petitioner wishes, but she would like more information first. Motion by Debski to approve the petition of AAA, seconded by Dionne. The vote was two in favor (Dionne and belair) and three opposed(Curran, Debski, and Stein). The members clarify the hours of operation for the motion, and Stein suggests taking another vote with a new motion, listing all of the conditions to make it a clean vote. Motion by Debski seconded by Belair, "To approve the Special Permit to allow for the receipt and processing of stone soil, and loam at 15 Robinson Road subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city, state and federal statues, ordinances, • codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 4. The days of operation will be limited to Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m." The vote was two (2) in favor(Dionne and Belair) and three (3) opposed (Stein, Curran, and Debski). The motion fails and the petition is denied. 3. Petition of SHAWN DONOVAN re uestin a variance from off-street parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 215 DERBY STREET B5 . Attorney Bill Quinn, representing the petitioner, states that this site was once a chowder house. He explains that the Donovans also own the Bunghole liquor store across the . street, and bought the property hoping to move their store into this property. Quinn says that the Donovans' current Bunghole site was approved through a variance and any ZBA October 15,2005 Page 4 of 7 • changes to that site would require a new hearing, so rather than moving the liquor store, the Donovans decided to lease the 215 Derby Street property. He adds that they have no tenant yet, but they wish to add six parking spaces to the site to make the building more attractive to potential tenants. Quinn explains that the building originally had three storefronts, but was opened into one large unit for the chowder house. He adds that there is a small outdoor dining area on the right side. He submits a plan for 6 parking places in front of the 3 store fronts, stating that it is tight and doesn't leave room for the set backs. He acknowledges some concerns about backing out into a public way, but states that the Parking and Traffic Commission had no problem with this plan. Stein recuses herself for this issue and Debski takes the Chair. Quinn states that there are two definite curb cuts on either side of the lot and the middle has a recessed curb, which is flush with the street even though there is a curb there. He adds that, if approved, the curb will be removed and hot-topped for the length of the building. Harris expresses concern about having the access to the building obscured by parked cars. St. Pierre states that a handicapped spot would be required, which would take up almost • two spaces. Donovan states that at one time that entire area was used for parking. Quinn says that he has no problem with an approval of the plan, subject to having one handicapped space. George Fallon, Tache Real Estate, speaks in opposition to the petition. He cites chapter 40A, stating they should not grant a variance, which would cause harm to the surrounding area. He claims that an approval would amount to taking what is one public spot and converting it to use by a private company. He states that angled parking requires 10 feet in width. Debski corrects him stating that angled parking requires 9 feet. Fallon states that if this is granted they would have the largest curb cut in the City. He adds that he is not sure if it is legal to take public parking for private use. He acknowledges that it is only one spot that will be lost, but he needs the spot. He maintains that this does not meet the threshold of chapter 40A. Belair states that there is no pubic space there, and there hasn't been a public space there for years. She disputes that there is curbing there. • Fallon states that there is curbing there, but it is depressed. ZBA October 15, 2008 Page 5 of 7 • Curran asks if an opinion from the City Engineer would be needed if this is approved. Quinn states that he spoke to Lieutenant Preczewski of the Traffic Department and he said they should put some type of lining to mark the parking spots, but he has no problem with this plan. He clarifies that this plan does not convert public property to private use, and iterates that at one time it had been used for parking. Debski states that this is a great idea if they can get the cars off the street. Fred Matei for Tache Real Estate states that there will be a danger with the cars backing out of that property. Debski confirms that Attorney Quinn spoke with the Traffic Department and they had no problem with the plan. Donovan states that Fallon sold him the building. Debski closes the public hearing. Belair state that this is a successful businessperson that is restoring an abandoned building, and there is not a loss of a public parking space. She adds that the cars parked • at Brother's and Waters and Brown all back into the street. Harris states that she is not crazy about this idea, and expresses concern about having the cars backing into the street, and claims that it sets a bad precedent. Having said that, Harris acknowledges that parking is at a premium in this area. She concludes by stating that she would be in favor of a compromise because there has to be a handicapped space, which will be wider, taking up an extra space. She suggests having a small walkway on the remainder of the other parking space, resulting in a total of five spaces, one of which will be for handicapped parking. She claims that this measure would make the plan more urban and pedestrian-friendly. Dionne agrees with Harris on having the need for the small walkway. Quinn states that he would be happy if the board approved five spaces with one being ADA compliant. Curran states that they can approve subject to ADA compliance and a pedestrian passageway. St. Pierre suggests they require the parking space be in compliance with the Architectural Access Board rules. • zBA October 15,2008 Page 6 of 7 • Motion by Belair and seconded by Curran to approve the variance from off-street parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance at 215 Derby Street subject to the following terns, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. Parking must be designed within the specifications of the Architectural Access Board. 3. Subject to the approval of the Traffic Department of the Salem Police Department 4. There shall be no more than five (5)parking spaces 5. There shall be a walkway from Derby Street to front of building with a minimum width of three(3) feet. The Board of Appeals voted four(4) in favor (Curran, Debski, Harris and Belair) and one opposed (Dionne) 4. Petition of ATLANTIC COAST HOMES, LLC, appealing Building Inspector's • decision that property is a two-family dwelling not three-family dwelling located at 28 %z GROVE STREET (RI). Applicant Mike Becker, states that the name on the petition should not be Atlantic Coast Homes, but rather Mike Becker. He explains that he purchased the property in May, and it was in a dilapidated state. He describes the extensive restoration work that he completed on the building. He submits evidence to show that the property was used as a three-family, stating that he conducted research back to 1881. He provides the history of the usage of the house, citing cases when this was used as a three-family dwelling. Evidence that he presents includes: • A photo of three electric meters believed to be installed around 1958. • Assessment records from 1973 stating that this building was a 3-family dwelling. • A photo of the 4 gas meters on the building. • Voting records from 1963 and 1964. Stein states that Becker did his homework on this. She reads an email from Philip J. Bonn at 28 Grove Street, expressing concern about the noise from the second floor deck and the path of egress, and parking. The letter asks the Board to approve this while stipulating that no furniture or grills be on the deck. St. Pierre states that the new zoning took place on August 27, 1965, when they looked at what existed in 1964 and that use was grandfathered. He explains that tax assessors are charged by law to assess what they see, whether or not it is in compliance with zoning, so ZBA October 15,2008 Page 7 of 7 • they cannot go by assessor's records. St. Pierre states that he did his zoning report before the home was restored. Becker states that the building card says that this zoning is R2. He iterates that it has 3 separate electrical meters. There being no comments from the public, Stein closes the public hearing. Curran states that it appears that the building was originally a 3-family dwelling and it was changed just before the rezoning. Stein states that she is comfortable that the information before them is not definitive, but because there is evidence that this was a 3-family, she would vote to permit a 3-family. Harris disputes the information stating that this information is inconclusive and she sees only evidence that this property was a 2-family in 1965. Much discussion ensues regarding the proper use for this building. Becker states that the neighborhood is in favor of this. He explains that if a unit has a place to bathe, a place to eat, and a place to sleep, it is a separate unit. • Motion by Curran and seconded by Debski to approve the petition to overturn the Building Inspector's decision that this is a 2-family dwelling. Voted four(4) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, and Dionne) and one opposed (Harris) to approve the petition to overturn the Building Inspector's decision that the subject property located at 28 'h Grove Street is a two-family dwelling based on the Board's determination that the subject property at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in Salem was a three-family dwelling. Motion to adjourn by Curran and seconded by Debski. Passes 5-0. The meeting is adjourned at 8:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, Andrea Bray, Recording Secretary �Ir7 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL `l 120WASIJ NC I'ONS'I Rrri ♦ SAI..KI MASSACI-Iusrns01970 9�6*llNti 1)dTZ , 'l _j,,.:978-745-9595 * I�nx:978-740-9846 KiNmFR1.rY Diascou. MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, October 15,2008 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of: Shawn Donovan Location: 215 Derby Street, Salem, MA Request: Variance Description: Variance requested from off-street parking regulations in the Central Development District(135) Decision: Approved subject to special terms and conditions Filed with the City Clerk on November 4, 2008 Petition of: Mike Becker • Location: 281/2Grove Street, Salem, MA (R1) Request: Reversal of the Building Inspector's decision Description: Request to reverse the Building Inspector's decision that a stricture was a two-family, not a three-family, dwelling Decision: Approved Filed with the City Clerk on November 4, 2008 Petition of: AAA Enterprises & Services on behalf of Mountain Realty Trust Location: 15 Robinson Road (BPD) Request: Special permit to add a nonconforming use Description: Proposed nonconforming use to be added is a portable rock crusher to receive and process stone soil and loam Decision: Denied Filed with City Clerk on November 4, 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 G��z R"ECEIVED X71y NOV 0 4 2008 1 DEPT.Or PLANNING& CDMPN'tYTY DEVELOPWRT on CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR i SALEM. MA5SACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978.740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ` o c.� MAYOR q m Zl AGENDA I BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OD September 17, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 3 3 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET inStein,Chair Ln 1. Approval of Minutes— August 27, 2008 2. Attorney Joseph Correnti requesting a six (6) month extension for variances granted October 18, 2006 for the property located it 28 GOODHUE STREET. 3. Continued: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). 4. Petition of LONA BELANGER requesting a variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the construction of a two-family structure following the • demolition of the existing residence at 43 SCHOOL STREET(R-2). 5. Petition of LOUIS SEIBERT requesting to appeal the Building Inspector's decision to deny a sign permit for Louis Restoration&Repair located at 22 HERSEY STREET (B4). 6. Petition of ANDREW LYALL requesting a variance from minimum width of side yard to allow an attached garage approx. 10' x 19' at 40 COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1). 7. Petition of PATRICIA LEBRUN requesting to amend to the special permit decision dated November 9, 2006 to allow day and overnight boarding and to.extend the hours of the pet grooming business at 8-10 BROADWAY(1)- 8. Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting variances from minimum lot area, lot width,depth of front yard, width of side yard, and depth of rear yard to construct fifteen single family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (Assessor's Map 41, Parcels 235, 236, 243, 244, 246, and 274) (R-2). 9. Old/New Business This notice posted on "Grip icl r3ulletin Board" 10. Adjournment t Hall 1 a� Seletn, PiayS. on 23A & 238 of M.'ccordame with Chap, 32 1 :r 1 CITY OF SALEM DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT gF�lMNE�N. KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ S ALEN,MASSACIIOSETTS 01970 TEL:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 LvNN GOONIN Dm CAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Tyson J. Lynch, Acting Staff Planner DATE: September 8, 2008 RE: Meeting Agenda- September 17, 2008 Hello Board Members, • Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of August 27, 2008 Petitions and Materials for Items Notes on Agenda Items: 1. Attorney Joseph Correnti requesting a six (6) month extension for variances granted October 18, 2006 for the property located at 28 GOODHUE STREET. Two (2) six month extensions of the Board of Appeals decision have been granted to date. On September 4, 2008 the applicant came before the Planning Board to request a six (6) month extension of the North River Canal Corridor Special Use Permit, as well as an extension of the Site Plan Review, Wetlands Flood Hazard District Special Permit so that they run concurrently. The Petitioner intends to move forward with the construction of 44 residential units, however, requires additional time to secure necessary financing and contracts. • 2. CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at i r� 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). • This item was opened on March 19th and continued to April 16th. At the April 16'h Board of Appeals meeting, a site visit to 15 Robinson Road was scheduled so that the Board and public could see and hear the rock crusher in operation. The site visit was canceled by the applicant, because the equipment was nonoperational. While the equipment was being repaired, the applicant's attorney, Joseph Ballliro, has requested multiple continuances (May 21st, July 16th, and September 17th). At this meeting, the applicant anticipates to schedule a new site visit. 3. Petition of LONA BELANGER requesting a variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the construction of a two-family structure following the demolition of the existing residence at 43 SCHOOL STREET (R-2) This is a new petition. This item was to be heard in August, however, the second advertisement in the Salem News did not print on the correct day, so it could not be heard. Proper notice has been given. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single family residence and build a two family modular structure with a total of four parking spaces (two (2) per unit). A lot area per dwelling unit of 7,500 sq. ft. is required; the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a lot area per dwelling unit of 3,500 sq. ft. 4. Petition of LOUIS SEIBERT requesting to appeal the Building Inspector's decision to deny a sign permit for Louis Restoration & Repair located at 22 HERSEY STREET (B4). The Applicant is requesting to paint two wall signs on his business located at 22 Hersey Street. The Building Inspector denied the permit for signage, because the Applicant was over the allotted signage square footage as specified in the Salem Sign Ordinance. The Applicant contends that his proposal should be viewed as a mural or other type of artistic expression and not as signage. 5. Petition of ANDREW LYALL requesting a variance from minimum width of side yard to allow an attached garage approx. 10' x 19' at COLUMBUS AVENUE (R-1). The Applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum width of side yard to construct a single story, one-car garage 10 x 19'10" attached to a single family home. 6. Petition of PATRICIAL LEBRUN requesting to amend the special decision dated November 9, 2006 to allow day and overnight boarding and to extend the hours of the pet grooming business at 8— 10 BROADWAY (I). • The Applicant is requesting to amend a previous special permit decision. The Applicant is proposing to construct a fence with the dimensions approx. 27' x 8' inside her business located at 10 Broadway. Additionally, the applicant is looking to amend her business license for dog grooming to include overnight boarding and to extend hours of operation. 7. Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting variances from minimum lot area, lot width, depth of front yard, width of side yard, and depth rear yard to construct fifteen single family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (Assessor's Map 41, Parcels 235, 236, 244, and 274) (R-2). This item was to be heard in August, however there was not a quorum and the second newspaper advertisement did not print on the correct day. The applicant responded to an RFP issued by the City of Salem for land owned by the City, which included a small parcel of land subsequently determined to be owned by a third party. The applicant has negotiated a sale price with the third party. The site consists of approximately 2.4 acres and is currently vacant and undeveloped. Industrial buildings were located on site from approximately 1906 (Crestband Leather Tannery) until 1986, when the last remaining industrial building was demolished by the City of Salem as a fire hazard. Metals have been found in the soil. There is a temporary Response Action Outcome (RAO)—Form C — for the site. This is a five-year temporary classification. A more permanent closeout will need to be completed following the capping and development work. A Risk Characterization and Assessment was prepared by Alliance Environmental Group, Inc. The risk characterization demonstrates that a condition of"No Significant Risk"of harm to health exists now and into the foreseeable • future with the implementation of an Activities and Use Limitation (AUL). The site will have a registered AUL placed on it by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The applicant is requesting dimensional relief which would result in the creation of fifteen(15) single family house lots. The site plan shows access on Szetela Lane for thirteen(13) of the homes and on Fort Avenue for two (2) of the homes. The way proposed off of Szetela Lane would be private. The proposed project would require review by the Planning Board as well as the Conservation Commission. These parcels are located within the R-2, Two-Family Residential Zoning District. Allowable uses include single and two-family dwellings with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage. The RFP specified: "Although there is sufficient acreage for 6lots and twelve (12) dwelling units, there is insufficient frontage for this number of lots due to the configuration of the site. The Administration is supportive of modest variances that would result in 10 to 15 dwelling units subject to input from an ad-hoc neighborhood committee, excellent architectural design that is in keeping with and enhances the character of the neighborhood, and site development that minimizes any negative impact on adjacent properties. " This plan has been shaped by several neighborhood meetings held by the developers. . The changes that have occurred as a result of these meetings have been described in the project narrative which accompanies the petition. A table showing the dimensional relief needed for each lot also accompanies the petition. Where there is a blank space in the table, the zoning requirements have been complied with. City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board o nn q �ar� of k f pecx-(S DateZoo Name Mailing Address Phone # Email z4G/e� _/7nn - Lo 57- 714-" 714-" G k> c S I -) 14 S -1 1 � t Le AU l3f OG,&,\ 42C a✓, I`��- ��ll3 22 Me,r r-or+u z wi Page 4 of-7— City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board 727o,n`,01c\ �o��� o � Af peu-I S Date l fl 200 Name Mailing Addres Phone # y/E/7c�my ail ^ � O 7CIr:�o /� _ �Y C X17,'- 71(u -lJ� )o 7Z 5- �i v e ,032 '2i zokcoa -1AZPJ le 9tr Page of� A nj ZBA Meeting Minutes 2006-August 2008 CITY OF SALEM 417 4ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS P A l9 2004 F1riR -9 A.. T�'� FILE FILE.# ,i c CITY CL Fit, SALE: 2009 Zoning Board of Appeal Meefihbl,�citeddie'„."'''' Unless otherwise noted, all meetings of the Salem Planning Board are held at 6:30 in Room 313, Third Floor 120 Washington Street. Submittals should be in by 12:00 noon on the submittal deadline date shown. Note: Applications will be accepted each month on a first-come, first serve basis and once the monthly meeting agenda is full petitions will be carried over to the following month's meeting. Meeting Daterr SUbniitt6l Deadline 21 Days Pnor;ry January 21, 2009 December 31, 2009 February 18, 2009 January 28, 2009 March 18, 2009 February 25, 2009 • April 15, 2009 March 25, 2009 May 20, 2009 April 29, 2009 June 17, 2009 May 27, 2009 July 15, 2009 June 24, 2009 August 19, 2009 July 29, 2009 September 16, 2009 August 27, 2009 October 21, 2009 September 28, 2009 November 18, 2009 October 28, 2009 December 16, 2009 November 25, 2009 Last Updated 12/11/2008 This notice posted on "official Bulletin Board” City Heli � €ern, Ivtasa ,n X182. 7. �o0q It Jit;3 9 �n� s t; 3 tx;lh chap. 39 Sim 23A 93V � t 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - TEL: 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 ' WWW.SALEM.COM oeolr CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ,\ • 9 { SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �`Zrerrneoo� FAX: 978-740-9846 ��'} p KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL =I �. 1" 20 .A IJ: MAYOR 2008 ZBA Meeting Schedule You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal will hold its regularly scheduled meetings for 2008 at 6:30, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street on the following dates: U=Lt V, Robin Stein Chair . January 16, 2008 July 16, 2008 February 13, 2008* August 20, 2008 March 19, 2008 September 17, 2008 April 16, 2008 October 15, 2008 May 21, 2008 November 19, 2008 June 18, 2008 December 17, 2008 *Note: 2nd Wednesday of the month This notice Posted on "offlel;tz:l Bulletin Boanii" • City Hall � �e``r�, 1Aa erg a)Bc. ac aoc,7 at �. aS.�S A'� hY6� 4V (alai sfk t fylti e;6�t D 4 _+'..�o t b. yof �AA`AA- gonorrA_4 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX 978-740-9846 KIM13ERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Zoo, AGENDA (REVISED) 5 ? ) 3 BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING 'y?y August 27, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stein, hair 1. Approval of Minutes — July 16, 2008 2. CONTINUED: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum number of stories, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third story and conversion of the current assembly hall to six residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET (R-2). — Request to Withdraw 3. Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum height (feet and stories), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third and fourth story and the conversion of the current assembly hall to seven residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET (R-2). 4. CONTINUED: Petition of SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES, CORP. requesting to amend the decision dated July 14, 2004 to remove all references and requirements that any units be owner-occupied, and allow use of all units as either rental or ownership units at 50 PALMER STREET (B-1). 5. Petition of DANIEL LEBLANC seeking a variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from the side and rear lots line to retain an existing I V x 29' pergola enclosure, and a variance from height in stories to retain an existing 3rd floor deck at 71 ORCHARD STREET (R-2). 6. Petition of LONA BELANGER requesting a variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the construction of a two-family structure following the demolition of the existing residence at 43 SCHOOL STREET (R-2). 7. Petition of RONALD MERCIER seeking a variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from the side and rear lots line to construct a 24' x 24' garage at 21 CIRCLE HILL ROAD (R-1). 8. Petition of GARY & JENNIFER SANTO seeking a variance from minimum rear yard depth 1 and a special permit to alter a non conforming structure to allow for the construction of a 1 I mudroom attaching the existing garage to the main structure and the addition of finished space above the garage at 25 WASHINGTON SQUARE (R-2). 9. Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting variances from minimum lot area, lot width, depth of front yard, width of side yard, and depth of rear yard to construct fifteen single family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (Assessor's Map 41, Parcels 235, 236, 243, 244, 246, and 274) (R-2). —A quorum of members will not be present for this agenda item; item will be continued to September 17, 2008. 10. Old/New Business 11. Adjournment This noticeoste • p don Official Bu ®tM @orad city H II Salem, Mass. at / ' // /yJ In accordance ��i2h . 38 Sac, 23A & 2 of M.G.L. 2 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, August 27,2008 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein(Chair), Rick Dionne, Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski and (at 7:30) Annie Harris. Also present were: Amy Lash, Staff Planner and Thomas St. Pierre Building Commissioner 1. Approval of Minutes—July 16, 2008 Rick Dionne made a motion to approve the minutes seconded by Robin Stein and approved 4-0 (Stein, Dionne, Debski, Curran). Change to Agenda Stein announced the petition for 43 School Street as well as the petition for Shallop Landing at Szetela Lane and Fort Avenue would not be heard at the August meeting but would instead be hearing in September. Stein also announced a member would be late and there is a new order for the agenda items. • Petition of DANIEL LEBLANC seeking a variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from the side and rear lots line to retain an existing 11' x 29' pergola enclosure, and a variance from height in stories to retain an existing 3rd floor deck at 71 ORCHARD STREET (R-2). LeBlanc said he purchased the house in May of 2007 and the structures in question were already present on the property. He is looking to get approval for these structures, which include a P floor deck as well as a pergola enclosure which surround He presented the Board with pictures. Curran confirmed that granting variances would allow the structures to stay. Tom said yes, it is just dimensional relief that is required. Stein opened the public portion of the hearing. Janet Green (72 Orchard Street) said that the structures were in place prior to their ownership of the building. Green said the look of the property has been improved by the current property owners. Green said the structures weren't a problem before and they aren't a problem now. Paul Prevey (Ward 6 Councilor) spoke to LeBlanc and know he is trying to rectify a situation he was handed. Prevey encouraged the Board to vote favorably. There being no further comment, Stein closed the public portion of the hearing. • Dionne made a motion to approve the petition subject to eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved (4-0) (Stein, Dionne, Debski, Curran). Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum height (feet and stories), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third and fourth story and the conversion of the current assembly hall to seven residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET (R-2). Attorney Scott Grover addressed the Board and said he would like to have the petition treated as an amended petition. Grover reviewed the relief needed, variances include: height, lot area per dwelling unit, and parking. St. Pierre said there is also a special permit needed to change the nonconforming use. Stein said that she would be willing to condition that there be eight (8) spaces as shown on the plan. Stein opened the public portion of the hearing: With there being no comment, Stein closed the public portion of the hearing. Harris made a motion to approve the variances and special permit. With ten(10) standard conditions as well as one (1) special condition that there are to be eight spaces as • shown on the plan. The motion was seconded by Stein and approved (4-0) (Stein, Harris, Dionne, and Curran). CONTINUED: Petition of SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES, CORP. requesting to amend the decision dated July 14, 2004 to remove all references and requirements that any units be owner-occupied, and allow use of all units as either rental or ownership units at 50 PALMER STREET (B-1). Attorney Bill Quinn said this is their second appearance before the Board. Quinn noted that he sent the Board a letter requesting to change the name on the petition. Quinn said the first time they were before the Board was a reality check and they heard many concerns including concerns over management. Quinn said there are units ready to be occupied at 50 Palmer Street. Quinn said they think the best future use of the property would be to have affordable rental housing allowed under the management of the CDC. He said the alternative is that the project will go into foreclosure. Quinn said they are in negotiations with the lender and if they get permission tonight, they will have a few months to work things out. Quinn said if they do not get approval tonight, the project will go into foreclosure and the affordable restrictions will be wiped out. Quinn said lender comes above the other controls including the affordable housing restriction, which is supposed to last for 50 years. Quinn said property will go on the market as a foreclosed property and the bank will want to unload if fast because they don't want the liability of holding the property. Quinn said the bank would flip it to somebody who doesn't have control over the property, which is not the best thing for the neighborhood, • • said whether it be rental or ownership we want to provide affordable housing for low income people. Joseph Luna (Luna Design Group) said he was a Principal of the group which did the Palmer Cove project. He said his office has been involved in the project for over 5 years. He said he believes that quality housing should be available to individuals of all income levels. He said when the project was conceived several years ago the idea was to improve the neighborhood with out displacement of the residents. He said homeownership would bring people who take pride in their homes, improve the neighborhood, and bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Luna said Palmer Cove received variances from the BOA in 2004. He said the Board required that the project remain as home ownership for 50 years, and the design be quality. He said because of the nature of the .site and the complexity of the project construction took 15 months and during that time the real estate market changed. There have been only a small number of qualified buyers. The lack of sales is forcing the project into the brink of foreclosure, converting it to a tax credit affordable rental property is the proposal before the Board tonight. He asked the Board to consider several points: • If the project goes into foreclosure there will be a free for all of those speculating and looking for income properties. • It is possible there world be fragmented ownership making the project . management difficult. • The Salem Habor CDC is an important property owner in the Point Neighborhood and they have invested in the community. • The conversion will still meet the overall project goal. The conversion of the property to rental would be for fifteen (15) years and at that time the City may choose to retain rentals or consider other options. Luna said construction costs have remained high despite the market. There have been improvements to City infrastructure. There was donated landscaping and help in planting the landscaping. Luna said thinking outside the box made this project happen in the first place. The project was conceived to serve the Point community as a whole, though Luna said he was sorry to Ms. Corchardo and those affected by the change, he thinks the best option is to keep the project locally owned. Stein opened the public portion of the hearing. Carol McGowan Executive Director of the Salem Housing Authority is in support of the petition. She said the mission of the Housing Authority is to provide affordable housing, and Section 8 housing. She said there are people out there looking for housing and are people in the room who would probably like to live in the development. Sandra Colon_said she has lived in a Salem Harbor CDC property for l I years. The maintenance is very good. She lives across the street from the property and would like to • know that those who take over this property will take good care of it. subsidies attached. She said most would agree this is work force housing. She said there is a broadening need and increased number of renters. She said this information is coming from recently completed surveys from her organization. Hogan asked that the request is supported. Nancy Moore owns and four family at 39 Prince Street. She said if she screwed up and had built that project as a personal investor, nobody would bail her out. She said there are at least 37 available units in the Point and many accept Section 8 vouchers. She said she has two vacancies. She said maybe the project should go into foreclosure so that people who want to buy them can buy them. Tracey Mitchell (15 1/2 Palmer Street) lives on Palmer Street at the other end and has lived there for 30 years. She said she does clean up. Mitchell would prefer them to go rentals where people in the neighborhood would have a nice place to live. Peter Hackmeister owns the building at 35 Perkins Street. Hackmeister said he rescued a brick building and turned it into an owner occupied unit. He said if there is a way to further move the project into home ownership we should try to do that. He believes very strongly individual homeownership is a cornerstone. He submitted a letter. Frank Valentino has owned a four unit on Park Street for three years and has not once been 100% occupied. He said he put$100,000 into the property recently. He said he doesn't know mach about the organization, he thinks they did a nice job, though to say • the units are affordable is untrue. Eddie Telemaco owns a 3 family in the Point Neighborhood, and a condo by the college. Telemaco said if there are going to be 15 units on the market deeply discounted it will depress the market in all of Salem. He said this is a statewide epedemic. Telemaco said he is on the Board of the CDC and has been for 6 years. He feels what happens in the Point affects all of Salem. He said he doesn't believe in discriminating against people who don't have housing. He said he has been on the Board and is willing to be investigated. He said the mission of the CDC will remain the same. Calvin Young lives in the Point on Harbor Street. Young said he has been involved in housing development and community development. He said he sees a lack of accountability to the community as a major issue. He said he has come in too late to see other alternatives to what are being presented. Young is concerned that this shouldn't be allowed to happen. He thinks there is a lack of an ongoing partnership. Young said it needs to be ensured this does not happen again, and that more people from the Point need to be on the Board. Shirley Walker asked for the City's position. Stein read a letter from Mayor Driscoll to Tina Brooks,.Chairperson of the Community Economic Development Assistance Corp. The letters is in support of the application to the Pre-Development Loan Program by the Salem Harbor CDC. neighborhood. She said should not be based on petition over petition. She said if your landlord came to your house and asked you to sign something you would. Public portion closed. Debski asked that the affordable housing restriction is explained in more detail. Duncan said the BOA decision required that an affordable housing restriction be placed on the deed. They used the same language as the HOME consortium used since they used home funds. The restriction was recorded, but would be extinct with a foreclosure. Stein asked what the income requirements would be. All fifteen (15) will be affordable 60% of the area median income which is a house hold which earns $51,800 per year Three (3) units would be 30% of area median income which is a household of 4 earning $25,000 per year. All would be under$52,000 per year. Curran asked if the area median income is determined by HUD. Whelan, said yes. Dionne asked whether there would be an effort by the CDC to reach out more to the Community. Whelan, yes the Board will talk. Dionne asked what the mission statement of the CDC is. • Corchardo said it is to provide affordable quality housing, and services to the neighborhood, which increase employment opportunities. She said all of this has not happened for the past few years. Whelan said the number of staff has been changed from 10 to 4 'h and there have been funding changes. Dionne asked if the funding was limited would the CDC fail to exist. What would be the management of the current properties? Whelan said they had overcome many challenges. Another managing partner would be designated. Harris questioned if there is a property management company which has 7 employees which is different than the CDC. Harris asked that the two agencies are explained. Whelan said Salem Property Managers is on a different budget. Harris said since the CDC has a controlling management interest they could hire Salem Property Management. Whelan said after the low income 3, the remaining 12 would be $800 -$900/month and the larger a bit more. There would be a one year lease. Stein asked how you feet about the City's proposal. Whelan said it's consistent with their •, mission. City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board (p�- A-(� ( � ( S Date / 2q /� Name Mailing Address Phone # Email CU.�ics.�j-tczr�-� �Z �-e®2��rs z2 9W77 D c aw s� 21- 7Vy-69l� 1-2,1-A Ile A ,��4 ,� q�� S,;ZrVaO 6 ti rr- [z4,::r �� rzexnti So eta 190 tar,d5-e � �pf aqo; O'ary S64c-� J-iaiY9t /t1ton c 73 O,�c 1119,lu .�'T 978 -7tF�f- r/6tf k w 3 Cak s a�s �tL l 266G n St dX 678 53 -tl?K,7.V- W4zc/79(p oro,r <;63a . Sl, LL No 7 !re6el � _��ofyy¢�oo, Page of City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Jlj� (3- Date Date 16 / 27�- / c`6 Name Mailing Address Phone # Email BIW'(( 2 CouS/°,I S'trRv- T'18 I-Igs 11'10 Mkileze�slc ® �9400.rc,4.7 �P�JL (nYtycK\ e Ct js , NS', SI_ 97ju '74k,' i 3� 7 4" Zc40na6..e (4° ')M cYS5 -4 �7k7c(o 1062 LR�lzlo � 1 4- 92f-?tlC - )3f,� 4o W;Ik.d (-I,,r d 1 Sr i �Su y 41,� I'M i Sfr 9si, g aol wr -7 2 6,. c-L-hj S2- 979 `5,.gg376' t�) UI C-24Svx 5`' 3,`_`f e NScIG v'cL, C,VA,, Sr 6t rvx'L M G( 11�C(..L�'Ijd` Lf U7`- ill Yrs ��-1U Z-(P�S `T- � �`Y► �1 iMP,r S� ��k ��( (( ��' l79/Lq-l' LVSuSAlart� _70 l o�PA I �� dY S�#1Sale bu- la i C4_4 IRV c ahuj .CaM Page of City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board r-. Date , O� ame Mailing Address Phone # Email q �� X qjm7 3 cc vo",-A .. , — I 'ToLZ �LC�✓` /Yod 95(b,,Jress �;I-Al S3�E Page of omr�40 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FT TELEPHONE 978745-9595 ...... dV a�' FAX 978740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL J o MAYOR �7 September 4, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals r Ul Petition of Daniel LeBlanc requesting a variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from the side and rear lot lines to retain an existing 11' x 29' pergola enclosure, and a variance from height in stories to retain an existing 3rd floor deck at 71 ORCHARD STREET (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on August 27, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, and Rick Dionne. • Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table 1: Residential Density Regulations and Sec. 7-8: Accessory buildings and structures. Statements of fact: I. The petitioner, Daniel LeBlanc, is the owner of 71 Orchard Street a property located in the Residential Two Family (R-2) Zoning District. 2. The property is a two family home. 3. A pergola enclosure, as well as a third Floor deck, existed when the petitioner purchased the property. The petitioner is seeking two variances from the Board of Appeals to allow these modifications which were done without permits to remain. 4. The pergola enclosure surrounds an outdoor hot tub and is two (2) feet from the rear yard lot line, and one (1) foot from the side yard lot line. Sec. 7-8 specifies "no accessory structure shall be neared than five (5) feet to any side lot line... or five (5) feet from the rear lot line". 5. The third Floor deck is at the rear of the residence. Table I specifies that 2 %: stories is the maximum height allow in the R-2 district. • 6. A plot plan and photographs accompanied the petition. 2 7. Janet Green (72 Orchard Street) and Paul Prevey (Ward 6 Councilor) spoke in support of the petition. 8. There was no opposition to the request 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. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who purchased the property in good faith and has made since made improvements. 2. The structures in question have existed for several years, they are not out of character with the neighborhood and there is public support for the requested relief. Desirable relief may be therefore granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. 3. There are unique conditions affecting the locus and structures, not generally affecting other lots in the in the Zoning District including the length of time in which the structures have existed and the layout of the lot. 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: I. To allow for the I I' x 29' pergola enclosure to remain a variance from the distance and accessory structure is required to be from side and rear lot lines is granted. 2. To allow for the third floor deck to remain a variance from maximum height in stories is granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor (Debski, Curran, Stein, and Dionne) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. Robin Stein Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals y 3 • A COPY OF IIIIS DEC'IS ION IIAS BEEN PILED WITI1'I HI'PLANNING BOARD AND 1111.CITY(TERK 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 f 0�1FA CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS j BOARD OF APPEAL 71 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR • ��l jf SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE 978-745-9595 '7MnE piP FAX. 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR N September 4, 2008 m Decision - - I City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RONALD MERCIER seeking a variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from the side and rear-- lot li s to construct a 24' x 24' garage at 21 CIRCLE HILL ROAD (R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on August 27, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, and Rick Dionne. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following section of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Sec. 7-8: Accessory buildings and structures. • Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Ronald Mercier, is the owner of 21 Circle Hill Road a property located in the Residential One Family(R-1) Zoning District. 2. The property contains a single family residence. 3. The applicant is proposing to construct a 24' x 24' garage eighteen (18) inches from the side and rear lots lines. A distance of five (5) feet is required between accessory structures and lot lines. 4. The proposed garage is one story. 5. The petition was accompanied by plans entitled "21 Circle Hill Rd, Salem" prepared by Larry Mercier. 6. Ronald Mercier submitted a petition in favor of the request signed by Cheryl Sher (19 Circle Hill Road), Robin Lacey(23 Circle Hill Road), and Richard Murphy (56 Gallows Hill Road). 7. There was no opposition to the request 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: 2 r► 1. There are unique conditions including the shape and topography of the locus • which affect the locus but do not generally affect other lots in the in the Zoning District. The proposed location for the garage is the only level area suitable for building as the opposite corner of the lot is sloping ledge. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner. 3. The proposed structure is in character with the neighborhood, therefore, 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: 1. To allow for the garage as proposed, a variance from the distance and accessory structure is required to be from side and rear lot lines is granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor (Debski, Curran, Stein, and Dionne) and 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 statues, 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 and shall meet the requirements of the Salem Historical Commission. 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. Q;6�n�i,� /qL • Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 1 I 3 • A COPY OF THIS DECISION IiAS BEEN PILED wi rH I IIF PLANNING BOARD AND IIIF CH Y 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 has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • c"tea°o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 978 745 9595 rvea' FAX 978-7409846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR C7 N September 4, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of GARY & JENNIFER SANTO seeking a variance from minimum rear yard depth and a special permit to alter a non conforming structure to allow for the construction of a mudroom attaching the existing garage to the main structure and the addition of finished space above the garage at 25 WASHINGTON SQUARE (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 27,2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on August 27, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, and Rick Dionne. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table I: Residential Density Regulations and Sec. 8-4: Nonconforming structure. Statements of fact: 1. Project architect, Walter Jacob, presented the petition on behalf of the Santos. 2. Plans entitled "Santo Residence", prepared by Walter Jacob Architect, LTD accompanied the petition. 3. A plot plan prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation accompanied the petition. 4. The property contains a single family home and an existing garage. 5. The applicants are proposing to connect the existing garage to the main structure. This change would make the garage part of the primary structure; it would no longer be recognized as an accessory structure. The single story structure proposed to connect the two buildings would be within the required rear yard setback of thirty (30) feet. • 6. The applicants are proposing to renovate the garage, which they currently describe as having a Mexican motif so that it looks like the primary structure and fits in with the neighborhood. The proposed renovations include increasing the height of the garage (by 10 R.) with a gable roof. The finished space created 2 above the garage would be approximately 700 sq. ft.; the space would be accessed by a pull down ladder and would not be entirely useable since it is partially in the eves. Additionally the applicants plan to do shingle siding, a slate roof, and copper downspouts. 7. There was no opposition to the request 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. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who is seeking to make improvements to their property, which will enhance the neighborhood. 2. The style of the current garage does not fit with the neighborhood; the proposed renovations require minimal dimensional relief and will keep with the character of the neighborhood, therefore 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. 3. There are unique conditions affecting the locus and structures, not generally • affecting other lots in the in the Zoning District including the existing layout of structures on the site. 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. A variance from minimum rear yard depth and a special permit to alter a non conforming structure are granted to allow the proposed connection and renovations. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor (Debski, Curran, Stein, and Dionne) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues, 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. 3 5. Exterior finishes of new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure and shall meet the requirements of the Salem Historical Commission. G. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does 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. �uOlStlej.h /At- 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 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ��ti. J� SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 elt TELEPHONE 978-745-9595 rvEd ° FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR o .ca u September 4, 2008 _ Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ,7 Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a special permit for a W change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum height (feet and stories), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third and fourth story and the conversion of the current assembly hall to seven residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 18, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was continued to July 16, 2008 and August 27, 2008. An amended petition was submitted following the hearing on July 16. • The public hearing was closed on August 27, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Annie Harris, and Rick Dionne. Petitioner seeks variances,pursuant to Table I and a special permit pursuant to Section 8- 6. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The property at 17 North Street is owned by the Beverly/Salem Elks Lodge. The owner's attorney, Philip Moran, Esq. submitted a letter authorizing the petitioner to file an application with the Board of Appeals. The petitioner, William Wharff has the property under agreement. 3. The current use of the property at 17 North Street is an assembly hall, a nonconforming use in the Residential Two Family(R-2) district. 4. In a petition dated June 3, 2008, the applicant requested a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum number of stories, minimum lot area per dwelling units, and required parking to allow for the construction of a third story and conversion of the current assembly hall to six • residential condominiums at 17 North Street. 5. There was support for the project and requested relief at the first public hearing though several members of the Board and public, as well as representatives from 2 Historic Salem, Inc. thought it would be best for the project to be reviewed by the • Salem Historical Commission before the Zoning Board took a vote. Several members of the public commented that they would like to see the building look more like the building which had formerly existed on the site. 6. Following public comment from the public hearing on June 18, 2008, the applicant submitted an application to the Salem Historical Commission for their review. 7. The applicant appeared before the Board of Appeals on July 16, 2008 with revised plans which showed an additional story and an additional unit, making the proposal a total of four (4) stories and seven (7) units. 8. The applicant submitted an amended petition (stamped by the City Clerk August 13, 2008), which requested a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum height (feet and stories), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third and fourth story and the conversion of the current assembly hall to seven residential condominiums at 17 North Street. 9. Eleven (11) spaces would be required for the seven (7) units; eight (8) spaces are proposed, some spaces do not meet the required stall dimensions. A variance is being sought from the number of spaces required as well as stall dimensions. • 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 change in nonconforming use to a multifamily residential use is a better fit in terms of the quality, character, and effect on the already residential neighborhood. The change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing assembly hall used for large gatherings 2. 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 substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. 3. There are circumstances including the size and shape of the lot and the use and condition of the existing building which especially affects the Locus but does not affect generally the zoning district in which the Locus is located. 4. The proposed redevelopment will enhance the historic neighborhood and more closely match the structure which had originally existing on the site in 1800s. The proposed redevelopment has received a great deal of support at the public hearing; therefore 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 Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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: 1. To allow for the change in nonconforming use, a special permit is granted. 2. To allow for the redevelopment of the site as proposed the requested variances from parking and dimensional requirements are granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor (Curran, Stein, Harris, and Dionne) and 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 8. 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. 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 10. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does 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. 11. There are to be eight (8) parking spaces as shown on the plan. 4 • Robin St n, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND"I"HL"Cl I Y(TLRK 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. • • y�OONDITq,4Ol CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS yr �m BOARD OF APPEAL .a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 90 I�Q SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - ,� TELEPHONE. 978-745-9595 FAX, 978-740-9846 : KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL o MAYOR ca AGENDA (REVISED) BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING July 16, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. 3� FLOOR, ROOM313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 Robin Stein, Chair W 1. Approval of Minutes - June 18, 2008 2. CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). —Request for continuance to September 17, 2008 3. Petition of ALBERT MASONE seeking a Variance from number of stories allowed (2 %2) to add three front dormers and one rear shed dormer to the existing third story at 99 Essex Street(R-2). • 4. Petition of SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES, CORP. requesting to amend the decision dated July 14, 2004 to remove all references and requirements that any units be owner-occupied, and allow use of all units as either rental or ownership units at 50 Palmer Street (B-1). 5. Petition submitted of SUSAN MACFARLANE seeking a special permit for a home occupation to allow for a massage therapy business at 110 Bay View Avenue (R-1). 6. Petition of JANINE JARAS seeking a Variance from minimum width of side yard to construct a first-story addition approximately 9' x 9' at 68 Pierpont Street (R-1). 7. Petition of JAMES D'AMICO seeking a variance from parking requirements and a special permit to allow for a dwelling unit within the existing nonconforming structure at 332 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-2). 8. CONTINUED: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum number of stories, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third story and conversion of the current assembly hall to six residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET (R2). 9. Old/New Business 10. Adjournment This notice posted on OBuletiClty Han Board" c� ` at I�:37Pmin Cieaorda1nco v 231 & 238 of hi In . r 5 e �� eoN�otrq.to CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 fYE W� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZCCC JUL I O P 4: I MAYOR i II AGENDA CITYCi_ BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING July 16, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 31,(3,- 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stein,Chair/A I. Approval of Minutes - June 18, 2008 2. CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). 3. Petition of ALBERT MASONE seeking a Variance from number of stories allowed (2 %2) to add three front dormers and one rear shed dormer to the existing third story at 99 Essex Street (R-2). • 4. Petition of SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES, CORP. requesting to amend the decision dated July 14, 2004 to remove all references and requirements that any units be owner-occupied, and allow use of all units as either rental or ownership units at 50 Palmer Street (B-1). 5. Petition submitted of SUSAN MACFARLANE seeking a special permit for a home occupation to allow for a massage therapy business at 110 Bay View Avenue (R-1). 6. Petition of JANINE JARAS seeking a Variance from minimum width of side yard to construct a first-story addition approximately 9' x 9' at 68 Pierpont Street (R-1). 7. Petition of JAMES D'AMICO seeking a variance from parking requirements and a special permit to allow for a dwelling unit within the existing nonconforming structure at 332 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-2). 8. CONTINUED: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum number of stories, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third story and conversion of the current assembly hall to six residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET (R2). 9. Old/New Business This ROtICB „ City Hall poat�.d 0„ 10. Adjournment at]pp ! J Ly.JA •(II J / i1 "LC^Jil 1 i �allolrq CITY OF SALEM DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .9F�171NF Q11Tl?'r KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ 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: July 9, 2008 RE: Meeting Agenda-July 16, 2008 Hello Board Members, • Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of June 18, 2008 ➢ Petitions and Materials for Items Notes on Agenda Items: CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). Following a request from the applicant, the Board of Appeals voted to continue the petition for 15 Robinson Road to July 16`h. I contacted both the applicant and Attorney Balliro to see if they will be ready to come back on July 16`h but have received no response. The applicant has not suggested a new date for a site visit; no additional continuance has been requested at this time. Should additional continuance be requested, the DPCD will make efforts to notify residents that attended past hearings on this item. Petition of ALBERT MASONE seeking a Variance from number of stories allowed (2 1/2) to add three front dormers and one rear shed dormer to the existing third story at 99 Essex Street (R-2). f The applicant is proposing to add three front dormers and one rear shed dormer to his two-family home at 99 Essex Street. The dormers would add usable space to the existing third floor and are one component of a larger renovation project. The property is located in the Salem Common . National Historic District, though it is not located in a Local Historic District and therefore does not require review by the Salem Historical Commission. Petition of SALEM POINT RENTAL PROPERTIES, CORP. requesting to amend the decision dated July 14, 2004 to remove all references and requirements that any units be owner-occupied, and allow use of all units as either rental or ownership units at 50 Palmer Street (B-1). The petitioner is proposing to amend the previously granted Board of Appeals decision dated July 14, 2004 to remove all requirements that any units be owner-occupied. Certificates of Occupancy for the fifteen (15) dwelling units were issued on January 17, 2008. At this time, none of the units have sold. A previous amendment to this decision was granted by the Board of Appeals in August of 2006, allowing all fifteen (15) units at 50 Palmer Street to be sold as owner-occupied condominiums, rather than the previously-approved nine (9) owner-occupied condominium units and six (6) rental units. Petition submitted of SUSAN MACFARLANE seeking a special permit for a home occupation to allow for a massage therapy business at 110 Bay View Avenue (R-1). The petitioner is requesting a special permit to allow a home occupation at 110 Bay View Avenue. • The petitioner is a licensed massage therapist who would like to see a couple of clients at day at her home. This request was previously denied by the Board of Appeals in a decision dated July 17, 2002. You will find a copy of that decision attached to the petition form. Petition of JANINE JARAS seeking a Variance from minimum width of side yard to construct a first-story addition approximately 9' x 9' at 68 Pierpont Street (R-1). The petitioner is proposing an addition which is 6' x 9'with a 3' x 6' jog. The addition will provide a second bathroom and laundry space. The side lot width will be six (6) feet which is the same as the existing side lot width. The structure and addition are in Salem, though a small portion of the lot is in Peabody. The applicant supplied a Certified Abutter's List from the City of Peabody,which was combined with the Salem list to notify abutters within 300 feet of the property. Petition of JAMES D'AMICO seeking a variance from parking requirements and a special permit to allow for a dwelling unit within the existing nonconforming structure at 332 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-2). The petitioner is proposing to add one (1) dwelling unit within the structure at 332 Lafayette Street, which is currentlyused as the Century 21 North Shore Real Estate office. The dwelling unit would rY g be contained within the existing structure, there would be no changes to the footprint. A letter from Tom St. Pierre dated April 8, 2008 denies a building permit application to add a dwelling unit, noting that a special permit would be required from the Board of Appeals. Prior to being an office, the structure had housed a photography studio. Ina decision dated June 16, 2004, the Board of Appeals granted a special permit for a change in non-conforming use, as well 2 y 4. as a variance from off street parking regulations, to allow for an office with six (6) parking spaces. The petitioner is again requesting a variance from parking regulations. You will find the letter and decision referenced here in your packet. Petition of WILLIAM WHAREF requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum number of stories, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third story and conversion of the current assembly hall to six residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET (112). The applicant is proposing to covert the Elks Lodge at 17 North Street to six residential condominium units. The renovation will involve the addition of a third story to the building. The proposed project will require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salem Historical Commission. Following comments and concerns which came up at the first public hearing the Zoning Board held on this matter,the applicant decided to have the project reviewed by the Historical Commission before returning to the Board of Appeals. This item will be reviewed by the Historic Commission on the same night that the Board of Appeals meets. • • . City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board �� S Date ' / (0 Name Mailing Address Phone # Email II - tUr;o.o--Tlio-�; a.41 6 Afr_ Or_ //oL�a Dieu �v— 508 -806 -J7Ft3 sT� s�I toE' ( co•, je ^^acv ?oFVr 11007/ 97o-W-&7 �- D (a A ' - Ojyf 77 pA � �7 F7�410 9?9/ .S� 97e -711V - 09 Page of Z • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email tea h r. �Sc to Cans ses5 5-� g Rs-�1 o�1 - .jA— es � W cD IJ-76 64 aJL4 t c L!x« o�-i 1 n 617- Z3-S;2S ncpd slpe/ Z4 , s4, s JeKt _g79 CJI AW Cef /0 6 [SAY if 9nJ F oCT OIC�� YIV60 fSs -,92:24-200 YoA1,1yYG®2rr��i/,moo.� Ito Page Z- of Z 431'.co��re�.�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • s1vt l�Q SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �I •:.�"� TELEPHONE: 978 745-9595 INE per FAX 978-740-9846 7 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL LU�9 JUL 2U P 3: 55 MAYOR r.n Y July 24, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JAMES D'AMICO requesting a variance from parking requirements and a special permit to allow for a dwelling unit within the existing nonconforming structure at 332 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on July 16, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Bonnie Belair, Annie Harris, Rebecca Curran, and Richard Dionne. • Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: § 5-36) Extension of Nonconformity, and § 7-3 Off-street parking, uncovered, not included in structure. Statements of fact: 1. James D'Amico presented the petition for the property he owns at 332 Lafayette Street (R-2). 2. The petition was accompanied by a plot plan, as well as plans entitled "Rear Apartment Unit, 332 Lafayette Street", dated November 9, 2007, prepared by D.F. Valente Architect & Planner. 3. The petitioner is proposing to add one (1) dwelling unit within the structure at 332 Lafayette Street,which is currently used as the Century 21 North Shore Real Estate office. The dwelling unit would be contained within the existing structure, there would be no changes to the footprint. 4. A letter from Tom St. Pierre dated April 8, 2008 denies a building permit application to add a dwelling unit, noting that a special permit would be required from the Board of Appeals. . 5. Prior to being an office, the structure had housed a photography studio. In a decision dated June 16, 2004, the Board of Appeals granted a special permit for a change in non-conforming use, as well as a variance from off street parking 2 regulations, to allow for an office with six (6) parking spaces. The petitioner is again • requesting a variance from parking regulations. 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 residential use proposed is not outside of the uses previously existing at the property, and is an allowed use in the zoning district. The existing use of the property as a real estate office is a nonconforming use. These are circumstances especially affecting this property which do not generally affect other properties in the zoning district in which the property is located. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner whose business is not fully occupying the existing structure or parking area. 3. 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: 1. To allow for the addition of a dwelling unit within the structure, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically lot the number of parking spaces required (§ 7-3). 2. To allow for the change to the nonconforming structure, a special permit may be granted under § 5-3 0)Extension of nonconformity in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in sections § 8-6 and 9-4. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor (Belair, Hams, Dionne, and Curran) and none opposed, to grant petitioner's request 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. � r 3 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 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. 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 10. Unless the Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does 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 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 for in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 11. One of the existing parking spaces shall be designated for use by the tenant of the new unit. 12. Petitioner shall remove the tree stump and replace or repair the existing 6' high stockade fence along the property line. Bonnie Belair 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,I o �A CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 0 BOARD OF APPEAL • n y' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ...-poi FAX: 978-740-9846 -! c 0 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL n m r MAYOR m c July 30, 2008 w - C:) Decision D City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals CO CrI Petition of SUSAN MACFARLANE seeking a Special Permit for a' home occupation to allow for a massage therapy business at 110 Bay View Avenue[R-11. A public hearing on the above Petition was held on July 16, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Annie Harris, Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a special permit pursuant to section § 5-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for a home occupation at 110 Bay View Avenue. Statements of fact: • 1. Attorney Joseph Correnti presented the petition. 2. Susan MacFarlane is a licensed massage therapist who would like to dedicate one room in her home to conduct a massage therapy business. 3. The business would have no employees and on an average day would generate zero to four clients. 4. The petitioner has parking for three cars in her driveway. Two spaces are for her use, one space is for her tenants use. MacFarlane can control the schedule so that clients park in her driveway. 5. MacFarlane submitted a petition in favor of the request signed be twenty-six (26) residents of Bay View Avenue and Cross Avenue. 6. Councilor Steven Pinto, Gifford Scott (26 Bayview Avenue), and Patricia Michaud (a tenant at 110 Bayview Avenue) spoke in favor of the petitioner's request at the public hearing. 7. Rosemary Dennis (140 Bayview Avenue) and Cynthia O'Connor(1 Bayview Avenue) spoke in opposition to the petitioner's request. A letter of opposition • was submitted by Elizabeth Wolfe(95 Bayview Avenue). 2 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 home occupation meets the criteria set forth in 5-3 (b)(1) and is a use allowed by special permit in an Residential One Family(R-1) Zoning District. 2. A special permit 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 Salem Zoning 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 home occupation, a special permit may be granted under the Salem Zoning Ordinance § 5-3 Special Permit Uses. 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, Harris, Dionne, Belair, and Curran) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request • for a special permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. No employees shall be allowed. 4. No clients shall park on the street; clients must park in the driveway. tk I%/A 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. 1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3R0 FLOOR • l SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �n TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 oo� FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR July 30, 2008 ' r r. it Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals co Petition of ALBERT MASONE seeking a variance from num 4W of , stories allowed (2 1/2) to add three front dormers and one rear Oed dormer to the existing third story at 99 ESSEX STREET (R-2). A public hearing on the above petition was opened on July 16, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein(Chair), Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks variance pursuant to Article VI, Table I. Statements of fact: • 1. The petition was presented by Victoria Mario. Mario and her fiance Albert Masone are doing renovations to their property at 99 Essex Street, a two family home in the Residential Two Family(R2) Zoning District. 2. Plans accompanying the petition are entitled"Existing 2-Family Dwelling Proposed Renovation Work, 99 Essex Street, Salem, MA", dated June 20, 2008,prepared by Masone and Company Architects &Planners. 3. Mario and Masone intend to keep the property as a two-family and owner occupy the second and third floors. 4. In order to add more useable space to the existing third floor, the petitioner proposes to add three dormers to the front, and an additional shed dormer to the rear. 5. The structure is 34' at the highest point at the ridge of the roof, the proposed dormers would not exceed this height. 6. The renovation project also includes removal of the aluminum siding, replacing shingles on the roof, and the addition of new trim and details. • 7. There was no public comment at the public hearing. 2 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. Minor dimensional relief is sought to allow for the addition of dormers to the existing third floor. Several neighboring structures have similar dormers, therefore the proposed dormers would fit with the neighborhood. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would cause substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who is making many make improvements to the property which will benefit the neighborhood. 3. The relief requested is not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions 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: 1. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning • District to allow for the dormers. 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, Belair, Hams, Dionne, and Curran) none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • A 3 . 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 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. 9. The home is to remain a two-family structure. 10. Aluminum siding is to be removed and the exterior finish is to be changed to wood clapboard; all construction shall be in harmony with the new wood clapboard finish. 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. • ae.1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n F' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 3j �- ^ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX 978-740-9846 ri KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL -t � MAYOR c July 30, 2008 Li C:) Decision > City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 0 cn 0 Petition of JANINE JARAS requesting a variance from minimum width of side yard to construct a first-story addition approximately 9' x 9' at 68 Pierpont Street(R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was held on July 16, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Annie Hams, Rick Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to Article VI Table I of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for a side yard width of 6 ft. instead of the required 10 ft. • Statements of fact: 1. Janine Jaras presented the petition for the property she owns at 68 Pierpont Street in the Residential-One Family(R-1)Zoning District. 2. Accompanying the petitioner was a plot plan of land, as well as elevations entitled"New Addition at Pierpont Street Salem, MA", dated March 24, 2008, prepared by Thomas McGrath Architects. 3. The petitioner is proposing an addition which is 6' x 9' with a 3' x '6 jog. The addition will be used for a second bathroom and laundry facilities. 4. The residence currently approximately 900 square feet and has one bathroom on the second floor and laundry facilities in the cellar. 5. The existing side yard width is 6'; the proposed side yard width is 6'. 6. There was no opposition to the request for variance at the public hearing. 7. 68 Pierpont Street is a property located on the Salem-Peabody line. Certified abutters lists were obtained from the City of Salem Assessor's Office as well as the City of Peabody Assessor's Office and notice was sent to Parties of Interest as defined by MGL • Ch. 40, Sec. 11. 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: 2 1. There are circumstances relating to the property, including the layout of the structure on • the lot, and the size and age of the structure, which generally do not affect other properties in this zoning district. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who is seeking to make an improvement to the property. 3. The variance requested is not contrary to the public interest. The addition is not out of character with the neighborhood; 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 addition, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Article VI Table I specifically minimum width of side yard. 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, Harris, • Dionne,Belair, and Curran) and 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 statues, 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 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 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 3 • its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. 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 � gONDIr�.AO' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR A1, SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • �.'._t'� TELEPHONE. 978-745-9595 r9E a FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR .1 P Rescinded Decision for 90 Summer Street GON July 28, 2008 ui Mr. John Donahue %s Cr 90 Summer Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 90 Summer Street Vote to Rescind March 13, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals Decision Dear Mr. Donahue: • Your letter, dated July 14, 2008, requested that the Board of Appeals withdraw the decision for 90 Summer Street dated March 13, 2008. This decision granted variances to allow for the building which had existed at 60 Federal Street to be moved to 90 Summer Street. The Board understands that the building which is the subject of this decision no longer exists and for this reason you do not wish to litigate the appeal. On July 16, 2008 the Board of Appeals voted by a vote of five in favor and none opposed to rescind the decision for 90 Summer Street dated March 13, 2008. Sincerely, �Qp Robin Stein, Chair • Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk Elizabeth Rennard, City Solicitor Jeffery Scuteri, Esq. �oeolr,,�a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL '-' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • a (� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday July 16,2008 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: Albert Masone Location: 99 Essex Street—Residential Two Family(R-2) Zone Request: Variance Description: Request for a variance form number of stories allowed (2 1/z) to add three front dormers and one rear shed dormer to the existing third story. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk July 30,2008 This rxtiw is Ding ser¢in conphianx Frith the Massadmetts Gewr-al Laus, (AVter 40A, SwY aE 9 15 and Ilk dors rct require ad=by the ratipie»t A ppea&, if ark shall be nude piasuarn to Uupter 40A, Sectim 17, and shall be frkd within 20 da)s from the date e bwb the daasion eras fd«d wth the City Clerk. 1 —m,4,z,a, ,�i �- 7/3o�6g too v �o+nlr�.�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �j BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 1 Q SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • '� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 nrmz�� FAX, 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR September 5, 2008 Amended Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Salem Harbor Developers, LLC requesting to amend the decision dated July 14,2004 to remove all references and requirements that any of the units be owner-occupied, and allow for use of all units as either rental or ownership units at 50 Palmer Street (B-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on July 16, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was continued to August 27, 2008 and closed on August 27, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, and Annie Harris. Statements of fact: 1. The petition which is the subject of this decision was originally submitted by Salem Point Rental Properties, Corp. The name of the applicant was changed to "Salem Harbor Developers, LLC" at the request of the applicant. The request was explained in a letter from Attorney Bill Quinn dated August 13, 2008 and noted at the public hearing on August 27, 2008. 2. In a decision dated July 14, 2004, the Board of Appeals granted variances from lot coverage, side, rear and front setbacks, building height, and parking to allow fifteen (15) units of affordable housing to be constructed at 50 Palmer Street, located in the Business Neighborhood (B1) district. The affordable housing was to be made up of nine (9) owner-occupied condo units and six (6) rental units. 3. In an amended decision dated August 23; 2006, the Board of Appeals granted the petitioners request to allow all fifteen (15) units to be sold as owner-occupied condominiums. Additionally, the petitioner was granted amendments to the specific language regarding the nature of the affordable housing requirements. 4. Construction started in October of 2006 and took approximately fifteen (15) months. Certificates of Occupancy were issued for the units at 50 Palmer Street • in January of 2007. 5. The Salem Harbor Community Development Corporation made a commitment to the City of Salem and other funding sources to market the units to income eligible 2 . first time homebuyers through a lottery process. One person applied for the lottery. Between December and June three qualified households, submitted applications, though there were no sales. 6. Following the lack of sales, investors asked the Salem Harbor CDC to look at rental alternatives. 7. A letter dated August 22, 2008, from Lyne, Woodworth, & Evarts LLP, on behalf of RBS Citizens, National Association advised Salem Harbor Developers, LLC that they are in default on their loan. The letter specified that Citizens has the right to foreclosing the mortgage. 8. Foreclosure would remove affordable housing restrictions placed on the property. 9. Letters in support of the petitioner's request were submitted by Lynn Duncan (Director, Salem Department of Planning and Community Development), Mickey Northcutt (51 Lafayette Street), Elizabeth Hogan (Executive Director, North Shore Community Action Program), Eugenia Johnson (2 % Mason Street), Phyllis LeBlanc (Harbor Sweets, 85 Leavitt Street), James Haskell (10 Putnam Road, Ipswich, former Executive Director of the CDC), Kevin Hurley(North Shore HOME Consortium). 10. Letters of opposition were submitted by Katrina Sealey (86 Congress Street) and • Peter Hackmeister (55 Perkins Street). 11. Mayor Kimberly Driscoll supplied a letter of support for the application by the Salem Harbor CDC to the Pre-Development Loan Program of the Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation. 12. A petition in support of the request was submitted by the Salem Harbor CDC and signed by approximately 300 residents. 13. A petition opposed to the amendment was submitted by Lucy Corchardo and signed by approximately 70 residents. 14..Numerous individuals attending the public hearings and spoke for and against the requested relief. 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. Market conditions have changed substantially from the time the project started and the applicant has been unable to sell the units as affordable condominiums. • 2. Allowing the petitioner's request to remove the requirement that the units must be ownership units will allow for the units to be rented; this alternative will prevent the project from going into foreclosure. 3 . 3. Foreclosure would remove the affordable housing restrictions and likely cause a change in the management entity of the project. The change to allow the units to be used as either rental or homeownership will ensure that the affordability componenet will remain. 4. Keeping the Salem Harbor Community Development Corporation (SHCDC) as the management entity is beneficial to the neighborhood. Allowing the project to go into foreclosure would be a great risk to the neighborhood leaving no certainty about how the property would be owned or managed. 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. The applicant's request to amend the decision dated July 14, 2004 is granted. This amendment will remove all references and requirement that any units be used as owner-occupied units, allowing the use of all units as either rental or ownership units. 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, Dionne, Curran, Hams, and Debski) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. At the end of the fifteen (15) year period of the low income housing tax credits for affordable rental housing use of the premises, or in fifteen (15) years from the date of this decision, whichever is earlier, Salem Harbor Developers, LLC, or its successors in title or assigns, specifically including, but not limited to Salem Harbor Community Development Corporation, or any other entity owned or controlled by it (the "owner"), must enter into discussions with the City of Salem through its Department of Planning and Community Development, concerning disposition of the units in the premises. Such discussion may include review of options including, but not limited to: mix of tenure, rent to own, ownership, and rental. 2. All other conditions, not amended by this decision which were set forth in the original decision dated July 14, 2004, as well as the amended decision dated August 23, 2006, shall remain and be adhered to. • Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ' 4 • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN PILED 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 has been tiled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • �oNoirA�� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 r� S TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ooh FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday July 16, 2008 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:Janine Jaras Location: 68 Pierpont Street-Residential One Family(R-1) Zone Request: Variance Description: Request for a variance from the minimum width of side yard to construct a first story addition approximately 9'x 9'. Decision: Approved- Filed with CityClerk July 30,2008 • • This rice u bw g seat in x npliame wth the Massadmetu Gergral Lajas, C&Pter 40A, Senora 9& 15 and doff not re twe aaion by the razprerx Appeals, if an}S shall be nude pur ume to C bapter 40A, Soba 17, and shall Ee filo l urthin 20 data fium the date ubida the deasion Baas filed wth the Cay Clem, I 1 7��-; zed� �/.�0`08 i - � y x,onorr�,� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS r3 BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR J(� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • � �"/ TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday July 16,2008 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: Susan MacFarlane Location: 110 Bay View Avenue - Residential One Family(R-1) Zone Request: Special Permit Description: Request for a special permit for a home occupation to allow for a massage therapy business Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk July 30,2008 • This notue is lzzgsent in cwplianx with d)eMassadnuem C ereral Lazes, O)apter 40A, Sam 9& 15 and dea not regeeire active by the rec pieru Appeals, #a?N shall lx nude pursuant to dapter 40A, Saba 17, and shall be felt within 20 da)s f cm dx date uhzo�the deasion uz f W with the Cay Clea. 1 7/3% �a� oonmrq.ga CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • — . - f o SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MtNgDos FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on WednesdayJuly 16,2008 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:James D'Amico Location: 332 Lafayette Street-Residential Two Family(R-2) Zone Request: Variance &Special Permit Description: Request for a variance from parking requirements and a special permit to allow for a dwelling unit within the existing nonconforming structure. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk July 24,2008 This nmw is being sero in coaplianx with the Massadmetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Salm 9& 15 and • does not require action by the raVvi Appeals, if any shall be mi&pwssuant to Uwpter 40A, Secum 17,and shall be filai wthin 20 dais framthe date zchidr the derision uas filed uah the City Cleriz. 1 � f�\ � D� • • • o r 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 C7 AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING = L^ June 18,2008- 6:30 P.M. 3ft°FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stein,Chair 3 w r LU c^ CO 1. Approval of Minutes o May 21, 2008 2. CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD).—Request for continuance to July 16, 2008 3. Petition of DANA&DAVID DILISIO requesting a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go-cart track at 110-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD). 4. Petition of PHILIP BOND requesting a variance from maximum lot coverage to allow for an 18' x 12' ground-level deck at 28 GROVE STREET(RI). 5. Petition of GEORGE BALICH requesting a variance from the maximum number of stories allowed(2 %:)to expand an existing 3`d floor dormer and a special permit to expand an existing non-conforming structure at 46 SUMMIT AVENUE (RI). 6. Petition of NED WILLIAMS requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow for the operation of a dog daycare at 247 JEFFERSON AVENUE (B1). 7. Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum number of stories, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third story and conversion of the current assembly hall to six residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET(R2). 8. Old/New Business This notice posted on "Official aulleffn Board" 9. Adjournment City Ha , Salam, Mass. at i�1 M in accordartce Milt .� 23 3 of M.G.L. 1 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board 2 PO)\ Date N / 5 2 0CG-� Nme Mailing Address Phone # Email Philbcvjrv3x� )akw J on G��e 7Q�eens��cc , Or. CClCL}5-C`l,2 Da Sg1eM <as�. �T u� LL-AIA sT-m si Dunn 50R -fir-3o�q /3L o2a/ u Uzi i e j.�:3 .e/17-i4�J124 c/z . Zz F- 1g1j,5:e4 A4(AC .c, ropplZoTOY618 6 15f4b�hl rA Olk X79) 7yl qW4 o�esTLRC Pel�c G RL444R)jA C k) ONAt 77e If �271 `b PNyuei .3-f- R799 R 21 6(e q-(o 0. � 6 • Page of • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,June 18,2008 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair),Annie Harris, Rick Dionne, Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present was Joseph Barbeau Jr., Assistant Building Inspector and Amy Lash, Staff Planner. Approval of Minutes Beth Debski made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting on May 21, 2008, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0) (Stein, Harris, Debski, Curran and Belair). Public Hearings CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD).—Request • for continuance to July 16, 2008 Amy Lash read a letter from Attomey Balliro requesting to continue the petition for 15 Robinson Road to July 16, 2008. The letter said that the part that has been ordered to repair the rock crusher has not yet come in. Once the rock crusher is repaired they will contact the Board to schedule a site visit. Rick Dionne made a motion to continue the petition for 15 Robinson Road to the next meeting on July 16, 2008, seconded by Robin Stein, and approved(6-0). Petition of DANA & DAVID DILISIO requesting a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go-cart track at 110-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD). Robin Stein recused herself from this agenda item and stepped out of the room. Vice Chair Elizabeth Debski acted as chair and introduced the petition. Attorney Brian LeClair said that they had withdrawn and reapplied. The difference with the new petition is that they have specifically asked for electric go carts. The track would be geared towards families and young children. The cars go no more than 17 or 18 mph. A remote control allows the car to be shut off by staff; this is a unique safety feature. Attorney LeClair submitted a petition signed by forty-one (4 1) residents in support of the special permit request to for electric co-karts. He is aware there is also a petition in opposition. Attorney LeClair said on May 7`h an invitation was mailed to abutters on the list for a • neighborhood meeting. Fourteen (14) people came and signed in. They had switched to electric 1 carts at this point. He noted that three (3) of the residents who signed the petition in favor had previously signed petitions in opposition before the proposal was changed to electric. He.said of those who signed the petition opposed, only four (4) were legal abutters. Amy Lash said the Board of Appeals members each received a copy of one of the set of petitions opposed in their packet. She said the petition opposes three facilities along Swampscott Road: the proposed expansion of the Transfer Station (a project not before the Board of Appeals), the proposed rock crushing facility, and go-cart racing. The portion about go-cart racing was read aloud. Amy said the dates on the petitions are all dated between May 1, 2008 to May 10, 2008. Attorney LeClair said the neighborhood meeting was held on May 17, 2008. Amy passed around the full set of petitions to the Board which included forty-three (43) petitions signed by (55) residents of the Mariner Village and Green Dolphin Condominium Trusts. Bonnie Belair asked how many carts would there be and would there be age limits? Attorney LeClair said they were still proposing eight(8) and instead there is a height limit. Dana Dilisio said the height limit is 52". Dana Dilisio said they currently operate between 9 am and I 1 pm, though the exact hours depend on the weather. Attorney LeClair said the existing ambient noise levels are greater than the gas noise levels would have been. He said given the existing ambient noise, they do not believe the existing ambient noise would be increased by the electric carts. He said the environment is family • friendly and safe, if not it would hurt business. Annie Harris asked what the cause was of the current noise? Attorney LeClair said it's traffic. Ms. Yeung (86 Cavendish Circle) said she would not want there to be a PA or music. Dana Dilisio said that was a condition of the ZBA for the mini golf course. Tony Lena of the North Shore Tennis Club spoke in support of the petitioner's request saying they run a good operation and he does not expect noise to be a factor. Dan Garberr(7 Queensberry Drive) said he is not against family business, but he is concerned about the cumulative noise affect of carts. Attorney LeClair said the sound engineer determined the noise level will not rise because multiple carts are running. Amy reviewed the letters sent to the Board of Appeal since the first hearing on the topic. A letter of opposition was submitted by David Jacobson, 12 Brittania Circle (May 15, 2008). A letter of opposition was submitted by Frank Morrill, 2 Mayflower Lane(June 11, 2008). Bonnie Belair said she thinks 11 pm is too late and 10 pm would be more appropriate. Bonnie suggested conditioning inspections. Joe Barbeau said that inspections would be required by the State. • 2 r • Rebecca Curran suggested that in addition to limiting the hours of operation to 10 pm, they should not allow a PA or music. Follow additional discussion of the Board members, Rebecca Curran stated that the operation of the track not be allowed before 9 am, switching to gas is not allowed, and that no more than eight (8) cars shall be running at any one time. Annie suggested limiting the special permit to use by this applicant only. Rebecca Curran made a motion to approve the petitioners request with seven standard conditions and the five special conditions here. The motion was seconded by and approved (5-0) (Debski, Curran, Dionne, Belair, Harris). Petition of PHILIP BOND requesting a variance from maximum lot coverage to allow for an 18' x 12' ground-level deck at 28 GROVE STREET (R1). The petitioner explained he would like to remove the existing rear deck and build a new and larger deck. The deck would be approximately 18" of the lowest grade. Amy Lash said that Tom St. Pierre treats uncovered porches as accessory structures, which have their own setback requirements, and still contribute to lot coverage. If it was a stone ground level patio, no variance would be needed. Joe Barbeau confirmed there were no setback issues since the setbacks provided are over 5'. made a motion to approve the petitioner's request for a variance subject to five standard conditions, and a sixth condition that the Board's decision only allows for the demolition of the existing deck, and not demolition of anything else. seconded the motion and the petition was approved (5-0) (Stein, Curran, Debski, Harris, Dionne). Petition of GEORGE BALICH requesting a variance from the maximum number of stories allowed (21/2) to expand an existing 3`d floor dormer and a special permit to expand an existing non-conforming structure at 46 SUMMIT AVENUE (RI). George Balich introduced his son Jason who is his partner in the renovation of the property at 46 Summit Avenue. They are looking to add a dormer to the third floor to provide more headroom and are seeking a variance to do so. Balich said other multi unit buildings in the area are similar. The space third floor space is 590 sq. ft. the dormer will just add more headroom. Rebecca Curran asked if the property has been vacant for more than two years. Balich said no, his other son was living there. Balich said they are going to make the first floor handicap accessible, he thinks people will be interest in this. They have six (6) parking spaces on site. Attorney George Atkins said his 90 year old mother lives next door in the house he grew up in. He is in support of the petition and has been in communication with Balich about the renovations. Robin Stein said it was not a substantial dimensional request. Assistant Building Inspector Joe Barbeau said the building permits for the first and second floor have already been issued. • 3 made a motion to approve the petitioner's request for a variance subject to ten (10) standard conditions. The motion was seconded by and approved (5-0) (Stein, Curran, Debski, Harris, Dionne). Petition of NED WILLIAMS requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow for the operation of a dog daycare at 247 JEFFERSON AVENUE (Bl). Ned Williams addressed the Board; he said the owner of the property was present. He said he doesn't envision any changes to building. He currently runs his business, Creature Comforts at another location and operates the business between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm. He plans to have a bus deliver the dogs. Rebecca Curran asked if there is parking in the rear. Williams said yes, there is parking in the rear and there would be two caregivers parked there. Williams said student lives upstairs who are generally gone during the day. Most of the activity would take place inside and some would be outside. Annie Harris asked whether or not the dogs would be picked up by their owners as well. Williams said in some cases the owner will pick up or drop off their dog, but this does not occur very frequently. He said some dog daycares do this, though they choose not too because it is too long of a day for the caregivers and the dog. Creature Comforts has keys to pick up and drop of the dogs at their homes. Creature Comforts is on Atlantic Avenue in Marblehead. Most of the business is dog walking, though day care has become a significant part of the business. • _made a motion to approve the petitioner's request for a variance subject to ten(10) standard conditions. The motion was seconded by and approved (5-0) (Stein, Curran, Debski, Harris, Dionne). Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum number of stories, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third story and conversion of the current assembly hall to six residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET (R2). Attorney Scott Grover introduced his client Bill Wharff, project Architect David Jaquith, his assistant Sarah, and George Fallon, from the Elks Club. Grover said Wharff has the property at 17 North Street under agreement. Grover reviewed the location and surrounding streets. He noted the property had been added onto over the years and has most recently been used by the Elks for gatherings with over 100 people. Grover said they are now proposing six (6) residential units and an additional third story. There had been 4 stories in the 1800s; it currently looks like the top had been cut off. Grover said a meeting was held last Thursday at the Elks with Historic Salem, Inc. and others. Attendees commented they'd like the 3`d floor to be more prominent. Jaquith put a rough sketch together of a different more prominent 3'd floor design which was presented. Grover pointed out • 4 • the eight (8) on site spaces. They are asking for a special permit to change the nonconforming use as well as a dimensional variance and a parking variance. Grover thinks the request for a height variance would cover the two designs and that the height is consistent with the buildings next door. Grover said they talked to the North Church and Ward Councilor Mike Sosnowki, neither is opposed. Grover said it once was a grant structure and in recent years the Elks got a proposal for a parking lot and rejected it. Project Architect David Jaquith said this is a building that you drive by and want to work on. His client wants to do good things, his client asked that the parking lot be bricked and that the spaces are assigned. While coming up with the design Jaquith said he wanted to not encroach on side setbacks and interlock the old with the new. He said this is not rental, this is condominums. The units will be interesting in that they vary greatly in terms of layout and types of spaces. They created balconies to keep a lighter look. A neighbor suggested a bike rack and they are considering adding this. Dick Vicki (3 Easton Place) wants to see it developed and not vacant. Jame Poffee and Wife Pamela(19 North Street) are very much in favor, the Elks has been derelict, their fire insurance has been taken aways. Gary Cherry (25 North Street) moved to Salem with his wife and three children and like the urban environement. He thinks the proposal is exceptional. Currently there are parties and trash, • and he's had to have the police come because somebody made their way into his backyard. He thinks the redevelopment of this parcel would make the McIntire District more complete. Cherry asked if the fagade would be brick? Jaquith said no, the parking lot and new walkway in front would be brick and the siding would be a wood board. Barbara Cleary spoke on behalf of Historic Salem who owns the Bowdwitch House next door. They want to see the parcel redeveloped and don't have an issue with the number of units,. They would have issues with the partial third floor and think this should be a replica. They are concerned about the parking taking up the entire site and the snow removal. Jeff Holloran owns two (2) condominium units across the street and is in favor. John Carr(7 Rivers Street) said his office is in the Historic Salem headquarters. He said the property is on an important entrance corridor and is concerned that it looks like the building has a crew cut. He thinks the design is important here and wants to see the project go to the Historic Commission before the ZBA votes. He said that if the ZBA votes tonight, rights of appeal will expire before the Historic Commission review is over and before the design is set. He suggested the Board of Appeals vote to continue the petition. Darrow Labavici supports the views of Barbara Cleary and John Can. Lebovici said the project is going in the right direction, though they are not their yet. Lebovici urged that the Board continue the matter. • 5 Jane Arlander ( ) said she was an abutter to an abutter. She wants to building to look like • it did in 1950. Cherry said with respect to the Historic group, he would like to see the Board go forward and approve the request tonight because extending the process will cost the developer more money and he does not want to loose this proposal to redevelop the site. Guy w/ Pam agrees with Cherry and thinks the Board should allow the project to go onto the next step where it belongs. Grover said that approval by the Historic Commission is not a rubber stamp and that there would be opportunities for the design to be altered during the Historic Commission review. Carr said people want to know what they are in support of. Grover said he hears concerns about design, not density which is the issue before the Board of Appeals. Robin Stein said she would be comfortable going either way. Annie Harris said she doesn't think the first design will get through the Historic Commission easily, she would prefer to see something that will go through. Bonnie Belair said the approval can be conditioned upon approval by the Historic Commission. Stein agreed she did not think the Commission would approve the first design and acknowledges that the design will evolve. She said in the case of a variance, she thinks you need to give something back to the City to get something more. Beth Debski agreed she liked the second design better and would like it to look like it used to more. Grover said without the fundamental zoning relief you can't do the project, so he suggests to his • clients they come to the ZBA first. Stein said she felt it may be premature to vote tonight and thinks the applicants could go the this Historic Commission with the confidence that they will get the variance from the ZBA when they return because the concerns are not about density and parking. Harris wants to give the Historic Commission flexibility with the roof line and not place height limits with the variance yet. She is delighted to see pavers and not asphalt on the small lot and thinks it's a fair trade off. Following a discussion with his client, Grover requested to continue the petition until the July 16`h meeting of the Board of Appeals. They will go to the Historic Commission on the same night. _ made a motion to continue, seconded by and approved (6-0). Old/New Business Robin Stein said it does not sound like there will be a quorum on August 201h and therefore the August meeting needs to be rescheduled. Stein suggested moving the meeting back a week. A motion was made by to reschedule the August meeting from the 201h to the 27`h, seconded by and approved • 6 r • There being no further business before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Annie Harris made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (6-0). The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Amy Lash, Staff Planner • 7 CITY OF SALEM ye: aATE"i il; `, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ 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: June 11, 2008 RE: Meeting Agenda-June 18, 2008 Hello Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of May 21, 2008 ➢ Petitions and Materials for Items Notes on Agenda Items: CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). —Request for continuance to July 16, 2008 Attorney Balliro has submitted a letter requesting that the petition be continued to the July meeting of the Board of Appeals. The site visit to 15 Robinson Road was canceled at the applicant's request because the rock crusher is not operational. The applicant is waiting for a part to be delivered to repair the machine; after the machine is repaired the applicant hopes to schedule another site visit. New letters pertaining to this petition have been included in your packet. A representative from the home owners association at Mariner's Village submitted forty-three (43) petition forms, signed by fifty-five (55) residents in opposition to the petitions for 15 Robinson Road and 110-114 Swampscott Road, as well as the Transfer Station. I have filed one set of petitions in the file for 15 Robinson Road, and one in the file for 110-114 Swampscott Road. I will pass all the petitions around at public hearing and have included a copy of one petition in your packet so you may read it ahead of time. This petition led many residents to believe the Transfer Station was before the Board of Appeals. At the beginning of the May meeting 1 announced to the audience that the Transfer Station project was not • before the Board of Appeals, though I could supply those who were interested in the Transfer Station with a permitting and construction schedule prepared by the City Solicitor. Several residents contacted me to obtain copies of the timeline. Petition of DANA& DAVID DILISIO requesting a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go-cart track at 110-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD). . In May, the Board voted to allow the applicants to withdraw their special permit application for 110-114 Swampscott Road without prejudice. Due to an error with the audio recording, it was not possible to use the Mullins Rule to allow for a fifth board member to become eligible to vote. The applicants chose to withdraw their application and submit a new application in order to have a full board hear the petition. This new application requests a special permit to build and operate an electric go cart track. The Statement of Grounds has been amended to reflect the change to electric go carts. On the application, the applicant references the plan previously filed. In the final decision, the previous application should be referenced and a note will be included that all written materials, information, studies, and any and all other correspondence involved in the previous application were accepted as part of the record. Since, the last public hearing I have received several letters pertaining to this application which have been included in your packet. Additionally, the petitions I described under the heading for 15 Robinson Road also reference this application. I understand from Dana DiLisio that a neighborhood meeting was held at the site in mid May to address the concerns of the neighbors. Petition of PHILIP BOND requesting a variance from maximum lot coverage to allow for an 18' x 12' ground-level deck at 28 GROVE STREET (R1). The applicant is proposing to build an 18' x 12' ground level deck in the backyard of his home at 28 Grove Street. The allowed lot coverage is 30%; current lot coverage is 55%, with the removal of the current back yard deck and the addition of the proposed deck lot coverage would be 62%. Petition of GEORGE BALICH requesting a variance from the maximum number of stories allowed (2 1/2)to expand an existing 3rd floor dormer and a special permit to expand an existing non- conforming structure at 46 SUMMIT AVENUE(R1). • The applicant is proposing to expand an existing dormer 6' 6" wide to be approximately 28' 10" wide. The residence is three stories in height and has three grandfathered residential units. Petition of NED WILLIAMS requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow for the operation of a dog daycare at 247 JEFFERSON AVENUE (131). The applicant has been operating a dog daycare called Creature Comforts at 10 Broadway for the past 4 years. He is seeking a special permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow for a dog daycare on the first floor of 247 Jefferson Avenue. This space would serve as a second location for his business. Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use and variances from maximum number of stories, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and required parking to allow for construction of a third story and conversion of the current assembly hall to six residential condominiums at 17 NORTH STREET (R2). The applicant is proposing to covert the Elks Lodge at 17 North Street to six residential condominium units. The renovation will involve the addition of a third story to the building. The proposed project will require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salem Historic Commission. • 2 coND1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR e C SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MINE FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday June 18,2008 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: Dana Dilisio and David Dilisio Location: 110-114 Swampscott Road (BPD) Request: Special permit Description: Request for a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for an electric go can track at 110-114 Swampscott Road. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk June 24,2008 • • This mice is b6gsere m ct»rplianx wdth dxMassadnuez General Law, Q*ter 40A, Sat m 9& 15 and does not ra7t dee action by the 7aapier2 Appeals, t arra slxdl be mule p asuaaa to Chapter 40A, Secum 17,and shall le filed within 20 4s fiamdbe date zahi&dee decum taus filed with the City Cbk. 1 �� 74 Jry , ko CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 2909 JUN 2u P 3: 53 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYORCITY - i June 24, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of DANA DILISIO and DAVID DILISIO, Trustees of D & D Realty Trust, requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for an electric go cart track at 110-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD [BPD]. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 18, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on June 18, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Elizabeth Debski (Vice Chair), Rebecca Curran,Richard Dionne, Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Sec. 5-30)Extension of nonconformity. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioners, David DiLisio and Dana DiLisio, own 110-114 Swampscott Road, a property located in the Business Park Development[BPD] Zoning District. 2. The petitioner is represented by Attorney Brian LeClair who presented the petition. 3. The application,which is the subject of this decision evolved from the following: & A Petition was submitted to the Board of Appeals on March 26,2008 requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go cart track at 110-114 Swampscott Road. The petition was accompanied by eight(8)enclosures: 1. A plan referred to as the "Existing Site"entitled"Proposed Site Plan Swampscott Road, Salem, MA",dated June 2, 1998,prepared by Parsons and FAIR, Inc. 2. A plan entitled"Proposed Site Plan Swampscott Road, Salem, MA", dated October 22, 2007,prepared by Parsons and FAIR, Inc. r 2 3. September 7, 1999 Noise Control Engineering, Inc. Noise Assessment Study. 4. October 31, 1996 Board of Appeal Decision Granting Variance 5. June 28, 1998 Board of Appeal Decision Denying Special Permit 6. November 1, 1999 Board of Appeal Decision Denying Special Permit 7. 2007 Notice of Intent filed with the Conservation Commission 8. January 16, 1997 North Shore Tennis Parking Agreement b. The following additional materials where submitted on April 10, 2008: 1. March 27, 2008 Noise Study Update 2. March 24, 2008 Letter from Daniel Harrington 3. J&J Amusements Go Cart Information 4. Photos of trees which will be planted three feet on center along Robinson Road and the adjacent rear lot comer as a sound barrier. c. The original application was opened at the Board of Appeals on April 16, 2008 and continued to May 21,2008. On May 21, 2008 the Board voted to grant the applicants request to allow for the application to be withdrawn without prejudice because of the inability to have a full board of five members eligible to vote. A new application was submitted on May 28, 2008,which requested a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for an electric go cart track at 110-114 Swampscott Road. This • application was opened at the Board of Appeals on June 18, 2008. d. It is important to note that all written materials,information, studies, and any and all other correspondence involved in these applications were accepted as part of the record for the application for which this decision is issued. 4. The petitioner is seeking a Special Permit to add the nonconforming use of an electric go cart track to the left side of the lot adjacent to Robinson Road. There would also be a small canopy and building where riders start and end their rides. The utility building is where the carts would be stored. 5. The current use of the property is a miniature golf course,which is a nonconforming use in the BPD District. 6. There are currently two handicapped, and thirty three(33)other parking spaces on the property. Additionally, the applicants have an agreement with the North Shore Tennis Club to share parking which provides twenty(26)additional spaces. 7. At the public hearing on April 16, 2008 the following residents spoke in opposition to the proposal: Jim Hacker(4 Mayflower Lane),Russ Austin(6 Captains Lane), David Jacobson(12 Brittania Circle),David Dextrom(96 • Swampscott Road Unit 7),Alizabeth Mercy(73 Whalers Lane), and Ted Stolls(4 Britannia Circle). Many said they were concerned about the noise that would be generated by the go carts. i 3 8. Letters of opposition were submitted by: Sandra Burke and David Cawthron, 55 Brittania Circle(April 10, 2008)and Alizabeth Marcy, 73 Whalers Lane(April 17, 2008). 9. Forty-three(43)petitions signed by(55)residents of the Mariner Village and Green Dolphin Condominium Trusts were submitted opposing three facilities along Swampscott Road: the proposed expansion of the Transfer Station(a project not before the Board of Appeals), the proposed rock crushing facility, and go-cart racing. The dates on the petitions range from May 1, 2008 to May 10, 2008. 10. A letter to the Board of Appeals from Attorney Brian LeClair dated May 14, 2008, states that the applicants have taken expressed noise concerns into consideration and seek instead to have only electric go carts operating at the proposed track. Enclosed was a statement from Marvin Foster of J&J Amusements that a sound study has not been done for J&J Electric Go Karts and that the sounds are comparable to that of an electric golf cart. 11. A letter of opposition was submitted by David Jacobson, 12 Brittania Circle(May 15, 2008). 12. A neighborhood meeting was held on May 17,2008,parties on the certified • abutters list were invited by the applicant by mail. 13. A letter of opposition was submitted by Frank Morrill,2 Mayflower Lane(June 11, 2008). 14. At the public hearing on June 18,2008,Ms. Yeung(86 Cavendish Circle) said she would not want there to be a PA or music. Dan Garben (7 Queensberry Drive)said he is concerned about the cumulative noise affect of carts. Tony Lena of the North Shore Tennis Club spoke in support of the petitioner's request. 15. A the public hearing on June 18, 2008, the applicant submitted a petition signed by forty-one(41)residents in support of the special permit request to for electric co-karts. Several of these residents had previously signed petitions in opposition before the proposal was changed to electric. 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. Electric go carts will be essentially noiseless and therefore will not be disruptive to the neighborhood, like the proposed gas go carts were anticipated to be by abutters. • 2. Allowing the use would expand the amount of recreational activities for families and children in the area. .: 4 • 3. The proposed additional nonconforming use is consistent with other nearby recreational uses and would not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the mixed neighborhood. 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. A special permit for the addition of a nonconforming use is granted to allow for an electric go-cart track at 110-114 Swampscott Road. 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 (Dionne, Belair, Curran, Hams, and Debski)and 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 statues, 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, as well as regular inspections as required by the Massachusetts Department to Public Safety. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City or State Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board. 7. Hours of operation shall be no earlier than 9:00 am and no later than 10:00 pm. 8. No public address("PA') system or music shall be allowed at anytime. 9. There shall be no more than eight(8) go carts running at any time. 10. This special permit decision is intended to allow for the operation of electric go carts only; go carts requiring gasoline are prohibited. • 11. The duration of this special permit shall be limited to use by one or both applicants; the transfer of ownership to a non-applicant party would require a waiver of this condition from the Board of Appeals or a new special permit , 5 application. Any amendments to the proposed site plan or expansion to the • nonconforming uses on the property shall require review by the Board of Appeals. Elizabeth Debsld, Vice Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FRED WITH THE PUNNING 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 Sling 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 Sled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • oeoirq.ga CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS % � , BOARD OF APPEAL • a� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR Y ( � SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on WednesdayJune 18,2008 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:Philip Bond Location: 28 Grove Street-Residential One Family(R 1) Zone Request: Variance Description: Request for a variance from maximum lot coverage to allow for an 18'x 12'ground- level deck at 28 Grove Street. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk July 2,2008 • Petition of: George Balich Location: 46 Summit Avenue -Residential Two Family(R-2) Zone Request: Variance and Special Permit Description: Request for a variance from maximum number of stories allowed (2 'h) to expand an existing third floor dormer and a special permit to expand an existing non-conforming structure at 46 Summit Avenue. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk July 2,2008 Petition of: Ned Williams Location: 247 Jefferson Avenue -Business Neighborhood (B-1) Zone Request: Special Permit Description: Request for a special permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow for the operation of a dog daycare at 247 Jefferson Avenue. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk July 2,2008 • This notice is Ding sem in mVlianr with the Massad)mem Gerpral Lazes, G*ter 40A, Seam 9& 15 and dors rut raquim aam by the razpi&Appeds, i anX shaU be mule pursauanr to CJxcpter 40A, Sexist 17, and shall be f W wtbm 20 drjafim the date ubuh the&rim Zeus filed with the City U-4. 1 ���� � �'�3�°� � • • ' 6 t � �o�olr.�Aa CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS J& BOARD OF APPEAL n - 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR • 1} �f SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 978-745-9595 >Nrvea"T FAX 978-740-9846 2003 JUL -2 A 10: 1 b KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR CITY July 2, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of NED WILLIAMS seeking a special permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow for the operation of a dog daycare at 247 JEFFERSON AVENUE (B-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was held on June 18, 2008 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, Annie Hams and Bonnie Belair (Alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to section § 5-30) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to • allow for a change in the nonconforming use of the property. Statements of fact: 1. Ned Williams owner of Creature Comforts DBA has operated a"doggie daycare" business at 10 Broadway for 4 years, he also has a location on Atlantic Avenue in Marblehead. He is seeking to expand his business by opening up another location at 247 Jefferson Avenue, a property located in the Business Neighborhood District (B-1). 2. 247 Jefferson Avenue is owned by Craig D'Orio and the first floor would be leased by Creature Comforts. 3. Residential apartments exist upstairs. 4. No structural modifications to the property are proposed. 5. The applicant envisions 8-12 small dogs being kept in the proposed location, but is seeking a limit of 15. 6. Similarly to what is done at 10 Broadway, the applicant will have a van service pick up the dogs from their homes in the morning and then brings the dogs to their homes again in the afternoon. Occasionally a dog owner will pick up or drop of their dog. • 7. The applicant currently operates the business at 10 Broadway between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm. The applicant proposes similar hours for the new location but asks that the Board allow for hours of operation between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm so that pick up and drop of activities at the different facilities can be staggered. 2 8. The dogs will not be kept at the facility overnight. • 9. Most activity will be inside, some will be outside. 10. The applicant plans to have two caregivers on site. 11. There was no opposition to the request for a special permit 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 change in nonconforming use does not have a difference in terms of its quality, character, and effect on the neighborhood in this Neighborhood Business District. The change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use. 2. A special permit 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 Salem Zoning 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 change in nonconforming use, a special permit may be granted under § 5-3 0)Extension of nonconformity in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in sections 8-6 and 9-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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, Dionne, Harris, and Curran) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a special permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 am— 5:00 pm, Monday- Friday. 4. No more than fifteen (15) dogs shall be kept at the facility at one time. AL � Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals i" 3 • 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. • • Y � ��iofrnr�,aa CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR • y11 (�Q SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONES 978-745-9595 •ZMI1 E p�Y' FAX. 978-740-9846 2008 JUL -2 A 10; I b KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR CITY July 2, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of GEORGE BALICH seeking a variance from maximum number of stories allowed (2 '/2) to expand an existing third floor dormer and a special permit to expand an existing non-conforming structure at 46 SUMMIT AVENUE (R-2). A public hearing on the above petition was opened on June 18, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams, and Bonnie Belair (alternate). • Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to Section 9-5 and a special permit pursuant to Section 8-4 to expand a third floor dormer. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner owns 46 Summit Avenue, a grandfathered three family home located in the Residential Two Family(R-2) Zoning District. 2. Plans accompanying the petition are entitled "46 Summit Avenue Condominium", dated May 20, 2008, and prepared by Dr. George T. Balich, AIA. 3. The petitioner and his son Jason Balich are doing several renovations to the property. One of the renovations includes expanding an existing 6'-6"wide third floor dormer to be approximately 28'-10"wide. The expansion would provide increased headroom. A variance and special permit are required to allow for this renovation due to the maximum height of buildings allowed as well as the nonconforming use of the property as a multifamily dwelling. 4. Attorney George Atkins spoke in support of the petition on behalf of his mother who lives next door. The Board of Appeal, afler careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public • hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 2 1. Minor dimensional relief is sought to allow for the expansion of the existing • nonconforming dormer which will not cause a difference in terms of its quality, character, and effect on the neighborhood. 2. The zoning requirements can not be complied due to existing nonconformities. 3. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would cause substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who is making many make improvements to the property which will benefit the neighborhood. 4. The relief requested is not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions 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: 1. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the expansion of the dormer. . 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, Harris, 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. • 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. r 3 • 8. 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. 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 10. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does 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. k140 AL 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. • 2 1. The zoning requirements can not be complied due to existing nonconformities. • 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would cause substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who is seeking to make an improvement to his home which will increase his family's ability to enjoy their property. 3. The variances requested are not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions 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: 1. To allow for the deck the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the requirement for maximum lot coverage. 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 • (Dionne, Stein, Curran, Harris, and Debski) and 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 statues, 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. 6. This decision authorizes the petitioner to demolish the existing rear deck to construct a new deck and does not authorize any further demolition, construction, or reconstruction. • r i ti�onulr�,f CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS "w + �� BOARD OF APPEAL . 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR 1� �I SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 978-745-9595 rvew'"r FAX. 978-740-9846 A KIMBERLEY ORISCOLL MAYOR July 2, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PHILIP BOND requesting a variance from maximum lot coverage to allow for an 18' x 12' ground-level deck at 28 Grove Street (R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 18, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on June 18, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table I: Residential Density Regulations. • Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Philip Bond, is the owner of 28 Grove Street, a property located in the Residential One Family(R-1) Zoning District. 2. The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing 4' x 4' attached deck at the rear of the property, and add a 12' x 18' attached deck. 3. The petition is accompanied by a mortgage inspection plan prepared by Gail Smith, dated October 12, 2006. The existing and proposed decks are sketched on the plot plan. 4. Maximum lot coverage by all structures is limited to 30%; current lot coverage is 55% and with the removal of the current back deck and the addition of a new deck, lot coverage will be 62%. 5. The proposed deck would be approximately 18"off,Ithe ground at the highest point. 6. There was no opposition to the petitioners request 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: r J 3 U 1 4 /At 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. • - yJp,ONDITq,q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL " 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 E� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL _ Ma l`lu,{ iy A {9, 49 MAYOR CITY t.Llt,'�, AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING May 21, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. 3AD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Eobin,"e 0I /,t Robin Stein, Chair 1. Approval of Minutes o April 16, 2008 2. CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). —Request for Continuance to June 18, 2008 3. CONTINUED: Petition of AMY CHEVOOR requesting variances from lot area per dwelling unit and parking requirements, and a special permit to modify an existing nonconforming structure to allow for a first floor retail space to be converted to an apartment at 26 BOSTON STREET (R-2). 4. CONTINUED: Petition of DANA &DAVID DILISIO requesting a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go-cart track at 110-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD). 5. Petition of RAYNOLDO DOMINQUEZ requesting Variances from: minimum front yard depth to construct a new 24' x 6' porch, number of stories allowed to construct a 15' x 7' third floor dormer, and the distance an accessory structure is required to be from lot lines to construct a 8' x 8' shed 2' from the side lot line and F from the rear lot line at 38 CABOT STREET (R-2). 6. Petition of EDWARD BURGE JR seeking Variances from minimum side yard width and maximum lot coverage to construct a 13' 10"x 14' second story addition with two landings and stairs at 29 LINDEN STREET (R-2). 7. Petition of LESLIE TUTTLE seeking to appeal the Building Inspector's decision that the keeping of chickens is an agricultural use and is therefore prohibited at 114 FEDERAL STREET (R-2). This notics post®d cn "Official a tin a do City all galem, t4ass. rim /7�©6� 1 8. Petition of JOHN FIFIELD requesting a Variance from minimum side yard width to construct a 17' x 27' garden room along the easterly lot line at 43 CHESTNUT STREET (R-1). 9. Old/New Business 10. Adjournment I • 2 a l,. s, City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Boardo ► Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email �A 041CA 1Y,ryle.de. WO ( cq(ej-c, 5� 'Ll2 LJ Gs119 fn4 L c� hvF a 2(?- CA m IC ptl STC—/,/o sµo/E T&vi45 `)'7$'-7 Y 59 9 7 l �, f�V DSM `� �p , . v��tiztiEi- HAAY 11 9`1y1gc -rs.�ti �t�rutzz �_Vc�KJzo�,r kR � r Ki-a�r myC�ondccs�-. �— CAPWENMQLsk� c�(Z ��`z19Soy �1 �o (p� tiro V--at) � rn� row Ome\�jv)�s r� R�z_ ':T)7 ) -74S`,tsj 2rAayn4 g//Z,2cmvpgN1 ccr*h 5'/' 9(7)R' _7S/5 SZ Icon, P/7q sow-��-vs iso_ 0-1 v N s� -�-/ 3 o 9-73v - 71f5-sy 9� Gi��eeH.snel.'s�✓�wa6+ her b CL(P L4 r,uVW(e .4 Ll Cr � Got , Sbc S� 2 �� /zl0 /�/Gt!lGr�� IGcyt�. Page of City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board kt6TPQ&A5 Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email lff KAl L��q,2 F\,0je-(' qjd--)'(S 3 3zS A AkLu,40 vel., �07r 75tT L��'44 y 39� � X16-S��Q-521 �v�.iDbZC��°lo Cbv1/� Page of City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,May 21,2008 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday,May 21, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair), Annie Harris,Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present was Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Absent: Rick Dionne Approval of Minutes Beth Debski made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting on April 16, 2008, seconded by Rebecca Curran and approved (4-0) (Stein, Belair, Debski, Curran). Public Hearings CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). —Request for Continuance to June 18, 2008 Robin Stein noted that the Board's site visit to 15 Robinson Road was canceled by the applicant because the machine is not currently operational. Once the site visit is rescheduled, the Planning Department will make phone calls to those that signed into the meeting to inform them of the new date. Robin said the Board received a letter from Attorney Jospeh Balliro requesting continuance. Rebecca Curran made a motion to continue the petition of AAA Enterprises to the next meeting on June 18, 2008, seconded by Bonnie Belair and approved (5-0). CONTINUED: Petition of AMY CHEVOOR requesting variances from lot area per dwelling unit and parking requirements, and a special permit to modify an existing nonconforming structure to allow for a first floor retail space to be converted to an apartment at 26 BOSTON STREET (R-2). Amy Lash read a letter from Amy Chevoor requesting to withdraw the petition for 26 Boston Street. Annie Harris made a motion to allow for withdrawal without prejudice, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0). CONTINUED: Petition of DANA & DAVID DILISIO requesting a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go-cart track at 110-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD (BPD). • 1 Amy Lash read a letter from Attorney Brian LeClair requesting to withdrawn the petition due to problems with the audio recording. The letter specified that they intend to reapply in order to • have a full board eligible to vote on the application. A motion was made by Bonnie Belair to allow for withdrawal without prejudice, seconded by Beth Debski and approved (4-0) (Robin Stein recused). Petition of RAYNOLDO DOMINQUEZ requesting Variances from: minimum front yard depth to construct a new 24' x 6' porch, number of stories allowed to construct a 15' x 7' third floor dormer, and the distance an accessory structure is required to be from lot lines to construct a 8' x 8' shed 2' from the side lot line and 1' from the rear lot line at 38 CABOT STREET (R-2). The petitioner, Raynoldo Dominquez explained that he would like to add a porch, a dormer, and a shed and all three things are shown on the plot plan. Annie Harris asked if the petitioner had photos. No, the petitioner does not have photos. Rebecca Curran noted that the 3D computer model did not show the dormer. She asked if there was something showing the dormer. The petitioner said the plot plan shows the dormer location. Wendy Curtin (5-7 Geneva Street) said that her picket fence has been destroyed by the petitioner's children playing basketball. She said she does not agree with allowing a shed in the proposed location. Rebecca Curran confirmed the shed would be right on the property line. • Bonnie Belair asked how the garage is accessed. The petitioner said it is accessed from Cabot Street. Robin Stein said there is a 9' driveway. Annie Harris said she is concerned that the plans are not accurate enough. Rebecca Curran asked whether or not the bay window shown in the 3D model would or wouldn't be built along with the porch. The petitioner said it is already there. Robin Stein suggested taking one issue at a time starting with the porch. She said she thinks it will look nice to have a farmers porch run the length of the house. Rebecca Curran agreed it would look nice, especially with the hipped roof. Robin Stein asked what the foundation is made out of. The petition said the foundation is poured concrete. Annie Harris said she did not think this infringes on neighbors in anyway. Rebecca Curran asked what material the roofing is. The petitioner said it is slate; he would do the dormer with shingles. Rebecca asked how many windows would be on the dormer. The petitioner said there would be two windows. Bonnie Belair asked what would be on the roof of the porch. The petitioner said this would also be shingles. Bonnie she knows slate is very expensive, while it would look nice she doesn't think it would be fair for the Board to require this. • 2 r Y, Bonnie Belair asked if the extra space from the dormer would allow for an additional unit. Tom • St. Pierre said it is already a two family home. Regarding the shed, Annie Harris thinks the proposed shed is too close to the neighbor. Robin Stein said there is a 5' setback for a reason and agrees this would affect the neighbor. Robin said there also needs to be enough room to get along side the shed and mow the grass, paint, etc. and what is proposed wouldn't allow for this type of upkeep. Rebecca Curran suggested entertaining a motion to approve the dormer and porch. Bonnie said she would deny the petition because of the shed, and if the other requests are to be approved this must be separated. The petitioner requested to withdraw his request for variances to allow for the shed. Rebecca Curran made a motion to approve the 24' x 6' farmers porch, the dormer as shown on the plot plan, and the request to withdraw the proposed shed from the petition with seven standard conditions, and a clarification to the condition about exterior finishes being in harmony, that slate is not required. The motion was seconded by Annie Harris and approved (5-0). Petition of EDWARD BURGE JR seeking Variances from minimum side yard width and maximum lot coverage to construct a 13' 10" x 14' second story addition with two landings and stairs at 29 LINDEN STREET (R-2). The petitioner, Edward Burge addressed the Board and explained he would be adding a second • story addition with landings and stairs to the rear of the property. Rebecca Curran asked what is being done to the roof. The petitioner pointed to the sloped roofline on the elevation. Rebecca asked if the staircase would be the only thing outside the footprint. The petitioner said yes and showed the new side elevation. Robin Stein opened the public portion of the hearing. There was no public comment. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Robin Stein said she thought this was a reasonable request because the lot coverage was only being increased by 2%. Annie Harris said there would no further encroachment on the side setback. Robin agreed saying the structure is already within the side setback, this would just allow slightly more area inside. Beth Debski made a motion to approve the request for variances with seven (7) standard conditions, seconded by Bonnie Belair and approved (5-0). • 3 Petition of LESLIE TUTTLE seeking to appeal the Building Inspector's decision that the keeping of chickens is an agricultural use and is therefore prohibited at 114 FEDERAL • STREET (R-2). Attorney Kevin Barry addressed the Board and said he was here representing the Tuttles in an appeal of the Building Commissioner's decision that the Tuttle's pet chickens are an agricultural use. Attorney Barry introduced Leslie Tuttle's children- Libby, Annie, and William. Annie Tuttle said she convinced her mom to get chickens. Their chickens are a quiet and friendly breed called silver-laced. They kept them inside the house until they were big enough to go outside. They all have names, and they are great pets. Annie said she cleans out the coop daily. Libby Tuttle said she did research about chickens and found that they were good for the environment. They eat kitchen scraps and are good for grub control. Libby said they treat their chickens better than most farms do. She doesn't feel this is an agricultural use of the property or that there is any nuisance of noise or odor. Rebecca Curran asked if they sell the eggs. Attorney Barry said no they don't sell the eggs. Melinda Piccioto (418 Lafayette Street)has raised chickens in the same manor for over a quarter of a century. She said she speaks as a trained paralegal. From her review of Sec. IA of Chapter 128 she feels that for a use to be considered agriculture, goods need to be for sale. She said with the way the definition has been interpreted in this case, other things like gardening would also be • prohibited. Attorney Barry said they accept looking to Ch. 128 Sec. lA for the definition of agriculture. Stefano Picciotto (418 Lafayette Street) said he does not intend to undermine the Building Inspector, though feels if you are not selling the eggs, the use does not rise to agriculture. He feels this is an arbitrary complaint by a neighbor thinking it will lessen their property values. He does not think the Board of Appeals is the place to bring the complaint. He said if the statue is to be interpreted so broadly he agrees other things like gardening would be prohibited. Monica Trindade (116 Federal Street) said she is representing her condominium association (4/5 residents) against the petition. She said the chickens squawk all day and they are kept very close to their property. She said she was told by Leslie Tuttle that the chickens were being kept for a school project, but they are still there. She is concerned with noise and order and feel that they disturb the peace. Beth Delnickas (116 Federal Street) said she is opposed to allowing the keeping of chickens. Her unit is on the market and her realtor brings people through the back so they don't have to see the chickens. She can hear the chickens with her windows open. Perry Mcintosh (2 Rivers Street) said he walks his dogs by the property daily and have never heard them. He didn't know about them for four (4) months. • 4 f • Mary Whitney(356 Essex Street) read a letter she and her husband wrote in support of the petition into the record. Jack Sidman (358 Lafayette Street) had chickens for nine (9) years they make incredibly little noise, they don't escape easily, and owning a chicken isn't running a farm. Jeff Brandt (3 Lynn Street) regularly walks his dogs by and didn't know they were there for a long time. His daughter and son enjoy the chickens. The Agway sells lots of chickens to homeowners in the region. Jeff Nicholas (6 Andover Street) said he thinks the Tuttle's chickens are not agriculture. Kerry Nicholas (6 Andover Street) introduced their seven year old daughter, Clohe Rourke Nicholas who said she gets to feed the chickens when the Tattles go away. Kerry Nicholas said their house directly abuts the street where the coop is and her bedroom is as close as anyone, and she doesn't hear the chickens. Dottie Nicholas (115 Federal Street) said she also did not realize that the chickens were there and thinks it is the realtors who are causing the problem. Lisa Spence (17 '/2 River Street) said she agrees that the realtors are the issue. John Carr(7 River Street) is in support of the keeping of the chickens and feels this is not within the definition of agriculture. He is against roosters but for chickens. • Carol Carr(7 River Street) feels the chickens are exciting and fun and think they should stay. Anne Knight(9 River Street) thinks the chickens are fine and a wonderful back to earth sound. Mary Ann Williamson (Federal Street) is in support of the chickens. Monica Trindade (116 Federal Street) asked if chickens are allowed, would cows and sheep be allowed as well. Jack Sidman (358 Lafayette Street) suggested that the size of these animals would not make this practical. Amy Lash read names of those who submitted letters. There are nineteen (19) letters in support of the petition were submitted. Ursula O'Connor (116 Federal Street) submitted a letter opposing the petition. �I Their being no further public comment, Robin Stein closed the public hearing and suggested that the Board turn to the definition in Chapter 128: Section IA. Robin said she doesn't feel that the primary use in this case is a food source. Rebecca Curran said that she feels that the fact they don't sell the eggs differs this situation from being considered agriculture. Annie Harris said she doesn't feel that its' prohibited by zoning and mentioned that she had six (6) chickens as pets growing up. Rebecca Curran said she grew up in Lexington and also had a chicken as a pet. • 5 Bonnie said she feels these chickens are pets. She lived next door to the Tuttle family at one point and knows they are good neighbors who take good care of their home. She suggested that • something could be done to mitigate the affect on the neighbors. Beth Debski said she feels this case doesn't fall within the definition of agriculture. Rebecca Curran made a motion to overturn the Building Commissioner's decision stating that an agricultural use does not exist, seconded by Annie Harris and approved (5-0). Petition of JOHN FIFIELD requesting a Variance from minimum side yard width to construct a 17' x 27' garden room along the easterly lot line at 43 CHESTNUT STREET (R-1). John Fifield said that 41 &43 Chestnut Street is a historic double house which is discussed on tours of Salem as being a house.built for two sisters who married two brothers. He presented the plot plan showing what exists and where the proposed garden room would be at 43 Chestnut Street. There is a lot line through the middle of the building and the structure already has a side yard width of 0' because of this. He said to literally enforce the ordinance would mean blocking off the dining room, cutting off access to the basement, and blocking the view of the garden. Rebecca Curran asked if this would require the review of the Historic Commission. John said yes, they are on the Historic Commission agenda in 10 minutes. Rebecca asked what the wall would be made out of. John said it will be a stud wall. John read letters of support into the record from Richard Jagolta (41 Chestnut Street) and Mark Audette (395 Essex Street). Amy Lash read a letter of support submitted by Bruce Goddard (17 Flint Street), John Casey (17 Flint Street), Martha Chayet (19 Flint Street), and Neil Chayet (19 Flint Street). The letter raised concerns about parking congestion on Flint Street and requested that construction vehicles be limited from parking on Flint Street. John Fifield said construction vehicles could park on Chestnut Street and Warren Street though it may be necessary to load and unload at times on Flint Street. Rebecca Curran made a motion to approve the petitioner's request for a variance with eight (8) standard conditions including that exterior finishes meet the requirements of the Historic Commission, and a ninth (91h) condition that construction vehicles may stop to load and unload, but the petitioner will make every effort to ensure that they do not park on Flint Street. The motion was seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0). Old/New Business There being no further business before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Annie Harris made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0). The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Amy Lash, Staff Planner [Minutes approved by ZBA 6/18108] 6 -�uNorrq CITY OF SALEM m' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Nog,, KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ 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: May 13, 2008 RE: Meeting Agenda- May 21, 2008 Hello Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of April 16, 2008 ➢ Petitions and Materials for New Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD (BPD). -Request for Continuance to June 18, 2008 The site visit to 15 Robinson Road was canceled at the applicant's request because the rock crusher is not operational. After the machine is repaired the applicant hopes to schedule another site visit. Attorney Balliro has submitted a letter requesting that the petition be continued to the June meeting of the Board of Appeals. Members of the public who signed in at the April meeting received phone calls from the Planning Department to inform them of the canceled site visit and request for continuance. CONTINUED: Petition of AMY CHEVOOR requesting variances from lot area per dwelling unit and parking requirements, and a special permit to modify an existing nonconforming structure to allow for a first floor retail space to be converted to an apartment at 26 BOSTON STREET (R-2). *If you no longer have your materials for this petition, let me know and I will bring a set to the meeting for • Amy Chevoor is seeking variances from lot area per dwelling unit and parking requirements, and a special permit to modify an existing nonconforming structure to allow for a first floor retail space to be converted to'an apartment at 26 Boston Street. Since the last meeting, the applicant has been in contact with Tom St. Pierre to discuss Building Code compliance. The property currently has six residential units and two commercial units. CONTINUED: Petition of DANA& DAVID DILISIO requesting a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go-cart track at 110-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD(BPD). 'If you no longer have your materials for this petition, let me know and I will bring a set to the meeting for Dana and David Dilisio are requesting a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go-cart track at 110-114 Swampscott Road. A miniature golf course currently exists on the property. In 1996 a variance for a change of use was granted to allow for the miniature golf course. Accompanying the petition are a number of enclosures including three past decisions of the Board of Appeals. The applicants have filed a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission has continued the item to June 12th and asked that the applicants return after ensuring that the use would be allowed. It is Tom St. Pierre's opinion that Site Plan Review by the Planning Board would not be triggered by the plans because the Zoning Ordinance requires 10,000 square feet of nonresidential gross building area. If the Board of Appeals chooses to grant the special permit, conditions pertaining to the site plan could be included in the decision. Since the last meeting, I have heard from Attorney LeClair that electric go-carts are being considered to address noise concerns. Additionally, they are hoping to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to the Board of Appeals meeting on May 21 s'. Petition of RAYNOLDO DOMINOUEZ requesting Variances from: minimum front yard depth to construct a new 24' x 6' porch, number of stories allowed to construct a 15' x 7'third floor dormer, and the distance an accessory structure is required to be from lot lines to construct a 8' x 8' shed 2'from the side lot line and 1'from the rear lot line at 38 CABOT STREET(R-2). Raynoldo Dominquez is requesting three variances to allow for the construction of a farmer's porch, a dormer, and a shed on his property at 38 Cabot Street. Petition of EDWARD BURGE JR seeking Variances from minimum side yard width and maximum lot coverage to construct a 13' 10" x 14' second story addition with two landings and stairs at 29 LINDEN STREET(R-2). Edward Burge Jr. is proposing to construct a second story addition with two landings and stairs at the rear of his property at 29 Linden Street. Petition of LESLIE TUTTLE seeking to appeal the Building Inspector's decision that the keeping of chickens is an agricultural use and is therefore prohibited at 114 FEDERAL STREET (R-2). The Tuttles currently keep five chickens on their property. Following a complaint from a neighbor, the City issued the opinion that the keeping of chickens is an agricultural use; in a letter dated March 4, 2008 (included in your packet) Tom St. Pierre ordered that this use be ceased. Kevin Barry, Esq., representing the Tuttles, submitted a petition to the Board of Appeals appealing the Building Inspector's ruling. He states on the application that they are keeping chickens as household pets. I have included in your packet the MGL definition of agriculture from Chapter 128, Section 1A, provided by the City Solicitor. Petition of JOHN FIFIELD requesting a Variance from minimum side yard width to construct a 17' x 27' garden room along the easterly lot line at 43 CHESTNUT STREET(R-1). John Fifield is proposing to construct a 17' x 27' garden room at the rear of his residence with an easterly side lot line of 0'. He has submitted an application to the Historic Commission and previously received approval from the Historic Commission to construct a similar garden room with a different roof line. • 2 I' o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL y' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAx: 978-740-9846 1006 11A 23 A & O9 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR =1, CITY CL�(F "`ett.Fi,4 Ss. May 22,2008 D&D Realty Trust C/o Brian LeClair,Esq. 12 Fox Run Lane Marblehead,MA 01945 RE: 110-114 Swampscott Road Dear Mr. LeClair The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,May 21,2008 to discuss you request for Withdrawal Without Prejudice for the special permit petition for 110-114 Swampscott Road. • The Board decided by a unanimous vote (4-0) to approve the request for Withdrawal Without Prejudice. If you intend to file another petition,please do so by May 28'e so this matter can be placed on the June 18'x'agenda. 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,Gty Clerk • o a 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 2008 PLAY 23 A 8$ 10 MAYOR CITY CLERr,. 1.1AI-EM. May 22,2008 Amy Chevoor 2 Tara Road Peabody,MA 01960 RE: 26 Boston Street Dear Ms. Clrevoor. The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday,May 21,2008 to discuss you request for Withdrawal Without Prejudice for the variance and special permit petition for 26 Boston Street. 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, AmyJ. Lash Staff Planner Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • 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 1W1! .111N -S P 2 OO'' MAYOR June 5, 2008 FILE CITY CLERK, S LEM. t1 SS. Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Edward Burge Jr. requesting variances from minimum side yard width and maximum lot coverage to construct a 13111" x 14' second story addition with two landings and stairs at 29 LINDEN STREET [R-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on May 21,2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein(Chair),Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski,Annie Hams and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table I: Residential Density Regulations. • Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Edward Burge Jr., is the owner of 29 Linden Street a property located in the Residential Two Family(R-2)Zoning District. 2. The petition is accompanied by a plan entitled, "Plan of Land 29 Linden Street", prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, dated April 2, 2008. Additionally, the petition is accompanied by existing and proposed rear elevations, a proposed side elevation, and a photograph. 3. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 13' 10"x 14' second story addition with two landings and stairs at the rear of the property. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side yard width of 10% the current and proposed side yard width is 9'. The Zoning Ordinance allows for maximum lot coverage of 35%; the proposed lot coverage is 39.8%. The petitioner is seeking variances from minimum side yard width and maximum lot coverage. 4. There were no members of the public who commented on the proposal 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: r 2 1. There unique conditions affecting the locus and structure, not generally affecting • other lots in the neighborhood and Zoning District. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who would be unable construct an addition in conformance with the ordinances due to the size and layout of the lot. 3. The requested relief is minimal and the proposed addition would not be out of character with structures existing in the neighborhood. Therefore, 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: 1. To allow for the 13' 10"x 14' second story addition with two landings and stairs,the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the requirements for minimum lot width and maximum lot coverage to allow a minimum lot width of 9' and maximum lot coverage of 39.8%. • 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 (Debski, Curran, Stein, Harris, and Belair) and 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 statues, 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 is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. g Robin 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. • o CITY OF SALEMI, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ton JUN _5 P Z. 00 MAYOR lJ �ILc a June 5, 2008 CITY CLERK. Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ seeldng VARIANCES from minimum front yard depth to construct a new 24' x 6' porch and number of stories allowed (2 %Z) to construct a 15' x 7' third floor dormer at 38 CABOT STREET (R-2). RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ requesting to WITHDRAW the request for a Variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from lot lines to allow for an 8' x 8' shed 2' from the side lot line and 1' from the rear lot line at 38 CABOT STREET (R-2). . A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on May 21, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein(Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table I: Residential Density Regulations. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Raynoldo Dominguez,is the owner of 38 Cabot Street a property located in the Residential Two Family(R-2)Zoning District. The property contains and two residential units. 2. The petition is accompanied by a plan entitled, "Plot Plan of Land Located at 38 Cabot Street",prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, dated April 21, 2008. Additionally, the petition is accompanied by four perspectives of a 3D computer model illustrating the proposed porch. 3. The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing porch(approx. 5' x 6)and construct a 24' x 6' farmer's porch on the front of the residence. The petitioner states the existing porch is in poor condition and in need of replacement. The • minimum depth of front yard required is 15';the petitioner is proposing a front yard depth of 3' and is therefore seeking a variance from the minimum depth of front yard. - 2 • 4. The maximum height of buildings allowed in stories is 2 %z stories. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 15' x 17' third floor dormer; therefore, the petitioner is seekinga variance from the maximum height of buil gh drags (stones). The dormer would increase the living space for the second floor unit. 5. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow an accessory structure to be located closer than 5' from any lot line. The petitioner's application included a request for a variance from the distance an accessory structure is required to be from lot lines to allow an 8' x 8' shed 2' from the side lot line and 1' from the rear lot line. The petitioner requested to withdraw this portion of the application at the public hearing. 6. Wendy Curtin(5-7 Geneva Street) spoke in opposition of the petitioner's request for a variance to allow for a shed. 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. Minimal-relief is necessary to allow the construction of the dormer, which can provide for increased living space on this small lot. The existing front yard depth is similar to what is proposed and the style of the proposed porch will enhance the . look of the property. These are special circumstances that especially affect the land and structure, not generally affecting other lots in the in the Zoning District. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner who is seeking to make improvements to his property. 3. The proposed porch and dormer would not be out of character with structures existing in the neighborhood. Therefore,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: 1. To allow for the 24' x 6' porch as show on the plot plan,the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the minimum depth of front yard. 2. To allow for the 15' x 17' third floor dormer as show on the plot plan, the petitioner may vary the terns of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the • maximum height of buildings (stories). 3. The petitioner's request to withdraw the variance requested for the proposed shed is allowed by this decision without prejudice. 3 • 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 (Debski, Curran, Stein, Harris, and Belair)and 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 statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the pians 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, though slate is not required on the roof. • 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 filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 6) FAX: 978-740.9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR i008 JUN -S P 2- 00' FILE 4 June 5, 2008 CITY CLERK. SALEM.MASS Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of LESLIE TUTTLE seeking to appeal the Building Inspector's decision that the keeping of chickens is an agricultural use and is therefore prohibited at 114 FEDERAL STREET [R-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on May 21, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein(Chair),Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski,Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks to appeal the Building Commissioner's decision expressed in a letter dated March 4, 2008 that an Agricultural use exists and therefore the use is to be ceased. • Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Kevin Barry presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, Leslie Tuttle, is the owner of 114 Federal Street a property located in the Residential Two Family(R-2) Zoning District. There is a single family home on the property. 3. The petitioner currently keeps five chickens on the property. The petitioner is appealing the ruling of the City's Building Commissioner that an agricultural use exists. 4. Photographs of the chickens and the enclosure in which they are kept . accompanied the petition. 5. The City of Salem Zoning Ordinance does not define agriculture. The Zoning Statue, Chapter 40A, defines agriculture within Sec. 3 as follows"For the purpose of this section, the term"agriculture"shall be as defined in section lA of Chapter 128 ..." 6. The petitioner's children addressed the Board of Appeals describing the chickens • as pets all of whom have names. 7. The petitioners do not sell the eggs laid by the chickens. 4 2 • 8. Fifteen(15)residents spoke in support of the petitioners request at the public heating. 9. Nineteen(19) letters in support of the petitioners request were submitted. 10. Monica Trindade(116 Federal Street) and Beth Delnickas(116 Federal Street) spoke in opposition of the petitioners request at the public hearing. 11. A letter in opposition to the petitioners request was submitted by Ursula O'Connor(116 Federal Street). 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 chickens at 114 Federal Street are being kept as pets. The eggs are not sold and they are not primarily used for food purposes and therefore cannot be considered agriculture as defined by Chapter 128: Section IA. 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. An agricultural use does not exist and the order of Building Commissioner to cease the use is therefore overturned. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five(5) in favor (Debski, Curran, Stein,Harris, and Belair) and none(0)opposed, to grant petitioner's request to Appeal the Decision of the Building Commissioner. tool �3�vl&= — Robin Stei PChair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CrIT 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. o r CITY OF SALEMr MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR June 5, 2008 1009 JUN -5 P Z. 00 CITY CLE;;f;,SA Decision LEM.MASS. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JOHN FIFIELD seeldng a Variance from minimum side yard width to construct a 17' x 27' garden room along the easterly lot line at 43 CHESTNUT STREET (11-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 21, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on May 21, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present`. Robin Stein(Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski,Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table I: Residential Density Regulations. • Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, John Fifield,is the owner of 43 Chestnut Street a property located in the Residential One Family(R-1)Zoning District. 2. The petition is accompanied by a plan entitled, "Plan of the Laught and Sanders Estates",prepared by Thomas Appleton, and dated December 1924. On this plot plan the petitioner has drawn what is to be demolished and what is proposed. Additionally, the petition is accompanied by scaled drawings of the garden room elevations and site plan. 3. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 17' x 27' garden room at the rear of his residence with an easterly side yard width of 0'. A minimum side yard width of 10' is required; the petitioner is seeking a variance from minimum side yard width. 4. The existing historic federal style structure is split in the center by a lot line separating 41 Chestnut Street and 43 Chestnut Street. Both properties currently have rear additions to the main structure that lie on the common lot line, Richard Jagolta, owner of 41 Chestnut Street submitted a letter in support of the petition. . 5. A letter of support was submitted by Mark Audette(395 Essex Street). 6. A letter of support was submitted by Bruce Goddard(17 Flint Street), John Casey (17 Flint Street), Martha Chayet(19 Flint Street),and Neil Chayet(19 Flint 1 2 . Street). The letter raised concerns about parking congestion on Flint Street and requested that construction vehicles be limited from parking on Flint Street. 7. There were no members of the public who commented on the proposal 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 historic structure, which is a double residence spanning two separate lots is a unique condition affecting the locus and structure, not generally affecting other lots in the in the Zoning District. 2. The layout of the historic property makes the proposed location for the garden room the most suitable location. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner. 3. The proposed addition would not be out of character with structures existing in the neighborhood. Currently, there is a side yard width of 0' on both sides of the common lot line. Therefore, 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: 1. To allow for the 17' x 27' garden room,the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the requirements for minimum lot width to allow a minimum lot width of 0'. 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 (Debski, Curran, Stein,Hams, and Belair) and 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 statues,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. 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 and shall meet the requirements of the Salem Historical Commission. 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. The petitioner shall make every effort to prevent construction vehicles from parking on Flint Street, though active loading nand _unloading shall be allowed. 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 Sling 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. coNUlTq,q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL � m 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 MINe�� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the Cityof Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday May 21,2008 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 Burge Jr. Location: 29 LINDEN STREET(R-2) Request: Variances Description: Request for variances from minimum side yard width and maximum lot coverage to construct a 13' 11" x 14'second story addition with two landings and stairs. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk June 5,2008 Petition of: Raynoldo Dominquez Location: 38 CABOT STREET(R-2) Request: Variances • Description: Request for variances from minimum front yard depth to construct anew 24'x 6' porch and number of stories allowed (2 'A) to construct a 15'x 7'third floor dormer Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk June 5,2008 Note: The petitioner's request for variances from the distance an accessory structure is allowed to be from side lot lines to allow for a shed was withdrawn without prejudice. Petition of: Leslie Tuttle Location: 114 FEDERAL STREET(R-2) Request: Appeal of the Building Inspector's Decision Description: Request to appeal the Building Inspector's decision that the keeping of chickens is an agricultural use and is therefore prohibited. Decision: The Board determined an agricultural use does not exist,the Building Inspector's decision is therefore overturned- Filed with City Clerk June 5, 2008 Petition of: John Fifield Location: 43 CHESTNUT STREET(R 1) Request: Variances Description: Request for Variance from minimum side yard width to construct a 17'x 27'garden room along the easterly lot he. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk June 5,2008 Thu now is kw?gsea in couupliarxe with the Massadmeus General Lana, ChVter 40A, Salm 9 fru 15 and • dc�s Trot xquiue action by the nm ipr m AppaVs, if anX shall he nude punuam to G*ter 40A, Semm 17,and shall le filed u dxn 20 4s f nn the date ubiofi tOe derision vm filed with the City Clerk. 1 � Jto, A COW i • �oelnrrA� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR s ] SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 .• TELEPHONE: 976-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING April 16, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. San FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET < Robin Stem,Chair 1. Approval of Minutes ori o March 12, 2008 _, `.' o March 19, 2008 s o r. OD 2. CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD [BPD]. • 3. CONTINUED: Petition of CLIFFORD AGELOFF requesting a variance from the maximum height of accessory structures to allow for a 173' tall temporary wind monitoring tower on the property of the Fairweather Apartments located at 40R HIGHLAND AVENUE [R3]. 4. Petition of AMY CHEVOOR requesting variances from lot area per dwelling unit and parking requirements, and a special permit to modify an existing nonconforming structure to allow for a first floor retail space to be converted to an apartment at 26 BOSTON STREET [R2]. 5. Petition of ANGELO MEIMETEAS seeking variances from minimum lot size and minimum lot width to construct a single family home at 2 PROSPECT AVENUE [B2 and R2]. 6. Petition of DANA & DAVID DILISIO requesting a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go-cart track at 110-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD [BPD], 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment This notice posted on "Official R1 , tin�Boar& City Wail aalem, Mass. oq TGt�� at �:d f)OM in a0cnTd:'-:(! vaan. 39 5c�. 23A & 2Z3 of PA.O.I.. 1 w 4 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,April 16,2008 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair),Richard Dionne,Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present was Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Absent: Annie Harris, Board Member and Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner Approval of Minutes Minutes of March 12, 2008 Beth Debski made a motion to approve the minutes of the special meeting on March 12, 2008, seconded by Rick Dionne and approved (4-0) (Stein, Dionne, Debski, Curran). Minutes of March 19, 2008 Regarding the March 191h meeting, Amy Lash said she had received a call from an abutter who believed it was the Board's intention to make the relocation of the tenant in the rooming house at 1 Hamilton Street a condition. Amy said the the decision that was filed did not include this as a condition, and the minutes reflect that the owner offered to do this though the Board did not • make it a condition. Amy acknowledged that Attorney Atkins was present. Robin Stein said she believed the decision and minutes were accurate. Beth Debski made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Rick Dionne and approved (5-0) (Stein, Debski, Curran, Dionne, Belair). CONTINUED: Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD [BPD]. Attorney Balliro said the material requested at the last meeting was submitted to the Board. He said this included the information about dust and the DEP Consent Order. He said the consent order requires to road to be hard packed to lessen the fear of erosion. Bonnie Belair asked for clarification about who AAA Enterprises is. Attorney Balliro said he was Mr. Hutchinson's son Mike. Beth Debski said that the information provided to the Board only included an amendment to the DEP Consent Order, and that she wants to see the full DEP Consent Order which preceded the amendment. Robin Stein agreed and said it is important to see the full Consent Order because said she is concerned with the roadway and the more intense use by heavy trucks. Rebecca Curran said the addendum to the Statement of Ground says the machine is being used to Y g comply with the Consent Order, do you intent to use this as a business after? Attorney Balliro said there is not intent to market the rock crushing operation, and they anticipate that they would • do a great deal of work for municipalities including Salem. 1 Attorney Balliro asked if the Board needed the original Consent Order and engineering plans. • Beth said yes. Robin said yes, I am concerned with the road. Robin Stein asked other than rock, what is going to be crushed? Fred Hutchinson said they would sort the dirt and rock and crush rock. Robin said if we grant the special permit, do you have a problem with the permit being limited to crushing stone? Fred Hutchinson said I don't want to crush cement that would require DEP approval, so I have no problem with you saying no concrete. Robin said she was concerned because building materials are brought onto the site. Robin Stein read a letter of support of the proposal from Councilor Joseph O'Keefe, as well as letters in opposition to the proposal from Robert Doyle, Tom Groom, and Thomas Amanti (all from businesses at 96 Swampscott Road). David Jacobson 12 Brittania Circle said he was opposed to the proposal and the Councilor is ( ) PP P P mistaken, it is not just another aspect added to the business. The vibrations will be tremendous, 200 homeowners will file for tax abatements for the reduction to the value of their property. The dust can't be contained. Tom Groom (Groom Construction, 96 Swampsoctt Road) said he has been involved in constructing the YMCA and is qualified to speak about rock crushers since they have one on the YMCA site. He said it is disruptive, it's not quiet and it's dusty. He said the area was zoned to BPD for a reason. He is concerned about the warm weather months when the windows will be • open, and agrees with the comments of the gentleman who spoke before him. Dale Tarrant(Jaqueline's Bakery, 96 Swampscott Road) said they produce food on site and can't have this use next door. Lori Appleman (19 Brittania Circle) said she has a direct line of vision into the junk yard, and she already can't leave her windows open without disruptive noise. Bill Mann(29 Brittania Circle) can't leave his windows open. His foundation rocks from the Aggregate's activity and the truck traffic. Rob Doyle (Doyle Sails, 96 Swampscott) doesn't want the dust. Garry Cook (representing North Shore Tennis and Squash) says they have two outdoor courts and he is speaking on behalf of the club against the proposal. Russ Austin (6 Captains Lane) said he is concerned with the noise and processing rubbish. Attorney Kenneth Shutzer(Lynn, MA) represents the Mongellos and said he has a copy of the consent order. He submitted a photo of a mound of debris on the property at 15 Robinson Road. He said the Zoning Ordinance is clear in the intent of what the Business Park Development District is for. He reviewed allowed and prohibited uses saying a rock crusher would fall into the category of prohibited. He asked that the Board go look at the site. He said bringing material . 2 • into the site and having to deal with it is not a hardship. He said we don't know what materials exist there. He said if you start grinding up this debris there will be no containment. He said the Board should not allow debris to be airborne at the expense of others. He said the dirt road is very narrow and more like a path in bad shape. He said his clients Carmine and Angelo Mongello are masons who have lived on their land for years. Aggregate looks like a meteor hit the ground. Their crusher is at the bottom of a pit to mitigate the noise. He said people moved to the area assuming a predictable level of use and this is a further non permitted use. He asked that the Board deny the application. Ward 3 Councilor Jean Pelletier said the City moved the petitioner from Boston Street tothesite in the early 60s. Yes it is BPD, but it was industrial. He said he feels sorry for the people Aggregate disturbs. He read into the record a letter from Councilor Leonard O'Leary to former Chairperson Nina Cohen. He said Salem has 330 DEP sites and the Council for the petition has submitted and addendum. The DEP Consent order it to alleviate an appeal filed by an abutter. He said the Conservation Commission is no longer involved and DEP took over. He said he was up on Brittania when the test was done and the noise level is not too bad, and dust wasn't a problem. Rebecca Curran asked if the rock crusher is mobile. Attorney Balliro said yes, it can be moved to other locations. Robin Stein said so he can be using it at other locations around the property. Robin Stein asked when the noise study was done how long the machine was run for. Fred Hutchinson said a couple of hours. Councilor Pelletier said one hour. • Bonnie asked if there is anything that can be put on the machine to mitigate dust. Fred Hutchinson said moisture can be sprayed. He said there is a misunderstanding and he is not crushing trash, they don't have chemicals on their property, and they have never dumped oil on the property. He said the stockpile of material came from excavation at Swampscott High School, not deconstruction. Rebecca Curran asked when they were ordered to cease operation. Fred Hutchinson said 1 or 2 years ago. Rebecca asked when they started operating the machine. Fred Hutchinson said he has had the machine for 10 or 15 years. Beth said she thinks it will be helpful to have the DEP Consent Order. Bonnie said that the Board is familiar with the site and she wants to find a middle ground, she suggested that they might limit the hours of operation and said there are already regulations in place to keep them for exceeding the allowed noise level. Robin said she may want to see improvements to the road. A site visit was scheduled for April 26`h at 10:00 am. Later in meeting it rescheduled to May 3`d at 10:00 am, the Planning Department will make phone calls to those that signed in. Rick Dionne made a motion to continue the item to the next meeting on May 21", seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0) (Stein,Debski, Curran, Dionne, Belair). Attorney Balliro signed a time a time requirement waiver. • 3 ti CONTINUED: Petition of CLIFFORD AGELOFF requesting a variance from the maximum height of accessory structures to allow for a 173' tall temporary wind monitoring tower on the property of the Fairweather Apartments located at 40R HIGHLAND AVENUE [R31. Clifford Ageloff introduced Karen Bomquist of the Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH). Karen explained that at the point, POAH is only looking to conduct a wind study; they are not yet proposing a wind turbine. She said if they decided to propose a wind turbine, they would be returning to the Board in 18-24 months. She said that POAH is a not for profit that purchases properties that would otherwise become market rate. She said POAH owns 341 affordable units, which is close to half of all the affordable housing in Salem. She said the Fairweather property is primarily occupied by elderly residents on fixed incomes. She said they receive subsidies to pay the difference between the rent and operating costs, and they have to face that oil is above $150 per barrel. POAH has a long term commitment to the property and has made other efforts to improve energy efficiency. They received a grant from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative to conduct the study. Karen said that met tower installations have been done recently in Canton and Manchester By- The-Sea. Visuals of example of"met" towers in other Massachusetts communities were presented to the Board. Karen said there are no blades and it would be removed when complete. She said the nearest buildings are owned by POAH. She said it is necessary to measure wind at different heights on the tower and the height of the tower will be similar to standard TV or radio • towers, or to cranes. She said the tower would be galvanized steel and hollow similar to the one in Canton. She said tower needs to be up for a year to study the wind resources of the different seasons. Amy Lash read letters of support from Cindy Keegan, Chair of the Renewable Energy Task Force, as well as Mayor Kimberly Driscoll. Amy said she received calls from Bertha Morin, Deborah Sabri, Jospeh LaBella, Olga Sokolowski, and the McGoverns asking that their names be mentioned in favor; Ms. Marcey and Leanne Duncan called to ask that her name be mentioned as opposed; Leanne Duncan also submitted an email in opposition. Karen Blomquist submitted a petition in support of the request which was signed by twenty-five (25) residents of Salem Heights, as well as Twenty-one (21) individual petitions signed by residents of the Fairweather Apartments at 40R Highland Avenue. Robin Stein said this is a reasonable use of the land. Bonnie Belair said that it would temporary. Rebecca Curran made a motion to approve the request to allow the tower for 13 months with three standard conditions seconded by Rick Dionne and approved 5-0 (Stein, Debski, Curran, Dionne, Belair). Petition of AMY CHEVOOR requesting variances from lot area per dwelling unit and parking requirements, and a special permit to modify an existing nonconforming structure to allow for a first floor retail space to be converted to an apartment at 26 BOSTON STREET [R21. • 4 • Amy Chevoor introduced herself and her husband, Steven Chevoor. She said they would like to convert one storefront into an apartment. There are ten (10) parking spaces for the building. Currently, the unit is vacant. There is already a bathroom and sink. The dimensions are 12' wide x 26' long (312 square feet). Robin Stein asked what the most recent use of the space was. Amy Chevoor said it has been a barbershop, she said no changes to the exterior are proposed. They need to add a shower stall. The building was built in 1917 with eight units. She said they have found very little demand for the storefront and there once no interest when they advertised. She said a barbershop is next door. They would like to hookup a refrigerator and a stove. Rebecca Curran asked if the parking spaces were dedicated. The Chevoors said no, they are not dedicated and their have not been issues. Robin Stein said that she would prefer to have Tom St. Pierre's guidance on what might be required in the Building Code to change the space to a residential use. Bonnie Belair agreed and noted that the space is very small. Beth Debski made a motion continue the public hearing to the next meeting on May 21st, seconded by Rebecca Curran and approved (5-0) (Stein, Debski, Curran, Dionne, Belair). Amy Chevoor signed a time requirement waiver. • Petition of ANGELO MEIMETEAS seeking variances from minimum lot size and minimum lot width to construct a single family home at 2 PROSPECT AVENUE [132 and R2]. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition. He said that Angelo Meimeteas is a local builder who lives on Cloverdale Avenue. He owns Anne Marie's hair salon, which his wife operates. He has rehabbed several properties in Salem. Attorney Grover said the lot at 2 Prospect Avenue has a significant grade change which makes the upper part of the lot unusable. He said his client is proposing to create two lots and is seeking two variances: one variance is from lot width, the other from lot size. His client is proposing to construct a single family home on the new Butler Street lot with parking in the front. An image of what the home would took like was presented, and Attorney Grover said the plan they have chosen for the home actually has a narrower footprint than what is shown on the site plan.- Attorney Grover presented images of other projects Angelo worked on. He said Angelo makes a commitment to improving the quality of the neighborhood. He said Angelo has talked to the neighbors in this neighborhood and obtained twenty-nine signatures on a petition in favor. He said the Board needs to make three findings: 1. there are unique conditions relating to this property not generally affecting the district 2. hardship- the land would be otherwise unusable • 3. the proposal does not deviate from the intent of the ordinance 5 Attorney Grover presented a copy of the Assesor's Map with check marks on lots under 10,000 • square feet. He said the Board had previously approved a lot of 7,200 sq ft with 45 ft of frontage and 27 neighbors signing a petition opposed. Bonnie Belair asked how the house will be accessed, on Butler Street? Attorney Grover said yes. Bonnie said she agrees the grade change is significant. Angelo Meimeteas said the design would take advantage of the grade change with a walk out basement with sliders or french doors. Beth Debski asked- how tall is the proposed house? Angelo said he doesn't have the specifications but knows it would be the height requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. Robin Stein said the Board would need an updated plan to keep on record. Robin opened the public portion of the hearing. Amy Lash read a letter signed by Peter Copelas and Peter Copelas Jr. into the record, this letter opposed the petitioner's request. Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan spoke in support of the project. Edward Young (30 Butler Street) said that Angelo Meimeteas had agreed not to block his kitchen window. He asked if any blasting would be required. Angelo Meimeteas said no blasting would be necessary. Councillor At-Large Arthur Sargent said he likes the project very much and how the design goes • with the topography of the land. Bonnie Belair said she thought it was an attractive plan in an attractive neighborhood and to see so many in support is short of amazing. Robin Stein said there is 100 feet in back and the setbacks are being complied with. She said this does not take away from the intent of the ordinance and it would be similar to other lots in the district. Beth Debski made a motion to approve the request for variances with seven standard conditions and two special conditions: the condition that a revised plan be submitted showing the smaller footprint, and that the residence not block the window at 30 Butler Street, The motion was seconded by Rick Dionne and approved (5-0) (Stein, Debski, Curran, Dionne, Belair). Robin Stein recused herself from the petition for 110-114 Swampscott Road and exited the room. Petition of DANA & DAVID DILISIO requesting a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go-cart track at 110-114 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD [BPD1. Attorney LeClair presented the site plan. He mentioned that the DiLisio's have an agreement with the North Shore Racket and Tennis club for parking. He said they filed with the Conservation Commission, but the Commission requested that they first go to the Board of Appeals. He said there is an intermittent stream on the property. • 6 • He said the principle noises onsite are the traffic on Swampscott Road and the waterfalls on the golf course. He said the noise projection was done for ten(10) carts. He said the noise is generally projected to be no greater than the ambient noise. He said the carts have noise control with mufflers and silencers. He said the noise level produced by modern go-carts is less than those from ten(10) years ago. He said amusement rides must be licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety. Rebecca Curran asked what sort of traffic a use like this generates. Attorney LeClair said the parking is adequate because the maximum number of people on the go-carts would be eight. They are planning on twenty additional spaces if they are allowed by the Conservation Commission. Rebecca Curran asked why eight-go carts? Is it limited by the size of the track? Attorney LeClair said they are only asking for eight. Bonnie Belair asked what the top speed is. Attorney LeClair said the top speed is 18 mph. Bonnie asked if there would be a fence to separate the track from the road? Attorney LeClair said the Department of Public Safety requires fencing; it will likely be chain link with rubber tires functioning as bumpers with a structural metal piece like a guard rail. Bonnie asked what is the width of the track? Mr. Dilisio said 24 ft. Jim Hacker (4 Mayflower Lane) said the residents of Mariners Villager are opposed and that • recreation doesn't belong in the Business Park Development Zone. He said the property had been before the Board of Appeals in the past and in October of 1999 a similar proposal was denied. He said he hoped a vote was taken tonight, and if the Board allows the application to be withdrawn, they do so with prejudice. He said the petitioner was just waiting for the Board to turn over to try again. He said he takes his grandchildren to the golf course, which is well kept, but he can heard the noise from the golf course at home. He didn't hear that the parking lease is in perpetuity. He thinks the noise will be very disruptive and said that karaoke was denied at the Willows years ago. He said the proposal would create a hardship for the neighborhood, exasperate the situation on Swampscott Road, and become a destination and place to go. People will be walking on Swampscott Road, which is not well lit and dangerous. He requested that the Board of Appeals deny the petition. He said there is no hardship, the purpose and spirit of the ordinance is to support business and not go-carts. Russ Austin (6 Captains Lane) owns a unit in a complex of 325 units which yields large tax revenue to the City and can't imagine this will bring in much revenue. He said there is no evidence of wetlands or air quality studies. He said the noise study with one stationary cart was not adequate. He said Groom Construction has been a good neighbor and added light industry as well as solar and wind power, this would not be a good neighbor -think about eight lawnmowers running. David Jacobson (12 Brittania Circle) knows there will be a fence, and they can add landscaping, but this is a valley and noise rises. He can hear people talking in the mini golf course at night and now there is the proposed rock crushing operation as well and having these simultaneously is • ridiculous. He said the noise has not been tested where he lives and if people are wrong about 7 't the noise, than it won't be something that can be undone. He asked if the City wants to buy the • condominium units or give tax abatements. David Dextrom (96 Swampscott Road Unit 7) develops pharmaceuticals and came into the space to nm a professional business. He is opposed to the proposal. Elizabeth Mercy (Mariner's Village) said the golf course is visible from her deck. She has been the original owner of her units since 1997 and picked the home site for the view. With the windows open she can hear conversations from the golf course; she also hears the golf balls being collected from the driving range. She feels go carts will be more intrusive. She did not object to the golf course and ice cream stand. They are already imposed on by Aggregate Industries. This will pollute the air. They have dealt with many new businesses coming in and creating more traffic and pollution. She is concerned this will drive the birds away and says it is ironic to have go-carts in this sanctuary. She said this will hurt the resale value of the property. She said in Mariner's Village they pay substantial taxes and receive few City services. They pay out of pocket to beautify the road and there has been many new eyesores on Swampscott Road. She thinks the City has an obligation to now allow the go-carts. Ted Stolls (4 Britannia Circle) says he overlooks the mini golf course. He says that they waterfall was described as creating significant noise, though it is more tranquil than an engine. He uses Highland Woods and can't imagine somebody out there with a chainsaw. Councilor At-Large Joan Lovely was at the Conservation Commission meeting and at that time • suggested a neighborhood meeting because of the extensive abutters list. She received three (3) emails opposed and one (1) in favor. Bonnie Belair said she felt that the use may be dangerous. Beth Debski asked whether this would be a use variance. Attorney LeClair said he spoke to the Building Inspector who agreed applying for a special permit was the correct avenue to go through. He said at the Conservation Commission meeting they heard only two (2) objections. Beth said she would prefer for the Building Inspector to be present. Rebecca Curran said she would like a report about decibel levels at the property lines. A motion was made by Beth Debski to continue the hearing to May 21", seconded by Rick Dionne and approved (4-0) (Debski, Curran, Dionne, Belair). Attorney LeClair signed a time requirement waiver. Robin Stein returned to participate in the remainder of the meeting. Old/New Business Amy Lash announced that the City was sponsoring an Earth Day event at the Carlton School, the `h following night, April 17 . • 8 There being no further business before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Beth Debski made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Rick Dionne and approved (5-0). The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Amy Lash, Staff Planner • 9 ho`��4ommrg9s� CITY OF SALEM k DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET* 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: April 9, 2008 RE: Meeting Agenda- April 16, 2008 Hello Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: . ➢ Planner's Memo Agenda Minutes: March 12, 2008 and March 19, 2008 ➢ Petitions and Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 15 Robinson Road (BPD) (Continued) AAA Enterprises & Services is seeking a special permit to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 Robinson Road. This would be an additional nonconforming use, rather than a change in nonconforming use. The property is currently used as an auto salvage yard. In your packet you will find the following new materials pertaining to this application: a DVD of the rock crusher in operation, the Notice of Noncompliance from DEP, proposed hours of operation, a site plan, a copy of the assessor's map, and a map generated by the City's GIS website. I will bring a laptop to the meeting for anybody who would like to view the DVD. 40R Highland Avenue (R-3) (Continued) Clifford Ageloff, the construction clerk for the Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH), is seeking a variance from the maximum height of accessory structures to erect a meteorological tower 173 feet in height on the Fairweather Apartment property. The purpose of the tower is to measure wind speed at that height and location for a period of 13 months to determine if the site is suitable for a wind turbine. After realizing there were neighbors and residents with questions about the plans, POAH requested to continue the item to the April meeting so that they could hold a meeting with neighbors and elected officials. The neighborhood meeting was held last week. Since then I have received one email and three phone calls from residents who have asked me to inform the Board of Appeals that they are in support of the project. Those who have contacted me are Deborah Sabri, Joseph LaBella, Olga Sokolowski, and the McGoverns. 26 Boston Street (R-2) Amy Chevoor is seeking variances from lot area per dwelling unit and parking requirements, and a special permit to modify an existing nonconforming structure to allow for a first floor retail space to be converted to an apartment at 26 Boston Street. The property has six residential units and two commercial units. 2 Prospect Avenue (B-2 and R-2) Angelo Meimeteas is seeking variances from minimum lot size and minimum lot width to construct a single family home at 2 Prospect Avenue. The current lot is in two zoning districts and contains a single family home along Prospect Street, which is located in the B-2 District. The proposed lot, which has frontage on Butler Street, is entirely in the R-2 district. This lot has a proposed lot area of 9,282 square feet and a lot width of 50 feet. The remaining lot with frontage on Prospect Street would become 13,662 square feet. 110-114 Swampscott Road (BPD) Dana and David Dilisio are requesting a special permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for a go-cart track at 110-114 Swampscott Road. A miniature golf course currently exists on the property. In 1996 a variance for a change of use was granted to allow for the miniature golf course. Accompanying the petition are a number of enclosures including three past decisions of the Board of Appeals. It is Tom St. Pierre's opinion that Site Plan Review by the Planning Board would not be triggered by the plans because the Zoning Ordinance requires 10,000 square feet of nonresidential gross building area. •` The applicants have filed a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission continued the item to May 8`h and asked that the applicants return after ensuring that the use would be allowed. 2 u++ C"' l �► a� riv�cntaffah att tvino PVwv� 1s`tzob�hSgcaMea City of Salem DPC �`��� �v)�es� Meeting Sign In She v i<oi{ -rb IS �'nswl ..� 1� be inSG�� on Board: Date: Name Mailing Address Phone # Email 45 %�� ;� 7 G, Cai�7/f[NS Lq•vG 97,F- W5"3✓31 33 G� (,Z L4 • 2� i3�.f , '® G r 97� 6 �� o 1 G � r � �/f0 [✓¢,-�� l /q�('" ���/ -fib b�n atiL Sen3KCe'"1 Joy ( J�� lZiri�r e� 5,-ZsxlPC, r5Z 3 6416/W6 ukQ 5' p�oir�- ��g 978- 1y6"- a31) eds�ol2U`'cc O r City of Salem DPCD Meeting Sign In Sheet Board: 2QA Date: Name Mailing Address Phone # Email 1 qG r"" , y 90 " Cd C0fv✓ 9� 5�j2-n4.4ScctFfCd SaQQ,I �7�- j4e kr 73-'7�4-y ' J etuyn� �wncu^^7 32 ih�rb A� 4 - 4( fl23e { <,1� 71' v�i�i, .rfL�, ���'. ��Sy��� m�'iu a�13 Pn os� � cam^✓ �� �-.w1 �liy,�✓ � 2`I �..n.,--� C. 1 �76 �Y/ -��rJ' u 4 .► �I' .�w9-.n:o rc 0 ffd 9. 5�- '`O- �� ✓2�.��P��ylc.rG,�f A 'Pro- t�,tA ?u bell 01460-owa 57F-53a-`l4yo CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL v«. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 * I& FAx: 978-740.9848 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL WHAM -1--P 4r 44 MAYOR FILE # May 1, 2008 CITY CLERK. SALEM.MASS. Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Clifford Ageloff requesting a variance from the maximum height of accessory structures to allow for a 173' tall temporary wind monitoring tower on the property of the Fairweather Apartments located at OR Highland Avenue [R31. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 16, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on April 16,2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein(Chair),Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne,and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks a variance pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Sec. 7-8 Accessory Buildings and Structures. Statements of fact: 1. Cliff Ageloff, Construction Clerk for the Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH)introduced Manager of Communications,Kim Blomquist. 2. Materials accompanying the petition include NRG TallTower Specifications, a photograph of the Fairweather Apartments with the proposed tower superimposed, an aerial photograph showing the proposed location,and photographs of meteorological towers that have been erected elsewhere in Massachusetts. 3. POAH is seeking a variance to erect a temporary meteorological tower in the wooded area behind the Fairweather Apartments for a period of thirteen months. 4. The purpose of the tower is to collect data to determine if wind power is a possible option for generating electricity for the Salem Fairweather and Salem Heights apartment complexes,affordable housing which POAH owns and operates. These two properties are financed to remain affordable to elderly and disabled residents for the next several decades. POAH has made a number of efforts to improve the energy efficiency of these properties in order to manage rising energy costs. 0 2 S. POAH received grant funding from the Massachusetts Tec)mology Collaborative and MassHousing to explore the possibility of using wind power to produce electricity for the two properties. 6. Karen Blomquist submitted a petition in support of the request which was signed by twenty-five(25)residents of Salem Heights,as well as Twenty-one(2 1) individual petitions signed by residents of the Fairweather Apartments at 40R Highland Avenue. 7. Letters of support were submitted by Cindy Keegan,Chair of the City's Renewable Energy Taskforce, as well as Mayor Kimberly Driscoll. 8. The Department of Planning and Community Development received calls from Bertha Morin,Deborah Sabri,Joseph LaBella,Olga Sokolowski,and the McGovems requesting that their names be mentioned at the hearing as being in support of the request. 9. The Department of Planning and Community Development received calls from Ms.Marcey and Leanne Duncan requesting that their names be mentioned at the hearing as being in opposition to the request. Leanne Duncan also submitted a letter voicing opposition.. 10. There was no opposition to the t request at the public hearing. The Board of Appeal,after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing,and atter thorough review of the plans and petition submitted,makes the following findings: 1. The petitioner's request for a variance does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as the applicant seeks to evaluate the feasibility of an alternative clean energy resource; specifically wind power for the generation of electricity. The applicant provides affordable housing for many elderly Salem residents and managing rising energy costs is an essential component to affordability. 2. The request to erect a temporary tower does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner,which hardship is due to the maximum zoning height of 18 feet for accessory structures. There are no wind turbines in commercial production that could comply with the 18 foot requirement and it is therefore necessary to study wind resources at higher heights. Though many communities in Massachusetts have adopted ordinance provisions to regulate wind energy facilities by special permit, Salem has no ordinance provision to regulate this emerging technology. • 3 On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing k • including,but not limited to,the Plans,Documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. To allow for a 173 R meteorological tower for a period of thirteen(13) months,the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the maximum height allowed for accessory structures. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five(S)in favor (Dionne, Stein, Curran,Debsld,and Belair) and none(0)opposed,to grant petitioner's request subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues,ordinances,codes, and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board. • Robin Stein, Chw Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FaED WrrH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE MY CLERIC 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 Cleric 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. 44 CITY OF SALEMp MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740.9848 _ �KIMSERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MpoKAY —I P 1: 49 May 1, 2008 FILE # CITY CLERK, SALEM.MASS, Decis'on City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Angelo Meimeteas seeking variances from minimum lot size and minimum lot width to construct a single family home at 2 PROSPECT AVENUE [B2 and R21. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 16,2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch.40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on April 16, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein(Chair),Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski,Richard Dionne,and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table I Residential Density Regulations. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner,Angelo Melmete4p,owns 2 Prospect Avenue, a property located in the Business Highway(B2)and Residential Two Family(R2)Zoning District. 2. The petition is accompanied by a plan entitled,"Proposed Plot Plan"prepared for Angelo Meimeteas,by Parsons and Faia Inc.,dated October 17, 2007. 3. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. 4. There is presently one single family dwelling located on the property. The petitioner is proposing to subdivide the property into two separate lots and build a single family home on the new lot"Lot 2". S. The proposed"Lot 2"has frontage on Butler Street and is entirely in the R-2 District. The remaining lot,"I.ot l-,would be located predominately in the B-2 District. "Lot 1"meets minimum lot size requirements for the B-2 District and has adequate frontage on Prospect Avenue. No new or greater nonconformities would be caused by the proposed subdivision. 6. The proposed"Lot 2"has a lot area of 9,282 square feet,and a lot width of 50 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires a lot in the R-2 district to have 15,000 • square feet of area and 100 feet of lot width. The petitioner is seeking variances from minimum lot size and minimum lot width. 2 7. Attorney Grover presented a rendering of the design that is planned for the residence and stated that the footprint of the home would be smaller than the footprint shown on the plot plan. •� . 8. Angelo Meimeteas agreed that he would build further back from the street so the new structure would not block the kitchen window of Edward Young's residence at 30 Butler Street. 9. Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan and Councilor At-Large Arthur Sargent spoke in support of the petitioner's request during the public hearing. 10. Attorney Grover submitted a petition which was signed by twenty-nine(29) residents of Butler Street, Crescent Drive,Wall Street, Wall Street Court, Summit Street,Purchase Street,Boston Street,and Rawlins Street. 11.The Board of Appeal received a letter co-signed by Peter Copelas and Peter Copelas Jr. opposing the petitioner's request. 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 configuration and topography of the present lot is extremely irregular. These are unique conditions affecting the locus,not generally affecting other lots in the neighborhood and Zoning District. . 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would prevent the landowner from using a substantial portion of his property,this would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner. 3. The proposed lot is similar to other lots in the neighborhood and variances requested are not contrary to the public interest. Owing to special conditions 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: 1. To allow for the construction of a single family home,the petitioner may vary the temps of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,specifically the requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot width so as to have a lot with an area of 9,282 square feet and a lot width of 50 feet. 2. in permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. . v 3 In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five(5)in favor (Dionne, Stein,Curran, Belair, and Debski)and 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 statues,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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,a revised plan shall showing the reduced footprint and the increased setback from the street shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Appeals for the petition file. 9. The new structure shall not block the kitchen window of the residence located at 30 Butler Street. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FEED WITH THE PIANN NO BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pisaund to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of f0ing of this decision in the office of the City Clark. Pursuant to die Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,die variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effx until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • ooNwrga CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS o� BOARD OF APPEAL �e 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR v _ r „ j a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 , '� 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 April 16,2008 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: Clifford Ageloff Location: 40R Highland Avenue Request: Variance Description: Request for a variance from the maximum height of accessory structures to allow for a 173'tall temporary wind monitoring tower on the property of the Fairweather Apartments. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk May 1,2008 Petition of: Angelo Meimeteas Location: 2 Prospect Avenue Request: Variances Description: Request for variances from minimum lot size and minimum lot width to construct a single family home at 2 Prospect Avenue. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk May 1, 2008. This nmxe is sem in corphance with theMassa&taetts General Lazes, Chapter 40A, Satiorrs 9& 15 and does nct regi im action by the nxipem Appeals, if arty, shall be nude pursuam to Chapter 40A, Section 17,and shall le fkd wthm 20 dais from the daze vhidr the derision zags filed wth the City Clerk. 1 S�S�pg SKI' �y� rodorr��a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS -..� �. BOARD OF APPEAL x m. 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 O 9 ' FAX: 978-740-9846 tn1 KIMBERLEYMPrED��a DRISCOLL HIM lAIR I4 A II' 03 MAYOR F AGENDA (REVISED) BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING March 19, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 -. 120 WASHINGTON STREET O \ Robin S n,Chair C c I. Approval of Minutes o March 12, 2008 = ' 2. Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN Sa =.'. REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to " allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON 7 ROAD [BPD]. 3. Petition of JOSHUA LEVES UE requesting a Variance from side yard setback • and a Special Permit to modify a nonconforming structure to construct an 8' x III ` addition at 268 JEFFERSON AVENUE [B-1]. r� 4. Petition of MARK & DANIELLE CSOGI requesting Variances from maximum.' lot coverage, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard to install an above group pool 21' in diameter and an attached 10' x 21' deck at 3 CY�4 ORCHARD TERRACE [R-1]. 5. Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS requesting a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the photography studio on the first floor to be converted to five (5) professional offices at 315-317 ESSEX STREET [R-2]. 6. Petition of ORILLE L'HEUREUX requesting a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the ten (10) unit rooming house to be converted to a three (3) unit residence and a variance from parking regulations to allow two (2) tandem parking spaces for each residence at 1 HAMILTON STREET [R-2]. 7. Petition of PATRICK CHASSE requesting variances from minimum lot size and minimum lot width to constrict a single family home at 21 BARCELONA AVENUE [R-I]. 8. Petition of GROOM REALTY requesting to modify a previous variance decision to allow the height of the existing 41' wind turbine to be increased by 6' at 96 1 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD [BPD]. The previous variance granted relief from the maximum height of accessory Structures. 9. Petition of CLIFFORD AGELOFF requesting a variance from the maximum height of accessory structures to allow for a 173' tall temporary wind monitoring tower on the property of the Fairweather Apartments located at 40R HIGHLAND AVENUE [R3]. 10. Old/New Business o Attorney Joseph Correnti requesting an additional six (6) month extension for variances granted October 18, 2006 for the property located at 28 GOODHUE STREET. o Action to direct the Building Inspector to revoke the permit to construct a single family dwelling at 21 BARCELONA AVENUE as instructed by the Land Court. 11. Adjournment • 2 CITY OF SALEM DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ 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: March 12, 2008 RE: Meeting Agenda- March 19, 2008 Hello Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Petitions and Materials for Agenda Items Note: I will try and get the minutes for the Special Meeting on March 12th in the mail in time for you to review them for March 19th. If Board Members would like additional time, we could continue the approval of these minutes to the meeting in April. Notes on Agenda Items: 15 Robinson Road AAA Enterprises & Services is seeking a special permit to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 Robinson Road. This would be an additional nonconforming use, rather than a change in nonconforming use. The property is currently used as an auto salvage yard. The petitioner will be bringing an aerial photograph and/or map to the meeting to show where on the property this activity is proposed. 268 Jefferson Avenue Joshua Levesque is requesting a variance from side yard setback and a special permit to modify a nonconforming structure to construct an 8' x 11' addition. The plans show that a small entryway will be torn down and a slightly larger (8' x 11') entryway will be rebuilt. 3 Orchard Terrace Mark Csogi is requesting variances from maximum lot coverage, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard to install an above ground pool 21' in diameter and an attached 10' x 21' deck. The shed currently in this location would be relocated as depicted on the plans. 315-317 Essex Street Stephen Morris is requesting a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the photography studio on the first floor to be converted to five (5) professional offices. 1 Hamilton Street Orille L'Heureux is requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the ten (10) unit rooming house to be converted to a three (3) unit residence and a variance from parking regulations to allow two (2) tandem parking spaces for each of the three units. This would provide six (6) parking spaces, which is more than the number of spaces required by the ordinance (41/2). 21 Barcelona Avenue Attorney Stephen Lovely has filed a petition on behalf of Patrick Chasse requesting variances from lot area and lot width to allow the construction of a single family dwelling at 21 Barcelona Avenue. ' A few weeks ago, Beth Rennard informed us that the Land Court determined that 21 Barcelona Avenue is not a non-conforming, buildable lot but instead merged with 19 Barcelona Avenue. 9 The Court remanded the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals with instructions to direct the Building Inspector to revoke the permit to construct a single family dwelling. The City's Legal Department received a notice that this Land Court decision was appealed; the Assistant City Solicitor, Jerry Parisella, will be advising the Board of Appeals on whether or not the Land Court instructions to revoke the building permit should be followed at this time. 96 Swampscott Road In July of 2007, the Board of Appeals granted a variance from the maximum height of accessory structures (18 feet) to allow for a wind turbine at 96 Swampscott Road with an overall height of 41 feet with the turbine blades at the highest point. Groom Realty is returning to the Board of Appeals because they would like to increase the height of the turbine by six (6) feet, making the turbine height 47 feet at the highest point. 40R Highland Avenue Clifford Ageloff is seeking a variance from the maximum height of accessory structures to erect a meteorological tower 173 feet in height on the Fairweather Apartment property. The purpose of the tower is to measure wind speed at that height and location for a period of 13 months to determine if the site is suitable for a wind turbine. 1 believe the Building Code sets a time limit for temporary structures and will check with Tom St. Pierre on this. Old/New Business 28 Goodhue Street On September 19, 2007 the Zoning Board of Appeal granted a six (6) month extension for 28 Goodhue Street, for variances granted by the Board in a decision date-stamped October 18, 2006. The extension will be up on April 18, 2008. On behalf of the petitioner, North River Canal LLC, Attorney Joseph Correnti is requesting an additional six (6) month extension. This would make the variance valid through October 18, 2008 (two years after the original decision). The Site Plan ReviewMetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit granted by the Planning Board is valid for two years and would therefore lapse February 20, 2009. The Special Use Permit for the North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District is due to lapse April 13, 2008; an extension has been requested from the Planning Board for this permit. City of Salem DPCD Meeting Sign In Sheet Board: z-�EA Date: 3/t'� f QE Name Mailing Address Phone # / Email 9- se 44 ��c�� Al 3- 6 9 Jdh G00%( ( 7 z q Rre4er (9 > B ) >vS 6 v G r� :,v A,' � 1r �z tax ��/� H 67674 P6� 77 / —�3/'�(9��� vLt swi • -11 CflREh' S'� �� Pn�7— � � � ©9 I City of Salem DPCD « Meeting Sign In Sheet Board: :7-M Date: /a 6 N me Mailing Address Phone # Email • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,March 19, 2008 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday,March 19, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein(chairperson), Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski,Rebecca Curran, Annie Harris, and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Business Items Petition of CLIFFORD AGELOFF requesting a variance from the maximum height of accessory structures to allow for a 173' tall temporary wind monitoring tower on the property of the Fairweather Apartments located at 40R HIGHLAND AVENUE [R31. Robin Stein announced that the Board received a letter from the Salem Fairweather Energy Project Team requesting that their petition be continued to April 16, 2008 so that they have an opportunity to meet with neighbors. Rebecca Curran made a motion to continue the petition for 40R Highland Avenue, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0). Attorney Joseph Correnti requesting an additional six (6) month extension for variances • granted October 18, 2006 for the property located at 28 GOODHUE STREET. Attorney Correnti explained that 28 Goodhue Street is not yet fully financed. He is before the Board to request a six month extension for the variances granted in October of 2006. Annie Harris made a motion to grant the extension, seconded by Rick Dionne and approved (5-0). Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Beth Debski to continue the approval of the March 12, 2008 minutes to April 16, 2008 to provide the Board with time to review them, seconded by Rebecca Curran and approved(5-0). Public Hearing Petition of AAA ENTERPRISES & SERVICES on behalf of MOUNTAIN REALTY TRUST requesting a Special Permit to add a nonconforming use to allow for the receipt and processing of stone, soil, and loam at 15 ROBINSON ROAD [BPD1. Attorney Joseph Balliro Jr. presented the petition on behalf of Mountain Realty Trust and AAA Enterprises. He explained that they are seeking permission to use equipment for occasional projects where jobs are done offside and they would like to bring materials back. He submitted an additional site plan showing the location of the equipment as well as a study done by • Acentech about the sound levels that would come from the rock crusher. He said that they are in 1 • a Business Park Development area, which is principally commercial and industrial with no residential abutters. He said that there should be no increase in dust or noise. Bonnie Belair asked if the rock will be brought to the site to be crushed. Attorney Balliro said yes, occasionally, they would receive rock and soil. Bonnie Belair asked will any material be for sale? Attorney Balliro asked his client who said, some will be for sale, but most will be for their own use. Bonnie Belair asked if this machine was already on site. Attomy Balliro replied yes, it has been for sometime. Rebecca Curran asked if this would be a secondary use to what is already occurring on the property. Attorney Balliro referred to section 7-6 and said yes, it would be a secondary use. Robin Stein said she was not sure Sec. 7-6 is a perfect fit because it includes removal and quarrying. Tom St. Pierre explained that quarrying, is when you take material from the site, the word processing might be more appropriate in this case. Annie Harris asked if the machine is already there has it been used. Attorney Balliro said it has been used. Building Commissioner Tom St. Pierre explained he had issued a cease and desist order which prohibits further use of the machine. Beth Debski said you mentioned, DEP compliance, do you have a copy of the consent order? What is the issue with DEP? Attorney Balliro said they are using the soil and rock on site to comply with DEP regulations. It would save a great deal of money; otherwise his client would • have to buy the material. Beth asked if traffic would increase. Attorney Balliro said there would be some increase in truck traffic, with some people coming to buy the material but not much more that what is there now. Robin Stein asked what the frequency of truck trips was when it was operating. Mr. Hutchinson said four or five trucks per day. Annie Harris asked if the zoning prohibits selling. Tom St. Pierre said it is a business property and there is no limit on selling. Robin Stein asked after the DEP order is complied with, do you intend to keep operating this machine? Attorney Balliro said he believed there was a two year time limit on a special permit. Robin Stein said the two year time limit is only that you must use it within two years, or you loose it. Attorney Patrick DeIulis (6 Seemore Street, Salem) spoke on behalf of the Mongiellos. He said there actually are residential abutters and there are five (5) residents on the Mongiello property. He said they are not in opposition, but have questions. They would have preferred to have had these questions answered prior to the meeting. First, he indicated the Mongiellos are in favor of the DEP consent order which they need to comply with at 15 Robinson Road. He said they want to know what the plan is for the stockpile of material brought on site. He said there is an existing unpaved driveway of variable width. He said the activity would bring increased truck traffic outside the windows of the dwellings and they would like to know what will be done to lessen the negative impact. He said the Mongiellos know there is a junkyard there, but they are not sure • about how this increased use will affect the sale and marketability of their property. 2 • Attorney Brian Le Clair(12 Fox Run Lane, Marblehead) representing the Delisios said his clients live on the right side of Robinson Road. He said they operate a miniature golf course and ice cream stand. He said they had arranged a meeting with the applicant, but that the applicant canceled the meeting. He said they would like more time to look at the report that was presented to the Board. He said that Robinson Road is narrow and close to the golf course. Robin Stein said she is pleased that the relationship between the neighbors has improved. Robin said she thinks there may be a need for roadway improvements and wants to know about impacts on the air. She said she thinks placing a time limit on the operation of the equipment would be appropriate. Attorney Balliro said the stockpile of material will be used to comply with the consent order and fixing the road. He said he doesn't know how to respond to the question about marketability because in this case he believed the abutters moved to an existing condition and the salvage yard has been operating for fifty(50) years. He said there has been civil action between the abutters and his client. He said they are talking about a machine everybody knows is there and they are complying with the City laws. Bonnie Belair said the neighbors have a right to know how this will affect their property and how it might be remediated. Robin Stein said though there may be a settlement agreement between the parties, she encourages that they meet on this particular matter before returning to the Board. She said she doesn't feel they have all the necessary information tonight, so it would be • premature to vote. She has concerns about the road and whether it can sustain additional truck traffic. Robin Stein and Beth Debski both said they would like to see the DEP Consent Order. Rebecca Curran asked that they outline their hours of operation. Annie Harris asked for a copy of the Assessor's Map. Amy Lash said she would send the Board copies of the Assessor's Map in their next packet. Beth Debski said the Business Park Development district was created to have clean uses and an extension of this use wouldn't be keeping with that. Rebecca Curran asked with this nonconforming grandfathered use, is a second use allowed? Tom St. Pierre said that in his opinion it was, otherwise it wouldn't be here. Ward 3 Councilor Jean Pelletier said this has been going on for two (2) years. The landscaping business across the City is doing similar things to what Mr. Hutchinson wants to do. Mr. Hutchinson was moved to this location by the City and cooperated. He said it is a business that has done many odd jobs. He's under DEP orders and has to get the cleanup job done. Robin Stein suggested entertaining a motion to continue the hearing to April 16, 2008. Beth Debski made a motion to continue the hearing until April 16", seconded by Robin Stein and approved (6-0). • Attorney Balliro said it was a contentious issue and he couldn't promise that they would meet. 3 • Petition of JOSHUA LEVESQUE requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to modify a nonconforming structure to construct an 8' x 11' addition at 268 JEFFERSON AVENUE [B-11. Joshua Levesque presented the petition along with his father, Bob Levesque. They purchased a home on Jefferson Avenue in need of repair. They are working on bringing the house back to its 1880 appearance. Robin Stein reviewed the plans and asked Tom St. Pierre if the stairs were considered to be part of the structure. Tom said not if they are open, only if they are covered. The petitioner presented the Board with photos of the work that had been done to the house to date. Annie Harris asked whether the siding was wood clapboard. The petitioner said yes. Ward 3 Councilor Jean Pellitier said he believes this is a fine project. He said he has been asked several times over the years what the status of the property was and he appreciates that the Levesques are fixing a blighted property. Tom St. Pierre noted that he has been familiar with the property for the past decade, and it has been a problem. He said he is familiar with Mr. Levesque's work restoring historic properties and that he is doing a great job on this one. • Rebecca Curran made a motion to approve the request for a variance subject to eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Rick Dionne and approved (5-0). Petition of MARK & DANIELLE CSOGI requesting Variances from maximum lot coverage, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard to install an above group pool 21' in diameter and an attached 10' x 21' deck at 3 ORCHARD TERRACE [R-11. The petitioners explained that they would like to install and above ground pool. They presented the Boards with plans showing there was an 18' pool in the yard in the same location before, as well as a deck. They would like to put in a slightly larger pool (21'). The submitted a petition in support of their request signed by seven(17) residents of Orchard Terrace and Manning Street. Annie Harris clarified that they would be putting in a larger pool, moving the shed, and adding a patio at ground level. Tom St. Pierre noted that the applicants had been very thorough in their application. Robin Stein said that she felt this was a minimal dimensional request and that it doesn't take away from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Robin Stein read the introduction of the petition which said as neighbors we have no objection to the addition of the pool and deck. Beth Debski asked if they are required to put up fencing. Tom St. Pierre said that City • Ordinances require a fenced pool or fenced yard with a four-foot high fence. Robin asked 4 • whether the applicants planned to put a fence around the pool. They said yes. Tom St. Pierre noted that the City is actually more restrictive than the State. Beth Debski made a motion to approve the request with five (5) standard conditions, seconded by Rick Dionne and approved (5-0). Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS requesting a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the photography studio on the first floor to be converted to five (5) professional offices at 315-317 ESSEX STREET [R-2]. Attorney George Atkins (59 Federal Street, Salem)presented the petition on behalf of Stephen Morris. He said they are requesting special permit to change the nonconforming use of the property to allow for an office use with five office spaces with common conference, lounge, and bathroom facilities. He said they held a meeting at the site and invited abutters. Two (2) residential abutters came. The space they are seeking a special permit for had been the Gainsboro Studio, a photography studio. At the time they submitted the application, to the Board of Appeals, the rest of the first floor was occupied by a hair salon. This space is now vacant. Attorney Atkins said there has been several interesting uses in the building over the years and there has consistently been commercial on the first floor with residential above. Attorney Atkins said that the new use is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. He said that Gainsboro Studio had elements of retail traffic and made the site busier than the • proposed use will be. He said the space is 2,700 and they are proposing offices. He thinks it is unlikely to have many employees in this small space. He says the use is benign and doesn't impact the surrounding neighborhood. Attorney Atkins said the parking lot has sufficient on site spaces to meet the requirements of one space for each professional and two for each employee. He said that the opposition's counsel will suggest they need to apply for a parking variance. He said parking is a factor to take into consideration, but 30 spaces are not needed. He said it is a question of fairness and equity and this first floor space had been used commercially for half of a century. Peter Copelas is a Salem resident and representative from the First Church. He requests that the Board deny the request because of the congestion in the area. Robin Stein summarized a letter the Board had received from the First Church in opposition of the request for a special permit. Bill Hemming of the Governing Body of the First Church said that the Church is active 4 days a week for preschool as well as on Sundays. He said the expansion of the Courthouse will make parking in the area more difficult. He said that offices have clients and deliveries. Councilor At-Large Steven Pinto said he thinks the use fits with what is already there. He believes the parking is adequate, and thinks granting the special permit would benefit the City. • 5 f • David Williams (342 Essex Street) disagrees about Gainsboro. He said you wouldn't know there was a business there. He doesn't want to see an empty building. He said if the Board chooses to move ahead they should place limits on the special permit. He is disappointed the proposal doesn't include the hair studio space, which could have a future impact. He mentioned that the court project will also have affects. He thinks the individuals in the offices should be parking in individual spaces and there should be space for clients. Attorney Bill Quinn asked the Board to not grant the special permit. He supplied a memo to the Board summarizing his arguments. He said that it is the petitioner who has the burden of illustrating their proposal meeting the requirements for issuing a special permit. He said there could be eleven (11) new people brought to the building from the proposal. He questioned how many cars the thirteen (13)people upstairs might have. He said that his clients want to know who occupied the parking in the back and how many people were employed by Gainsboro Studios. He said that it was a passive and quiet operation. He asked what changes this property will have. He said this building is two (2)buildings away from the intersection of Essex Street and Summer Street. He said today when he was driving through this intersection a double- parked car caused traffic to back up. He said there is basically no parking on the street in this area. He said five (5) professionals will associated staff would be too many people coming and going, especially if it was a law office. He said the 10 (ten)parking spaces in the back are not adequate. He said there could be twenty-four(24) people in the building because they don't know what will happen with the hair salon. He said FedEx trucks are always coming into law offices with documents and this area is too dense for that activity. He feels if the building is • altered it triggers parking requirements for the proposed use and they are not asking for the right relief in an area with virtually no parking on the street. He feels the proposed usually will be substantially more detrimental that what is currently there. Ward 3 Councilor Jean Pelletier said though it is not his ward, he would like to mention that the church is an exempt and much larger use and therefore he is in favor. Attorney Atkins said from the comments he has heard, it sounds like a Dunkin Donuts is being proposed for the space. He said the floor plan doesn't lend itself to having that many people in there. There are ten (10) spaces for its uses in this Building—nobody else in the area has parking, and the SRO tenants have no vehicles. Gainsboro had 2-4 employees. In response to the comments about the courthouse, Attorney Atkins said that his client Mr. Morris should not take the brunt of the other projects. Attorney Atkins said he looked into the Church permitting and knows though they are exempt, though the ZBA can require reasonable parking. Attorney Atkins said that five (5) offices could be filled by 3 lawyers and 2 paralegals, or accountants and secretaries. He said there would not be as many people as Attorney Quinn is saying. He said they would have to come back to the ZBA to change the nonconforming use of the space, which had been occupied by the hair salon. He said they were the only property meeting parking requirements. Attorney Atkins said Gainsboro had exclusive use during the day, and allowed residents to park there overnight. • Attorney Quinn said that the ZBA does not owe the land owner a living and their failure to grant a special permit does not constitute a taking. 6 • Robin Stein said if you give away all your parking spaces and you come back for the hair salon you would have a problem. She said she would be in favor of granting the special permit if there was a set number of people that would be in the space, she does not want to just approve five (5) professional offices. She knows how busy five (5) professionals can be. Annie Harris asked if the applicant would be interested in combining the space that was the hair salon with the space for which he was seeking a special permit. Bonnie Belair said she would be comfortable only if they limited the number of people. Robin Stein said she would prefer if the uses of medical or dental offices were prohibited. Rebecca Curran said she would like a condition that the residents may park overnight. Rick Dionne said that he feels the fact they have parking is unusual. Also he suggested they think about combing the hair salon. Attorney Atkins said he thought limiting the number of individuals to seven (7) would be okay. He said he believes you could require parking to be purchased in other locations like the garage, which has been a common practice of the Planning Board. Bonnie Belair said she would be in opposition to more than six (6) occupants. Bill Quinn asked that they limit the number to five (5) professionals. Annie Harris asked if anything on the building would be changing. Attorney Atkins said nothing dimensional would change. Annie Harris made a motion to grant the special permit subject to seven (7) standard conditions • and three (3) special conditions: the number of occupants shall be limited to six (6), though may be increased to eight (8) if additional offsite parking is provided for each additional occupant; no medical, dental or similar uses shall be allowed; eight (8) of the ten (10)parking spaces shall be dedicated to this space (two (2) for visitors and six (6) for employees) and residents shall be allowed to park in these spaces overnight. The motion was seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0). Petition of ORILLE L'HEUREUX requesting a Special Permit for a change in nonconformingt use o allow the e ten (10) unit rooming house to be converted to a three (3) unit residence and a variance from parking regulations to allow two (2) tandem parking spaces for each residence at I HAMILTON STREET [R-21. Attorney George Atkins (59 Federal Street, Salem) said what they are requesting would allow for a less intense use of the structure. They are requesting a variance because the tandem spaces don't comply with dimensional requirements. They are trying to supply off street parking. They think two (2) spacer per unit is appropriate. The matter was before the ZBA two (2) years ago and they are beyond the two (2) year limitation and can return. Rick Dionne asked what year the structure was building. Attorney Atkins said 1840. Attorney Atkins said his client was making an economic decision for his retirement and would like to help the people who currently live in the rooming house move to other locations. • David Williams (342 Essex Street) is in favor of the proposal and likes the parking arrangement. 7 • Richard Jendrysik (3 Hamilton) submitted a petition which he said was signed by all direct abutters and residents of Hamilton Street. He thinks going from ten (10) to three (3) units is a net improvement. Pamela Jendrysik said she is a direct the abutter and she along with other neighbors are in support. She said the cars that currently park outside 1 Hamilton don't bother to get resident stickers. She said only 4.5 parking spaces are required and she doesn't want to whole area to be parking, she suggested plantings and dressing up the parking area. George Osic (250 Essex Street) said he was in favor. Nina Cohen (22 Chestnut Street) spoke in opposition to the request and spoke of the other options the property owner might choose for the property. She said it could be sold as a single family or as two condos, or it could stay as is. She said there are currently 102 Condominiums on the market in Salem and these units could sit on the market. Steven Gallagher spoke in favor of the proposal William Goldberg (8 Botts Court) said he is in favor and thinks it would be a plus for the neighborhood. • Former Mayor of Salem, Stanley Usovicz Jr. (2 Botts Court) spoke in favor of the petition. He said prior to the Salem hm lots of rooming houses existing. He said that stately houses, such as this are expensive to maintain. He said it's necessary to make sure that those that are displaced have a place to live. David Decker(6-8 Hamilton Street) said that cars are currently coming to the house from other places. Ward 3 Councilor Jean Pelletier said he feels this could enhance the neighborhood and he would like to see the developer work with the neighborhood. He would like to see six (6)parking spaces required per the plans submitted. He feels an attractive building like this close to downtown is unlikely to be empty. Annie Harris said though she is not an abutter, she lives in the neighborhood and feels this would enhance the property. She feels that in this case it would be okay to stack the parking. Mr. L'Heureux said he would assist those that currently live there find another place to go. Annie Harris made a motion to approve the request with nine 9 standard conditions seconded PP q ( ) , by Rick Dionne and approved (5-0). Petition of PATRICK CHASSE requesting variances from minimum lot size and minimum • lot width to construct a single family home at 21 BARCELONA AVENUE [R-11. 8 • Robin Stein reviewed the memo to the Board of Appeals summarizing the order of the Land Court, which determined that 21 Barcelona Avenue is not a nonconforming buildable lot. The Land Court instructed the Board of Appeals to order the Building Inspector to revoke the permit. Attorney Lovely filed a stay and provided the Board with a copy, there is not a date for the hearing. Robin Stein said she felt there was not something keeping the Board of Appeals from taking up a petition. Attorney Lovely said it could be years before they would have a resolution from the Land Court. Attorney Stephen Lovely said the proposed lot is similar to other lots in the neighbor. He said Mrs. Francullo, the owner of the property has been in the hospital. Patrick Chasse has had a purchase and sale agreement with the Francullos for four (4) years. When they began they believed they had a valid building permit and they still believe it's a valid building permit. Mr. L'Esperance has been awaiting the decision of the Land Court to see whether the lot is nonconforming and buildable. Attorney Lovely said even though they were going to settle with him, there is nothing from keeping others from coming forward. Attorney Lovely mentioned that a similar lot on Ravenna had been granted variances. Victor L'Esperance said he is in support of the petition. He serves on the Board of Directors of a group with teaches kids about the environment, and had been opposed. Blanche Francullo had asked him to put a side hard feelings. • Patricia Pitreau(Barcelona Avenue) spoke in support of the petition saying she had reached an agreement with the parties. She said she was only representing herself, not on behalf of the other neighbors. Jayne Diamont (42 Ravenna Avenue) purchased a home seven (7) years ago and is concerned that she will loose money in her investment. Annie Harris and Rebecca Curran mentioned that there was no statement of hardship. Attorney Lovely said the reasons for hardship include the sewer easement across the middle of the property at 19 Barcelona, the ledge fill terrain, and the topography. Beth Debski said the sewer easement would not have an affect because it is outside of the lot line show on the plan for 21 Barcelona. Beth asked if they would be willing to consider the condition that the easement land should be incorporated in the lot at 21 Barcelona. The Board decided to break from 21 Barcelona to allow the parties to discuss the proposed condition. The Board took up the petition of Groom Realty, 21 Barcelona was resumed immediately after. 21 Barcelona Avenue Continued: 9 Attorney Lovely said they would be willing to accept the condition of incorporating the easement land. They are willing to work with the neighbors. Annie Harris asked where the parking would be. Patrick Chasse said the parking will be provided in the driveway and garage. Robin Stein said she would be more comfortable with the larger lot size. She thinks there is a hardship; she understands the construction was started in good faith. Annie Harris recommended that the agreement is attached to the decision. Attorney Lovely said that would be fine. Beth Debski made a motion to approve the request for variances with seven standard conditions, the condition that a new plan incorporating the easement land be submitted, that reasonable efforts be made to limit run off to adjacent property, and the Agreement for Judgment with Patricia Pitreau is to be attached. The motion was seconded by Rick Dionne and approved(5-0). Petition of GROOM REALTY requesting to modify a previous variance decision to allow the height of the existing 41' wind turbine to be increased by 6' at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD [BPD]. The previous variance granted relief from the maximum height of accessory structures. • Susan St. Pierre of Vine Associates said that Groom installed a residential scale demonstration wind turbine, though they were not getting the electricity they were hoping to get. They are coming back to the Board to request a height increase of six (6) feet. Rebecca Curran asked if the blades would be longer. Susan said no, it would just be higher and it would be a little bit higher than the tree. Bonnie Belair asked how they make it six feet higher. Susan said it requires replacing the pole. Councilor At-Large Steven Pinto said he was on the ZBA when the turbine was approved and since it's been up says it's not noticeable. Ward 3 Councilor Jean Pelletier asked when the turbine operates. The petitioner replied that the turbine operates whenever the wind blows. Rebecca Curran made a motion to approve the request and include the conditions of the original decision, seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0). The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Amy Lash, Staff Planner • 10 r F �*�u�mrfAo CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL s 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR ��f;Win; SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 - fYEtpd FAX 978-740-9846 0IMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZQ�u RPR _2 A i'. 4 i MAYOR 7 Y April 2, 2008 CITY CLERK.SALEM,MASS. Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Joshua Levesque requesting a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to modify a nonconforming structure to construct an 8' x 11' addition at 268 Jefferson Avenue 113-11. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance and a Special Permit pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table 1: Residential Density Regulations, and Sec. 5-30) Extension of nonconformity. • Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Joshua Levesque, owns 268 Jefferson Avenue, a property located in the Business Neighborhood (BI) Zoning District. 2. Plans accompanying the Petition include the mortgage inspection plan prepared by Boston Survey, Inc. entitled "268 Jefferson Avenue", 3-D computer renderings (showing the existing conditions and what is proposed), and a photograph. 3. The petitioner proposes to remove the existing 4' x 6' mudroom and rebuild an 8' x 11' room. The existing mudroom puts the structure 6' 6" from the side lot line, and extends toward the rear of the property 6'. The new structure would maintain the 6' 6" side setback but would extend I P back toward the rear or the building. The new construction would not encroach on the rear yard requirement, but would require a variance to maintain the same side setback. 4. The petitioner purchased the property in November of 2007. Since this time he has made many improvements to the residence. The expanded mudroom would allow for the creation of a large closet. The residence, which was constructed in 1889 currently has no closets. 5. Councilor Pelletier spoke in support of the petition, saying it was a tine renovation project. 2 6. Tom St. Pierre noted that the property has been significantly improved by the petitioner. 7. There was no opposition to the petitioner's request. • 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 structure is of a use, age, size, and shape not generally found in this neighborhood and zoning district. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would prevent the petitioner from renovating the historic property in a manner consistent with the neighborhood, and prevent the petition from updating the property to make it a comfortable place to live resulting in substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner. 3. The variances requested are not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions 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. The proposed renovations do not encroach on the side yard setback more than the structure currently does. 4. The enlargement proposed would not be substantially more detrimental than the • existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 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 addition, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the requirement for side yard width, to allow for a side yard width of 6' 6". 2. A special permit to modify a nonconforming structure is also granted to allow for this addition. 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 (Dionne, Stein, Curran, Harris, and Debski) and 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 statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. • r l f 3 2. All construction shall he 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 harniony 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 Decisions expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does 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 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. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF TIIIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED Will I II IE 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 Pernut 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. • { �gisl°T�a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS S % BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR 7 �� I SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE. 978-745-9595 q .MneW'° FAX 978-7409846 1698 C�np ,Ip Ja ryrR QIMBERLEY DRISCOLL —2 q 4 MAYOR April 2, 2008 CITY ctF Sq�Ett, Il'Is Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Mark and Danielle Csogi requesting Variances from maximum lot coverage, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard to install an above ground pool 21' in diameter and an attached 10' x 21' deck at 3 ORCHARD TERRACE JR-1 1. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table L• Residential Density Regulations. • Statements of fact: 1. The petitioners, Mark and Danielle Csogi, own 3 Orchard Terrace, a property located in the Residential One Family(R-1) Zoning District. 2. The petition is accompanied by a mortgage inspection plan prepared by North Shore Survey Corp. entitled "3 Orchard Terrace", on which the proposed pool and deck is sketched. Photographs were submitted which show the approximate locations of the edge of the proposed deck marked with a rope. 3. The above ground pool would be 21' in diameter, with an attached 10' x 21' deck. 4. An above-ground pool 18' in diameter with a deck had previously existed in this location when there was a different owner. A plan showing the previous lot configuration with the 18' above ground pool was submitted by the applicant. 5. The applicants Submitted a petition signed by nineteen (19) residents of Orchard Terrace, Manning Street, and Dearborn Street, which states, "As neighbors of 3 Orchard Terrace, we have no objection to the addition of a pool and deck in the IcR rear corner of the property". • ti 2 6. There was no opposition to the petitioners request at the public hearing. The Board of Appeal, atter 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 zoning requirements can not be complied with to accommodate a pool due to the shape and size of the lot and the layout of the structures on the lot. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would prevent the petitioners from installing an above ground pool in a location that will still allow for the enjoyment of a backyard resulting in substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. The variances requested are not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions 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: I. To allow for the above ground pool and deck, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the requirements for • maximum lot coverage, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard. 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 (Dionne, Stein, Curran, Harris, and Debski) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building pennit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • f 3 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. &6 ^/i4L Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OE"III IS DECISION IIAS BEEN FILED WI Ili HIF PLANNING BOARD AND 1'l IE CI"IY C ITRK 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 has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 97745-9595 8 \?MfAE�'Q• FAX 978-740 9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1808 qp� _2 I, MAYOR '4 ��7 4I April 2, 2008 Ctry (-tERrid A Fri, 114ss. Amendment to July 10 2007 Variance Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Groom Realty requesting to modify a previous variance decision to allow the height of the existing 41' wind turbine to be increased by 6' at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD IBPDI. The previous variance granted relief from the maximum height of accessory structures. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ l 1 to discuss an amendment to the original variance decision dated July 10, 2007. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). • Petitioner seeks a variance pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Sec. 7-8 Accessory Buildings and Structures. Statements of fact: 1. Susan St. Pierre, of Vine Associates, presented the petition on behalf of Groom Realty, LLC. 2. The 41' tall wind turbine at 96 Swampscott Road was allowed by the Board of Appeals decision to grant a variance, dated July 10, 2007. 3. Groom Realty has monitored the electricity generated by the wind turbine at 96 Swampscott Road since its installation, and has found that it falls short of the expectations. 4. They would like to replace the 34 foot high tower support with a 40 foot high tower support which would increase the overall height of the turbine by 6 feet, making it 47 feet at the highest point. This is expected to improve wind flow conditions. 5. No change is proposed in the location of the wind turbine. • 6. The applicant submitted letters of support in the request to increase the height of the turbine from the Salem Commerce Park Condominium Trust, Scott Grossman, Robbie Doyle (Doyle Sails), David and Tom Groom (Groom Energy), Toni Kulevich (Tri City Sales), Marc Hazel (Jacqueline's Backery), Stacy Ames (Falmer), Thomas Amanti (E. Amanti & Sons, Inc.), and David Ekstrom (Bematek). 7. There was no opposition to the amendment request 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 petitioner's request for a variance does not constitute substantial detriment to public good as wind turbines are new "green" energy saving technology. The the p g wind existing turbine has not created any disturbance at g hei ght of 41 feet and an increase of 6 feet is a minor change. 2. The request does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, as the height increase proposed, would make the wind turbine 3 feet lower than the allowable height of buildings in the Business Park Development District. 3. A literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner, which hardship is due to the maximum zoning height of 18 feet for accessory structures. There are no wind turbines in commercial production that could comply with the 18 foot requirement, nor does the City of Salem have • an ordinance in place to allow wind turbines by special permit. 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 height of the existing wind turbine at its highest point to be increased to 47 feet, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically the maximum height allowed for accessory structures. 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals does not eliminate any of the conditions or requirements of set forth in the original decision dated July 10, 2007. All conditions and requirements of that decision are still in effect and. are repeated ed here under ten-ns,the ters, , and safeguards below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor Dionne, Stein, Curran, Hams, and Debski) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's ( conditions and safeguards: terms , he following , st subject to g amendment reque J 1. Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and • approved by the Building Commissioner. J 3 • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and lire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION f1AS BFEN 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. • • 1, p CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ;0 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �17t SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 _ TELEPHONE Fnx. 978-740 7 45 595 9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 07n� MAYOR [ U APR -2 q fl 41 April 2, 2008 CITY CLEI?FILF SALEM. MASS. Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Orille L'Heureux requesting a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the ten (10) unit rooming house to be converted to a three (3) unit residence and a variance from parking regulations to allow two (2) tandem parking spaces for each residence at 1 HAMILTON STREET IR-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance and Special Permit pursuant to the following sections of the Salem • Zoning Ordinance: Sec. 5-36) Extension of nonconformity, and Sec. 7-3 Off-street parking; uncovered, not included in structure. Statements of fact: I. The petitioner, Orille L'Heureux, owns 1 Hamilton Street, a property located in the Residential Two Family [R-2] Zoning District. 2. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition. He acknowledged that this request was before the Board of Appeals two (2) years ago, but the two-year time frame in which the petition cannot be heard again has now passed. 3. Plans accompanying the petition include the plan entitled, "Plot Plan of Land Prepared for Michael Shea Located at 1 Hamilton Street", prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, dated December 8, 2004 as well as the plan entitled, "Residential Renovations for Michael Shea l Hamilton Street, Salem, MA", prepared by Richard Griffin, dated February 19, 2008. 4. The petitioner proposes to change the nonconforming use of a ten (10) unit rooming house to a three (3) unit residence. 5. The petitioner proposes two (2) tandem parking spaces for each unit, for a total of six (6) • off street parking spaces. This number exceeds the requirement for I '/z spaces per unit. 2 6. Sec. 7-3 (e)(3) of the ordinance specifies that "parking I'acilities shall be designed so that each motor vehicle may proceed to and from the parking space provided for it without • requiring the moving of any other motor vehicle",therefore a variance is being sought to allow for tandem spaces. 7. A letter from Pamela and Richard Jendrysik (3 Hamilton Street) to the neighbors was submitted. The letter described the proposal and invited neighbors to the Jendrysik residence to see the plans and discuss the proposal. 8. A petition was submitted by the Richard Jendrysik which says "We, the undersigned, support the Residential Renovation of#1 Hamilton Street, per the plans prepared by Richard W. Griffin". The petition was signed by twenty-three (23) residents of Hamilton Street, Botts Court, Essex Street, Federal Street, Monroe Street, River Street, and Cambridge Street. 9. A letter from Peter Hinchey (355 Essex Street) in favor of the proposal was submitted. 10. Several residents including David Williams (342 Essex Street), Pamela Jendrysik (3 Hamilton Street), William Goldberg (8 Botts Court), the former Mayor of Salem, Stanley Usovicz Jr. (2 Botts Court), David Decker(8 Hamilton Street), and Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, spoke in favor of the proposal. 11. Nina Cohen (22 Chestnut Street) spoke against the request spoke of the other options the owner might choose for the structure. • 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: I. Changing the ten (10) unit rooming house to a three (3) unit residence would not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 2. Conditions relating to the layout of the parking and structures on the lot do no generally affect the zoning district in general, and would allow for tandem parking in this location. 3. A literal application of the Ordinance would result in fewer parking spaces on site and therefore cause substantial hardship to both the applicant and to the neighborhood. 4. 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: 1. To allow for the nonconforming use of the property to change to a three (3) unit residence, a special permit is granted. • 3 2. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically, Sec. • 7-3 to allow tandem parking as proposed. 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(Dionne, Stein, Curran, Harris, and Debski) and 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 statues, 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 Occupancy is to be obtained. • 7. 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. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. Except for the demolition authorized by the Salem Historic Commission, any zoning relief granted does 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 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. Robin Stein, hair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OP 111 IS DECISION IIAS BEEN PILFD Will ITF I'rANNING BOARD AND 1111'.CI"I Y CLFRK \ppeal front this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Nlassachusetts 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 Pernut 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. b- pNUIT4j, CITY OF -SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS .- BOARD OF APPEAL '0 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3R0 FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �r�'.-r- ^'�,�tr TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 9fTMry.�dje,P FAX: 978-7409846 0IMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1000 APR -2 All 4'2 MAYOR April 2, 2008 CITY CLERK SALEM. MASS. Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Stephen Morris requesting a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the photography studio on the first floor to be converted to five (5) professional offices at 315-317 ESSEX STREET IR-11. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair(Alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Sec. 5-30) Extension of nonconformity. • Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Stephen Moms, owns 315-317 Essex Street, a property located in the Residential Two Family [R-2] Zoning District. 2. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Plans accompanying the petition include a plan entitled "Plot Plan 315-317 Essex Street, Salem, MA", dated February 13, 2008, prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc. as well as, a plan entitled"Proposed Renovations to 315 Essex Street", dated December 19, 2007, prepared by David F. Jaquith Architects & Planners. 4. The proposed renovations to the property do not involve exterior dimensional changes. 5. The petitioner is seeking a Special Pennit to change the nonconforming use of a portion of the first floor, which is approximately 2,700 square feet, and had been previously occupied by a photography studio. The new proposed use is five (5) professional offices, with shared reception, conference, lounge, and lavatory facilities. Both the photography studio use and the professional office use are • nonconforming uses in the R-2 Zoning District. 6. In addition to the space for which the petitioner is seeking a Special Permit, the building currently contains thirteen (13) licensed rooming house rooms on the . second and third floors, and a space on the first floor which recently became vacant. The recently vacated space housed a beauty salon at the time the application was submitted to the Board of Appeals. If the nonconforming use of this space was to change, a special permit would be needed from the Board of Appeals. 7. There are ten (10) on-site parking spaces. 8. Attorney William Quinn, representing the First Church In Salem, Unitarian, spoke against the petition. Attorney Quinn submitted an Opposition Memorandum, which cites "inadequate on-site parking and traffic congestion" as grounds to deny the request. A letter of opposition was submitted by the Standing Committee of the First Church In Salem, Unitarian. Peter Copelas and William Henning, who are both affiliated with the First Church also spoke in opposition to the request. 9. Councilor At Large, Steven Pinto, spoke in favor of the request. 10. David Williams (342 Essex Street) requested that if the Board chooses to grant the petitioner's request, that they place limitations on the special permit. 11. Ward 3 Councilor, Jean Pelletier, spoke in favor of the request saying the church • is exempt from the parking regulations and is a much larger use that the use proposed. 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 proposed change in nonconforming use would not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 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: L A special permit for a change in nonconforming use is granted to allow the first floor space which formerly housed a photography studio to house professional offices. 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 • (Dionne, Stein, Curran, Harris,and Debski) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 3 1 Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues, ordinances, codes, and • regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. The number of occupants shall be limited to six (6), however, the number of occupants may be increased to eight (8) if an offsite parking space is provided for each of the two additional occupants. 9. No medical, dental, or similar uses shall be allowed. • 10. Eight (8) of the ten (10) on site parking spaces shall be dedicated to the professional office use in this space. Of these spaces, six (6) shall be reserved for employees, two (2) shall be reserved for visitors. Residents shall be allowed to park in these spaces overnight. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF TMS DECISION I[AS BEEN FILED WI I II'r11E PLANNING BOARD AND'I'I IECI"rY CLI;RK 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 has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • C CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS „j BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �r 3 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 � rtNE WAP FAX: 978-740-9846 •KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1000 APR -3 p 1: lU MAYOR 1t F. r Lll-'( CI I'j�fi. April 3, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Patrick Chasse requesting variances from minimum lot size and minimum lot width to construct a single family home at 21 BARCELONA AVENUE [R-1 1. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on March 19, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Aimie Harris and Bolmie Belair (Alternate). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table I: Residential Density Regulations. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Patrick Chasse, has a purchase and sale agreement with Blanche Francullo, owner of 21 Barcelona Avenue, a property located in the Residential One Family(R-1) Zoning District. 2. The petition is accompanied by a plan entitled, "Plan of Land", prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, and last revised March 24, 2008. 3. Attorney Stephen Lovely presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is proposing to build a single family house in an R-1 District. The Zoning Ordinance requires the lot to have 15,000 square feet of area and 100' feet of lot width. 21 Barcelona Avenue contains approximately 8,433 square feet of area and has a lot width of approximately 74.3' feet. The petitioner is seeking variances from minimum lot size and minimum lot width. 5. The Massachusetts Land Court has determined that 21 Barcelona Avenue is not a non-conforming, buildable lot, but merged with 19 Barcelona Avenue. 6. At the public hearing on March 19, 2008, Victor L'Esperance and Patricia Pitreau spoke in support of the petitioners request for variances to allow the construction • of a single family home. P ) 2 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 topography and soil conditions of the parcel, as well as the sewer easement on the parcel, are unique conditions affecting the locus, not generally affecting other lots in the neighborhood and Zoning District. 2. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner, who installed a foundation in good faith pursuant to the building permit granted by the City of Salem. 3. The proposed lot is similar to other lots in the neighborhood and variances requested are not contrary to the public interest. Owing to special conditions 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: 1. To allow for the construction of a single family home, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance specifically the requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot width so as to have a lot with an area of • 8,433 square feet and a lot width of 74.3' feet. 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 (Dionne, Stein, Curran, Harris, and Debski) and 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 statues, 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. • S{ 3 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. S. Terms set forth within the Agreement for Judgment between Patricia Pitreau and the City of Salem Board of Appeals (Land Court Department Docket No. 06MISC320360) shall be adhered to. 9. The petitioner shall take all reasonably necessary steps to assure that water runoff toward all abutting properties are abated. 10. The petitioner shall submit a revised plan adding the sewer easement land to 21 Barcelona Avenue. Note: The revised plan, dated March 24, 2008 was submitted April 3, 2008 and the lot area and dimensions of the final plan have been specified in this decision. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ATTACHEMENT: Agreement for Judgment between Patricia Pitreau and the City of Salem Board of Appeals (Land Court Department Docket No. 06MISC320360) • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CI"rY 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. • COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX,SS. IAND COURT DEPARTMENT DOCKET NO. 06MLSC 320360 i i I PATRICIA A.PTIREAU, ) Plaintiff V. ) i NINA COHEN,RICHARD DIONNE,BONNIE BEC AIR, ) F WARD MORIARTY and NICHOLAS HUMES, ) as they in members ofthe City of Salem Board ofAppeels, ) Md BLANCHE Ii FRANCULLO, ) Defamdaft ) i ) :ACiRFF1ufRArTEM II7n00= Made by and bawma PATRICIA A.PIIRF.AU(Piftw)her heirs,beoeftwie%and succmm in interest(mltecWdy')pleinhfV�on the one hams,and NINA COHEN,RICHARD DIONNE.BONNIE BELAIR,WWARD MORIARTY,and NICHOLAS HELLOES,as dreg are members of the City of Salem Board otAppeala(Board),and BLANCHE B.FRANCUI LO, (Framcullo and collectively"defendants'),this 9'11 day of August.2007. WHEREAS.pWmbf s have kn*t suit against the defendant in the above•auidod matters;and WHEREAS,S,the parties have rrached an agreement regarding to issues preseoted is thane prorma&C,Pursuant to the following terns, nwtwnoa a emwwo AMRRlYi MI/tW aide Xe00L OTR9RT "evggw,W e.ni ii m7U iib1i00 anienMs 65S► Us ILS Ysra 9116 0114 t00z/60/60 CCC. 174 414 ma ae :ci ani Boozier/6o I � I NOW,TMWOR8,the patties covenant and agree as follows: i I 1. Tbat lot number 328 contains 7,493 square feel,mare or less,owned by Francullo, shall be considered a legal buildable lot for single family purposes parsuant to the building pemoit issurd by the building inspector in the City of galena. 2. That Fra teollo shall build a single-family dwWhog on the lot with a maximum footprint of 28 fed by 40 het for the main structure,and a maximum gunge footprint of 22 feet by 22 feet,which garage slap be limited to one story. Then shall be no living space above the Saw. 3. All coustr udon shall be in conformity with all govemraental permitting and in conformance with the state building code and the City of Salmi Zom ag,Ordinance. 4. Fratumllo shall raluee ceiling heights to eight feet and shell construct a roof with e • pitch of6 over 1. S. Franaillo shall take all seasonably necessary steps to assure that water nmofftOwvd plaintiffs'ptopetties will be abated. 6. Ftancollo will plant mature shrubs alomg die femx be twa m Lot 328 property,and 42 Ravenna Avemre,as well landstatpiog of the fiont yard facing Bated=Avenue. The parties state that they bave been represented by counsel regarding the provisions Of this agmment and uldc stead the contents. AtiXANDER6 PFJAlNO AT'1oaNVA wt LAW • Olein,0016IMM, aMM.moms m+uasl•�aaa .... CGGD TZ6 ALS Wd 69 :Et ani 8002/81/to tti SiPW and sealed on the date rest w,itt.abovrx, City of Sabem PaLocie A Pitreau Zoning hoard of App Ws BY its attorney, BY her attorney, Lid93� tree C0 Solicitor - . ,. gytd F. Mina >t Sal 11110!1162685 �,MA 0]970 97 ALEXANDER& 8-6 19-5631 FEMWO Out So=]Sneer Bew 01915 979 1- 990 Blanche 8 Frwcao . By bar an", 'da A.Pitreau 19 Burelona.Ave= Salem,MA 01970 S te Salem,MA 01970 Q St- auclte�,g 21 Barcdom Avenue Salem,MA 01970 I ��rmmaasasuee v*�+aysmuwr ehe SCboL 01eCL7 �C Welem v+uuxrm�e • !1a/L00� __ ..,w GGW IZ6 6C6 XVA 69 :et ane eooziwfo QTY OF SALEM DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND CommuNiTy DEVELOPMENT K I Mli ERLEY D RISCULL MAYOR 120 WASI]ING ION S IRE 12 1 # SAIT.N1,NILASSA0 it SI'1*1-,,01970 'DT:978-619-5685 Fvx:978-74C-0404 0 CS March 20, 2008 q-1 Joseph C. Correnti, Esq. Seraftni, Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Request for extension 28 Goodhue Street Dear Mr. Correnti: On September 19, 2007 the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals extended the variances granted October 18, 2006 for 28 Goodhue Street to April 18, 2008 (a period of six (6) months). The Board met on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 to discuss the request of North River Canal LLC for an additional six (6) month extension. The Board decided by a unanimous vote to approve the extension request for an additional six (6) months, until October 18, 2008, due to the time the petitioner needs to put in place the necessary contracts and funding to be able to begin construction. If you have any questions or require further information, I can be reached in the Department of Planning& Community Development at(978) 619-5685. Sincerely, O"A �JP..J, Amy J. Lash Staff Planner Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk oa� CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 3 a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 DRISCOLL FAX: 978-740-9846 IMBERLEY MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the Cityof Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday March 19, 2008 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: Joshua Levesque Location: 268 JEFFERSON AVENUE Request: Variance and Special Pemnit Description: Request for a Variance from side yard setback and a Special Permit to modify a nonconforming structure to construct an 8'x 11'addition. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk April 2, 2008 Petition of: Mark and Danielle Csogi Location: 3 ORCHARD TERRACE Request: Variances Description: Request for Variances from maximum lot coverage, minimum width of side yard, and minimum depth of rear yard to install an above ground pool 21'in diameter and an attached 10'x 21'deck. • Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk April 2,2008 Petition of: Stephen Morris Location: 315-317 ESSEX STREET Request: Special Permit Description: Request for a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the photography studio on the first floor to be converted to five (5) professional offices. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk April 2,2008 Petition of: Orille L'Heureux Location: 1 HAMILTON STREET Request: Special Permit and Variance Description: Request for a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the ten (10) unit rooming house to be converted to a three (3) unit residence and a variance from parking regulations to allow two (2) tandem parking spaces for each residence Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk April 2,2008 Petition of: Groom Realty Location: 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD Request: Amendment to Previous Variance Decision Description: Request to modify a previous variance decision to allow the height of the existing 41' wind turbine to be increased by 6'. The previous variance granted relief from the maximum height of accessory structures. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk April 2, 2008 1 A, Petition of: Patrick Chasse Location: 21 BARCELONA AVENUE Request: Variances Descnption: Request for variances from minimum lot size and minimum lot width to construct a single family home Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk April 3,2008 Chis raiz is ZEiT sea in crmplianx with the Massad usez Gomral Lazes, COapter 40A, Salm 9& 15 and does nar regtare action by therm Vze?G Appeals, if an}S shall be made p asuxu to Chapter 40A, Section 17,and shall be filed within 20 dais firm the date zehi&the dewzon was filed with the City Clerk. 2 pro^tr.9 a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 1. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 y aP TELEPHONE 978-745-9595 �1FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING 2 March 12, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. a 312D FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREETrc-' *Note: This is a special meeting; tate regularly scheduled meeting toill still take place on.Narch 2008. Robin Stein,Chair -0 LO 1. Approval of Minutes N o February 13, 2008 2. Petition of JOHN DONAHUE seeking the variances necessary to allow for a building located at 60 FEDERAL STREET to be moved to 90 SUMMER STREET [R-2]. Variances are being requested from minimum lot area, minimum • lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage, depth of front yard, depth of side yard, depth of rear yard, and parking requirements. 3. Old/New Business 4. Adjournment This notice posted on "Official 8 t n Board" Clty Ha I at �� .', Sac, Chap. 30 " . a2A & 2 3 B of hLG L. �ONmPq CITY OF SALEM DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND FCMNN� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ 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: March 5, 2008 RE: Special Meeting Agenda- March 12, 2008 Hello Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of February 13, 2008 ➢ Petitions and Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 90 Summer Street The petitioner, John Donahue, owns the property at 90 Summer Street in the Residential Two- Family district. This parcel contains land which had once been a separate lot (9 Downing Street). A residence existed at 9 Downing Street until the fire of 1914. The petitioner is seeking variances to allow the building currently at 60 Federal Street (the site of the Courthouse expansion) to be moved to 90 Summer Street. The petitioner has filed an Approval Not Required (Form A) application with the Planning Board, as well as a Waiver of pp 9 Frontage Request to divide the property into two lots. The Planning Board meeting is scheduled for March 20, 2008. A plot plan by Eastern Land Survey accompanies the petition. Moving the building and dividing the lot as show on the plan would result in shortcomings to the density regulations notated with an asterisk (') in the following chart. The petitioner plans to use the building as a single family residence with a driveway for one vehicle on the left side of the dwelling. The proposed lot on Downing Street will actually be larger that the lot at 60 Federal Street, which the building is • currently on. See the chart on the reverse side. Density Required 90 Summer Proposed • Regulations (R-2) Street Lot (after Downing being divided Street Lot Min. lot area 15,000 4,400 - 3,489 - (sq ft Min. lot 7,500 2,200' 3,489 ' area/dwelling (2 family) (1 family) unit (sq ft Min. lot width 100 No Change Approx 40.7 ft Max. lot 35% 38% 26% coverage % Min. depth of 15 No Change 3 * front yard ft Min. width of No Change 6 side yard ft 10 Min. depth of 30 29 ' 31 rear yard ft Parking Requirements R-2 Proposed Downing Street Lot 1 1/2 spaces per dwelling unit with 1' (the petitioner plans on having a single a min. of 2 car driveway, though it is not depicted on the Ian • • 2 r x • City of Salem DPCD Meeting Sign In Sheet Board: 2-154 Date: 3fiz/ob Name Mailing Address Phone # Email �Tbsc !4 Zgvgc/A Id 15V)c6s1t:QS�t/pNAc Q/IU Hyl 9a� ISTD Tu5EP/l. 2.44 ALTA ,.� 63VEOV0 A7 NO-7 rl�o u r i M a k� • • , t City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,March 12,2008 A special meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein(chairperson), Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski,Rebecca Curran, and Annie Harris. Also present were Lynn Duncan and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Business Items A motion was made by Rebecca Curran to approve the minutes of February 13, 2008, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0). Public Hearing Petition of JOHN DONAHUE seeking the variances necessary to allow for a building located at 60 FEDERAL STREET to be moved to 90 SUMMER STREET [R-21. Variances are being requested from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage, depth of front yard, depth of side yard, depth of rear yard, and parking requirements. • The Petitioner, John Donahue, thanked the board for scheduling a special meeting. He explained that there are tight time constraints imposed by the State who would like to start the Courthouse project. He said the State would have liked the homes moved days ago. John Donahue presented the Board with the plan on the neighborhood from 1874 and said that his lot at 90 Summer Street had once been two lots- 90 Summer Street and 9 Downing Street. The house at 9 Downing was destroyed in the Salem Fire and not rebuilt. He presented the Board with a list of other lots in the neighborhood and the square footage of these lots. He also submitted photographs of the building at 60 Federal Street, and his lot at 90 Summer Street. He submitted a written statement to accompany his application and mentioned that his proposal would save the nearly 200 year old home and would fit with the character of the neighborhood. Meg Twohey(Federal Street Neighborhood Association) spoke in favor of the petitioner, she said it was a very small house, which sits in a much tighter way currently than what is proposed. Stephen Robinson (1-5 Downing Street) spoke against the petition. He said though John Donahue has been a friend a good neighbor, he has a number of concerns about the proposal. He feels the addition of a small wooden building would cause a fire hazard, he has concerns about the small lot size, and concerns about parking, which he already thinks is an issue. He said he has made an effort to rent his apartments to single car tenants for a discounted rate and this would undermine these efforts. He said that John Donahue has a beautiful backyard that provides attractive relief for his children and the neighborhood children by taking them off the • street. He feels the proposal is a net negative and hopes the Board votes to deny it. 1 { Robert Femino (a resident of Endicott Street), represented his father, Frank Femino who owns • 120-124 Margin Street. Robert Femino submitted a petition opposing the application. The petition was signed by twenty three (23) residents and property owners of properties on Prescott Street, Margin Street, Endicott Street, Downing Street, and Summer Street. The reasons for opposition noted on the petition included: congestion, worsening parking issues, it would not blend in, it is one of the last green spaces in the neighborhood, it would require the loss of a mature maple tree. Robert Femino said he is opposed to what John Donahue wants to do, thought he has been a good neighbor. He said that he was not consulted before John got the ball rolling; if he were in John's shoes he would have discussed his proposal with the neighbors first. He said at first his father was not opposed to John's proposal. After they had spoken, and they spoke to others, including their insurance company, they realized that they didn't want to support it. He was concerned it could affect the water table, as well as the value of their house, and the value of other homes in the neighborhood. He said his father was a lifelong resident of Salem and had lived on Margin Street for fifty(50) years. He said his father does not have anything nice to look at from the windows of his home other than John's property. He said that because people did something 100 years ago does not mean that we should do it • today. He stated that zoning was created for a reason, and it should protect abutters. He said that the lot is flat and not unusually shaped. He said there is good soil. He sees no hardship or grounds to grant any variances. He said that the ordinance is there to protect both his father and John. He asked that John withdraw the petition. He finds it hard to believe the City can't find another location. He feels a rundown house should not be located six (6) feet from his father's house. Donald Friary(10 Broad Street) lives just around the corner from Summer Street and submitted a letter of support from Historic Salem Incorporated. He is anxious to preserve all three homes and thinks a dense urban neighborhood is where they belong. Ruth Wall (13 Crombie Street)wanted to come to represent Historic Salem's interest, however, she has changed her mind and would like to speak in favor of keeping the yard in support of the neighbors. She keeps her horses in this neighborhood. Kathryn Harper (Salem Historic Commission) feels the house would fit nicely in this location. Jessica Herbert (Salem Historic Commission) said that the grass lot looks like a missing tooth. She feels that it is a great little house that would fit in nicely. Laurie Bellin (Salem Historic Commission) mentioned that the Federal Street neighborhood and the whole City will be burdened by the new Courthouse Project. This is just one of three historic • homes that need to be moved or they would be torn down. This neighborhood would not be the only residents burdened. 2 Joseph Zavalia(15 Prescott Street) asked the Board to drive down Prescott Street before making • a decision. He said this will be a big burden, take into consideration the parking. He is against the proposal and wishes the zoning laws would be followed. Darrow Lebovici (122 Federal Street) said the setbacks are not any smaller than other setbacks in the neighborhood. There would be no new precedent, it would fit in. Robin Stein asked whether the petitioner would like to respond to the public comments. John Donahue said the residence would be a single family and it only has four bedrooms. He said Prescott Street is frequently open, even around dinner time when people are home and he has photos without cars there. He really doesn't feel that this small residence will have the huge impact that people are talking about. He said he offered to center the house and to remove the parking. He is glad everyone likes his backyard. John Donahue mentioned that 27-29 Endicott Street, a duplex with almost zero setbacks on all sides,was recently constructed. He feels that the zoning is intended for new development, not situations like this. He said this house is smaller, and the setbacks would be similar to most homes in the neighborhood. He said it is not taking away from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and it would be less intense that most houses in the neighborhood. Stephen Robinson said the parking space currently in front of where this house would go is occupied already and he doesn't think this house would just have one or two cars associated with it. • Robert Femino said he stood in front of the Board of Appeals supporting the house at 27-29 Endicott Street two years ago because it would remove an eyesore from the neighborhood across. He said he feels there is no hardship in this case. He said their carport is part of their house and the carport is right up against the fence. Councilor Jean Pellitier(Ward 3) commended Mr. Donahue for the attempt to save the house, but he said he needed to support the neighbors. He wanted to clarify that Mr. Donahue can cut down the tree and not keep his yard as green space because it's private property. He confirmed that there would be one parking space. He said he understands that zoning is designed for petitioner relief while still watching out for the neighbors. Robin Stein read several letters of support into the record including letters from: • Historic Salem Incorporated • The Federal Street Neighborhood Association • State Representative Keenan • Mary Whitney She also read the petition signed by five (5) residents, submitted by John Donahue in support of the request, and the petition signed by twenty(23) residents and property owners, submitted by Robert Femino opposed to the request. • Councilor Pelletier pointed out that the key on the map presented to the Zoning Board reversed the colors of the text for frontage and the address. 3 r • With no further public comments, the public portion of the meeting was closed and the discussion was brought back to the Board for questions and comments. Rebecca Curran confirmed the residence would be used as a one family. John Donahue said yes, currently there is one unit upstairs and there was a law office on the first floor. Interior work would be done to convert it back to a one family. Annie Harris asked whether the plan was to sell or rent the house. John Donahue said sell. She asked how many square feet the house was? John didn't know off hand but said the dimensions are about 25' x 40' as shown on the plot plan. Rick Dionne asked if the petitioner had thought about putting the parking on the opposite side. John Donahue said the location of the house was suggested by the land surveyor so that a driveway for one car could be included near the entrance. Rick Dionne said it really is a small house. Beth Debski said it looks like something belongs on the proposed location. She said every time the ZBA meets, there is an issue about parking and in this case you would have parking for a car on site. Annie Harris said she doesn't understand the fire hazard concern. She doesn't agree with the • loss in property value the neighbors were anticipating. She acknowledged that the yard was a lovely green space, but it is private property. She thinks the only impact is congestion. Robin Stein said she thinks the Board could make a recommendation to move the parking to the other side if it was okay with the Building Code. Rick Dionne said they could not make it mandatory. Rebecca Curran said she would be comfortable approving it with that recommendation. John Donahue asked if it was approved with that recommendation, if a new plan would be needed. Robin said the plan with the house location would be needed for a building permit. John asked if that were the case if the building could go back on the sidewalk. Lynn Duncan said this would complicate the decision, because the variance requested is for a front setback of three (3) feet. You would have to clarify that the zero (0) foot setback would be allowed if the recommendation is followed. Robin Stein said she believe they would be able to craft that language. Lynn said she thought that would be fine as long as the Board is clear in their decision. Robin Stein said this is a challenging problem accompanied by many recurring problems that come up in Salem frequently with so many nonconforming neighborhoods. Rick Dionne said he understands this as an opportunity to save one (1) historic home, when there • are actually three (3) that need to be saved in a short period of time. Robin Stein said she is aware there has been a long search for sites. 4 Lynn Duncan said this was actually a second request for proposals by the state. Lynn said that the City looked at City owned land as well but could not come up with any sites. Robin Stein said this is a very small house and this particular neighborhood supported larger impacts than this more recently. Annie Harris said she feels this would fit appropriately with the way the neighborhood has been developed. Rebecca Curran made a motion to approve the petitioner's request for variances subject to nine (9) conditions and the recommendation that the driveway be located on the right side of the residence. Rebecca said she feels the Board should expand on standard condition#5 relating to materials to specify that the historic character shall be maintained. Annie Harris asked whether it is clear that this is intended to be a historic rehab. Lynn Duncan suggested we ask the petitioner for a comment. John Donahue acknowledged that the windows would need to be replaced and asked what he would be required to replace them with. John said only some of the windows are still historic. Rebecca Curran said she wanted true divided light, with no vinyl. Robin Stein said she thinks they should rephrase the condition to say the historic character and materials shall be maintained. Lynn Duncan asked whether DCAM imposed conditions. John said that there are recommendations. Annie Harris asked what happens if the recommendations aren't followed. Robin said this is why they should craft the language they had discussed. Lynn Duncan asked • what the petitioner thought about going in front of the Historic Commission, though she is not sure they should require it. Robin Stein said she would be comfortable just saying whatever is done needs to be consistent with the historic nature of the house. Rebecca Curran said she thinks it is reasonable to ask he go through Historic Commission review because of the amount of relief granted. Robin Stein asked whether the intention is to keep the historic nature. John Donahue said the exterior is fine the way it is though a few windows would have to be changed. There will not be any extensive exterior changes. Rebecca restated the condition to say the historic nature shall remain substantially intact. Robin Stein said she would work to craft language incorporating the Board's concerns. The motion was seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0) (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne, and Harris). The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Amy Lash, Staff Planner 5 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 W SHING I ON S I REEF 3RD FL COR it4 MassuNu-,Er rs 01970 TEI sr'r,ONE 978 7459FD95 \\+"NINil) FAx 9787,40 98,15 200 2 t;,,;I 13 P 4: 59 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR March 13, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of John Donahue requesting Variances to allow for a building located at 60 Federal Street to be moved to 90 Summer Street IK-21• Variances are being requesting from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage, depth of front yard, depth of side yard, and parking requirements. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 12, 2008 pursuant to [/lass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on March 12, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, and Annie Harris. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Table I: Residential Density Regulations, and Sec. 7-3. Off-street parking; uncovered, not included in structure. Statements of fact: I. The petitioner, .John Donahue, owns 90 Summer Street, a property located in the Residential Two Family (112) Zoning District. 2. Plans accompany the Petition include the plot plan prepared by Eastern Land Survey, entitled "Plot Plan of Land Located in Salem, Mass." 3. The property is 7,889 square feet and the existing structures on the site include a aarage and a two family residential structure. 4. The petitioner proposes to move the building located at 60 Fedcral Street to 90 Summer Street (the Downing Street side of the lot). The building at 60 Federal Street, also known as the Lydia Cook House was constructed in approximately IS 18 for David Crowell. It is one of three buildings scheduled to be demolished or moved to make way for the new Michael J. Ruane Judicial Center. The building is listed as contributing building to the Courthouse Historic District. 5. 'fo divide the lot inti two lots, the petitioner has filed a Waiver of Frontage Inquest with the Planning Board, and is seeking endorsement of an Approval Vol Required Plan. 6. The parcel had historically been used as two separate lots, and a residence existed at 9 Downing Street until the Salem lire of 1914. 7. The proposed lot area for the new Downing Street lot and the lot remaining lot at 90 Summer Street are similar to what exists in the neighborhood. The proposed lot width and setbacks for the new Downing Street lot are also consistent with the neighborhood. Lot coverage for both lots will be less than the average lot coverage in the neighborhood. S. There is adequate room for a one car driveway on the proposed Downing Street lot. 9. Six (6) residents spoke in favor of the petition including members of the Federal Street Neighborhood Association, the Salem Historic Commission, and Historic Salem Incorporated. 10. Letters of support were submitted by Mary Whitney (356 Essex Street), Massachusetts State Representative John Keenan, Meg Twohey and Betsy Burns (Federal Street Neighborhood Association), and Emily Udy (Historic Salem Incorporated). 11. A petition in support of the application was submitted by John Donahue and signed by five (5) residents of Summer Street and Prescott Street. 12. Robert Femino (a resident of Endicott Street represented his father who owns 120-124 Margin Street), Stephen Robinson (1-5 Downing Street), Ruth Wall (13 Crombie Street), and Joseph Zavalia (15 Prescott Street) spoke against the application. 13. A petition opposing the application was submitted by Robert Femino. The petition was signed by twenty three (23) residents and property owners of properties on Prescott Street, Margin Street, Endicott Street, Downing Street, and Summer Street. 14. A two family home constructed at 27-29 Endicott Street in 2006 improved the character of the neighborhood. 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: I. The size and depth of the lot at 90 Sumner Street, is not generally found in this neighborhood and zoning district. Moving the residence at 60 Federal Street to 90 Summer Street and creating two lots is not inconsistent with the existing density of the neighborhood and district. j • ?. "file house to be moved to the new Downing Street lot is a small single family home and will remain a single family home. It represents a much less intense use than manv of the existing homes in the neighborhood. 3. A literal enfiorcemcnt of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would prevent the lot at 90 Summer Street from being developed in a manner consistent with the neighborhood resulting in substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner. Additionally, the literal enforcement of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship to the community, which has recognized historic buildings as one of Salem's key resources. 4. The variances requested are not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions 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: I. To create a greater separation between the house to be moved to the new Downing Street lot and the structure located at 120-124 Margin Street and if permitted by the Building Code, the house to be relocated shall be placed on the new Downing Street lot such as to permit a driveway on the south side of said lot, so long as such placement will allow for at least a two foot side yard setback on the southerly lot line. If so located, the front yard setback may be of 0 feet, which setback is consistent with existing homes. If it is not possible to so locate the house, then the house shall be located as per the plan and application submitted. 2. To enable the building at 60 Federal Street to be moved to 90 Summer Street, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance noted with an asterisk (*) in the following charts: Table 1: Density Regulations 90 Summer Proposed Required (R-2) Street Lot Downing (after being Street Lot divided Min. lot area (s9 ft 15,000 4,400 ' 3,489 " Min. lot 7,500 2,200' 3,489 ' area/dwelling unit (2 family) (1 family) (sq ft) Min. lot width ft 100 No Chane Approx 40.7 Max. lot coverage 35% 38% 26% Min. depth of front 15 No Change 0 to 3" (see • yard (ft) conclusion 1 Min. width of side 10 No Change 2 to 6 " (see and ft conclusion 1 Min, depth of rear 30 29 ' 31 and ft 4 Section 7-3 Proposed Downing Street Lot • i Parking Requirements (R-2) 1 %2 spaces per dwelling unit 1" (one (1) space is provided on site with a min. of 2 by a driveway not depicted on the an 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 (Dionne, Stein, Curran, Harris, and Debski) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: L Petitioner shall comply with all City and State statues, 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. The historic character, details, and materials of the exterior of the house to be located on the new Downing Street lot shall be maintained. No vinyl siding or vinyl-clad windows shall be permitted. The petitioner, his heirs, successors and assigns shall familiarize himself with the Salem Historic Commission guidelines prior to undertaking any exterior work and are encouraged to follow such guidelines. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. 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. S. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 9. Unless this Decisions expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does 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'%x) of its floor area or more than fitly percent (50'%x) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent • of more than filly percent (50",4) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent r 5 (50'G)) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except ill conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 2008 13 P 4: obin Stein, Chair �); y, :" ,r11 E if Salem Zoning Board of Appeals - 0" ! :A C'OI'N OFIIIIS 01('[SION HAS HI-rN PILEIJ PITH TII1:PI_:ANNING BOARD AND IIID t'I I Y CLLRK Appeal floor this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 oft lie Massachusetts General I..a\1's Chapter JOA, and shalt be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter JOA, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit grunted 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. • OONDITq.q CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS q� BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 9 . �.r „ j a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday March 12, 2008 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. John Donahue Location: 90 Summer Street Request: Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage, depth of front yard, depth of side yard, and parking requirements. Description: Variances requested to allow for a building located at 60 Federal Street to be moved to 90 Summer Street [R-2]. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk March 13, 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 anv,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. /Y�Ai L�� aI'L� 3�/y�S • • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS sib BOARD OF APPEAL g 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 KIMBERLEY DR OLL FAX: 978-740-9846 _3 p 12: 3b MAYOR CITY FA March 3, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Darren Thompson seeking a Special Permit for a home occupation to operate an internet sales and coffee roasting business at 3 Goodell Street [R-2]. A public hearing on the above Petition was held on February 13, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a special permit pursuant to section § 5-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for a home occupation at 3 Goodell Street. Statements of fact: • 1. Darren Thompson has been roasting coffee as a hobby in his two-family home at 3 Goodell Street. 2. He would like to obtain a special permit to operate a coffee roasting and internet sales business. He plans to call the business Witch City Roasters. 3. Customers would purchase coffee through a website and not at the home. 4. The petitioner stated that 90% of the odor is eliminated by a new machine lie purchased. 5. JB Master(7 Goodell Street) and Gregory Turpin (a resident of Peabody) spoke in favor of the petition. They also stated that they have not been disturbed by odors. 6. There was no opposition to the request for a special permit 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 home occupation meets the criteria set forth in 5-3 (b)(1) and is a use allowed by special permit in an Residential Two Family (R-2) Zoning District. 2. A special permit 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 Salem Zoning 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 home occupation, a special permit may be granted under the Salem Zoning Ordinance § 5-3 Special Permit Uses. 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, Dionne, Belair, and Curran) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a special permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having • jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board 4. No retail sales out of the home shall be allowed. 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. • �oNalr�,b CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 • �` TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1JU0 t "..fl -3 P 12: 3b MAYOR March 3, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Dominic Mondi seeking a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow for a photocopy and print shop at 40 Boston Street [R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was held on February 13, 2008 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to section § 5-30) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for a change in the nonconforming use of the property. Statements of fact: • 1. Attorney Sally Calhoun presented the petition along with the petitioner Dominic Mondi, for the property a 40 Boston Street (R-2). 2. The current use of the property is professional offices, which is a nonconforming use in the Residential Two Family(R-2) District. This use of professional offices was allowed by the Board of Appeals decision dated May 24, 2007, which granted a special permit for a change in nonconforming use. Prior to this, there have been several other nonconforming uses of the property including a law office and a retail clothing store. 3. The petitioner plans to purchase the property at 40 Boston Street and move the photocopy and print shop which he has operated for twenty (20) years to this location. 4. The petitioner stated that a great deal of his business is done electronically and when costumers come in it is for a short period of time. 5. There was no opposition to the request for a special permit 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 change in nonconforming use does not have a difference in terms of its quality, • character, and effect on the neighborhood. The change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use. 2 2. A special permit maybe 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 Salem Zoning 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 change in nonconforming use, a special permit may be granted under § 5-3 0) Extension of nonconformity in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in sections 8-6 and 9-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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, Dionne, Belair, and Curran) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a special permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, 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. No more than five (5) persons shall be employed by the business. obi-` Sit , /k` 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. ot+ntr�.a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 • `h>M7NE�°� FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1108 I''zR -3 ;a IB 31 MAYOR March 3, 2008 .- Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Michael McLaughlin requesting VARIANCES from lot area per dwelling unit, and the number of parking spaces required, and a SPECIAL PERMIT to modify an existing nonconforming structure to allow for six (6) units at 22 Prince Street [R-3]. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 13, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on February 13, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Bonnie Belair, Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, and Richard Dionne. • Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Art. VI: Table I Residential Density Regulations, § 5-30)Extension of Nonconformity, and § 7-3 Off-street parking; uncovered, not included in structure. Statements of fact: I. Michael McLaughlin presented the petition for the property he owns at 22 Prince Street (R-3). 2. There are four (4) grandfathered units on the 3,049 square foot property making a lot area per dwelling unit of 762 square feet. 3. A fifth and sixth unit were added by a previous owner. Upon discovering the fifth and sixth units, the Building Inspector ordered that they be vacated. 4. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow six (6) units with a lot area per dwelling unit of 508 square feet. Since the units already exist, construction is not proposed as part of this petition. The petitioner is also requesting a variance from the parking requirements and a special permit to modify a nonconforming structure. 5. Linda Locke (1 Pickering Street) who owns the abutting property at 44-46 Dow • Street, submitted a letter opposing to the petitioner's request which was read aloud at the hearing. 2 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 which especially affect the property but do not affect generally the zoning district in which the property is located. 3. The building's current configuration of six (6) units would not necessarily have a different intensity than a four (4) unit building with larger units considering the proximity of the property to Salem State College. 4. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner. 5. 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: 1. To allow for six (6) dwelling units, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically lot area per dwelling unit (Art. VI Table 1) and the number of parking spaces required (§ 7-3). 2. To allow for the change to the nonconforming structure, a special permit may be granted under § 5-3 0) Extension of nonconformity in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in sections § 8-6 and 9-4. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor(Stein, Debski, Dionne, and Curran) and one (1) opposed (Belair), to grant petitioner's request 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 • 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 is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 7. Unless the Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does 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 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 for in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CI'T'Y 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. J.�,ONDITq,gQ CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 `47M P TELFAXOEPHNE 978-745-9 978-7 O 9846595 • KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 7909 NO -3 0 12: 3b MAYOR iLL ;t March 3, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Paul Carro requesting a Variance for a second curb cut to allow for two new parking spaces and a Variance from minimum stall dimensions and minimum setback to allow the existing four spaces to remain at 7 English Street [R-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 13, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on February 13, 2008 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Bonnie Belair, Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, and Richard Dionne. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the following section of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: § 7-3 Off-street parking; uncovered, not included in structure. • Statements of fact: 1. Paul Carro presented the petition for the property he owns at 7 English Street (R- 2). 2. The plan submitted to accompany the petition is entitled "Plot Plan of Land, 7 English Street, Salem, Property of Paul Carro", dated December 13, 2005, and prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation. 3. The existing curb cut is on Gerrish Place (labeled "way" on the plan). This curb cut provides access to the existing four (4) parking spaces at the rear of the property. These four (4) spaces do not meet the requirements for stall dimensions and do not provide for the minimum two (2) foot setback from the side and rear lot lines. 4. The petitioner is proposing a second curb cut on English Street. This would access a second driveway on the left side of the property to park two cars, one behind the other. The two parking stalls depicted on the plan in this location do not meet requirements set forth in §7-3 for stall length and the regulations that parking facilities shall be designed so that each motor vehicle may proceed to and from the parking space provided for it without requiring the moving of any other vehicle. 2 5. Letters of support for the requests of the petitioner were submitted by Dawsom Mertz (7 English Street) and Heather and Michael Ukstins (7 English Street). 6. Two direct abutters spoke at the hearing against the petition including Helen Twardowski (9 English Street) and Amy Conrad (5 English Street). 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 separate findings for each request: 1. Request for variances from minimum stall dimensions and minimum setback to allow the existing four spaces to remain a) 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. b) A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would require reducing the number of spaces accommodated on site and, would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner and the neighborhood. c) There are circumstances relating to the layout and access to this parking area which especially affect the property but do not affect generally the zoning district in which the property is located in. • d) 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. 2. Request for a variance to allow for a second curb cut on English Street to allow two new parking spaces. a) The variances requested are contrary to the public interest and special conditions do not exist that create unnecessary hardship. Not all residents have driveways; these circumstances are not unusual to the zoning district the property is located in. b) After hearing concerns about safety the Board concluded that desirable relief may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance to allow for a second curb cut. 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: 3 1. To allow the existing four spaces to remain at the rear of the property, the petitioner may vary the terms of section § 7-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, specifically stall dimensions and the minimum setback from lot lines. 2. The addition of a second curb cut shall not be allowed. 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 two votes: There was a vote of five (5) in favor(Stein, Debski, Dionne, Curran, and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for variances from minimum stall dimensions and minimum setback to allow the existing four spaces to remain. There was a vote of three (3) in favor (Debski, Dionne, and Belair) and two (2) opposed (Stein, Curran) to grant the petitioner's request for a second curb cut on English Street, therefore as stated above the addition of a second curb cut shall not be allowed by the decision. The variances granted shall be 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. 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. /�oNoa CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS w BOARD OF APPEAL ^e 120 WASHINGTON STFEF_T. 3RD FI_oOR X11'. jfc SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE_. 978-745-9595 FAX. 978-740-9846 I , KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL - MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEE1lNG February 13, 2008 - 6:30 PAL 3"" FLOOR. ROOM 314 - 130 WASHINGTON SI'RL-ET Robin Stein, Chuir L Approval of Minutes o January 16, 2008 2. Petition of DARREN THOMPSON seeking a Special Permit for a home occupation to operate an internet sales and coffee roasting business at 3 GOODELL ST (R-2). 3. Petition of DOMINIC MONDI seeking a Special Permit for a change in non conforming use to allow for a photocopy and print shop at 40 BOSTON STREET (R-2). 4. Petition of MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN seeking a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit and a Special Permit to modify an existing non conforming structure to retain the fifth and sixth units at 22 PRINCE STREET (R-3). 5. Petition of PAUL CARRO seeking a Variance for a second curb cut to allow for two new parking spaces and a Variance from minimum stall dimensions and minimum setback to allow the existing four spaces to remain at 7 ENGLISH STREET (R-2). 6. Old/New Business o Update ofthe Board ofAppeals Rules and Regulations o Final revisions to the Notice to Applicants 7. Adjournment ',-his notice postlel G zl 31,1 tin Board" city H�t_ x3A A>< 234 Of Fd.; . .. • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,December 19, 2007 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday, December 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), Richard Dionne,Beth Debski, and Steve Pinto (alternate). Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Members absent: Rebecca Curran, Annie Harris, and Bonnie Belair(Alternate) Business Items A motion was made by Steve Pinto to approve the minutes of November 14, 2007, seconded by Beth Debski, approved (4-0). Robin Stein acknowledged that it would be Steven Pinto's last meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals and thanked him for his service; Steve will be leaving the Board to serve on the City Council. • Public Hearing 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. Robin Stein said the applicants had submitted a written request to withdraw their position because it was deemed unnecessary by the Building Inspector. Tom St. Pierre confirmed that he had determined the property had a grandfathered status. Richard Dionne made a motion to allow the withdrawal of 3 Hawthorne Blvd, seconded by Beth Debski, approved(4-0). 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. Robert Cucurull presented the petition for the property he owns at 117 Boston Street (AllStar Collision). He presented the Board with an image of the sign he would like to erect at his business. The dimensions on the image the petitioner brought in differed from the dimensions of the sign denied by the sign review committee. Amy Lash said that the Board should consider the sign that was denied and not a different sign. The applicant agreed that he would like the Board to consider the 4' x 8' sign that had • previously been denied. 1 • The applicant said his abutter Mr. Zion was present and that he was not positive that his proposed location was not on Mr. Zion's property. If it was, he would move the sign over. He wants the poles to be 25 ft high. Mr. Cucurull said that there is a large tree blocking the view of his building for those coming from Peabody. He said he believe the regulations allow for a 25 foot sign. Beth Debski said that in the Entrance Corridor signs could be limited to 1/2 the height allowed in the underlying district. Robin Stein asked if what the applicant was requesting was a height variance. Amy said that in addition to the height, the applicant is requesting that the Board allow internal illumination, which is not recommended in the City's design guidelines. Robin asked whether the sign needed to be lit. The applicant replied yes, internal illumination is preferred and it would be less maintenance. David Battcock of SignCo graphic introduced himself and added that other signs in the area look like the one proposed. Beth Debski asked what signs were there now. The applicant said there are two temporary signs, which are visible in the photograph. These signs would come off once a permanent sign was in place. • Beth asked whether the sign before the Board came from participation in one of the Planning Department's programs. The applicant said no. Amy said that AllStar Collision participated in the City's Storefront Improvement program back in 2003 and a number of possible sign designs were developed but were never used. Robert Cueurrul said that the signs that were designed as part of the program were the kind that would be flat across the building and not a pole sign visible from the street. Beth Debski said that she believed the purpose of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District was improving the look of the signs that had been appearing along Boston Street and improving the look of the entrances into the City. David Battcock showed the Board examples of signs designed with the City's program and said that the type of sign would not allow for a passerby to notice the sign or building. Robert Cucurrul said that the big issue was the tree was on the Peabody line. Steve Pinto asked how many feet the business was from Boston Street. Robert Cucurrul said it was 50 or 60 feet at most. • 2 • Tom St. Pierre said that technically the Board is not being asked to grant a variance. Tom said his only function in denying the sign was receiving a negative recommendation from the Sign Review Committee. Robert Cucurull said that he felt if he could get away with a sign less than 25 ft in height he wouldn't have asked for 25 ft. Steven Pinto said that basically the question in front of the Board was whether or not the sign was presentable as a sign along the entryway into the City. Robin Stein opened the public portion of the hearing. Robert Brophy(165 Boston St) asked how far the sign would be from the building. Robert Cucurull said it would be about 3 ft. David Zion (167 Boston Street) asked that the applicant make sure the location he is proposing the sign is land which he actually owns. He said that the applicant once added landscaping on his land. Rick Dionne questioned whether the Board was there to comment on the design itself. Robin said no, he already submitted a design and the review committee made a recommendation against it. • Robin Stein said she would like to applicant to know that he would need all four votes tonight, he would also have the option to continue the item to another meeting when there would be a full board. She said that the question of where the sign would be located could be figured out by this time as well. David Battcock said he could build the sign with one pole if need be. There was a question over which design they were looking at. Amy said it would have to be the exact sign which was denied. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Robin said that she though there were three issues: height, illumination, and location. Amy suggested that if the Board was to approve the sign they could always condition that a certified plot plan is submitted showing that the location would be on Mr. Cucurull's land before the City's issued a permit to erect the sign. Rick asked whether the sign would be overhanging the street. David Battcock said that the sign could go on the edge of the pole as well if it was preferred. Beth Debski said that she felt the sign was too tall and that the Planning Department had spent a great deal of time making good recommendations that were not used. She noted • that the Planning Department was willing to approve a 20 ft. externally illuminated sign. 3 • Robin asked if it would be possible to bring the signs out further and drop the height. Robert Cucurull responded that he felt that the height was necessary because of the tree. Beth asked whether they looked at something coming off the building rather than a free standing sign. David Battcock said that it could be built that way but it wouldn't solve the tree issue. Robin said that she didn't really have a problem with the height considering the building. Beth Debski said that when driving by you don't need to have a 25 ft high sign to see it. Beth said she felt the purpose of the Entrance Corridor Overlay was to beautify the entrance corridor and that this sign doesn't fit with the intent. David Battcock added that Robert Cucurull was here to stay for the life of his business and that people didn't even know he was there. Steve Pinto said he would like to find a happy medium here. David Battcock said that the Planning Department was willing to approve a 25 ft externally illuminated sign at one time. Amy said from her conversations with Kirsten Kinzer and Lynn Duncan who make up the sign review committee she does not believe this was the case, but she will check with them. She said she knew that they were willing • to approve an externally illuminated sign with a height of 20 ft. David Battcock suggested that they continue to the next meeting. He said he would return to the Board with photographs showing the tree. Robin Stein said that she felt it would be a good idea to continue the item and have it heard by a full board. Beth Dabski made a motion to continue the item, seconded by Steven Pinto, and approved 4-0. Robert Cucurull said he would bring a certified plot plan for the next meeting. 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 the parcel. Attorney Joe Correnti presented the petition for his clients. He said that the new development on has site plan approval from the Planning Board. He said there would be two new buildings on the lot: a new CVS Pharmacy and a new Tri-City Sales store with a Dunkin Donuts in the back. He said that they undertook a long process working with • neighbors, councilors, and the City's Planning Department. 4 • Moving forward the site with be divided into two lots the CVS lot and the Tri-City lot. They will go back to the Planning Board to do the subdivision when it is appropriate. He said the lot is comprised of fourteen (14)lots; eleven (11) are registered with the land court. There are three (3) separate certificates and five (5) separate land court plans. Attorney Correnti said that coming to the ZBA was a technical exercise. He said they have filed a petition with the land court to de-register the land though they have no idea how long it will take. He said it could take months or years, stopping the fully approved project, which is otherwise ready to go. He said they are requesting a variance to allow more than one principal building and use on one lot so that the project may go forward. Once the Land Court grants approval to un-register the land they will move forward with the subdivision. Robin Stein asked whether the Board had any questions or comments. Robin asked Tom St. Pierre whether this would be a use variance. Tom St. Pierre said that the terms of the ordinance were being varied but it was not a use or dimensional variance. Attorney. Correnti said that the uses are allowed and the request is not to vary the use. Rick Dionne asked whether there is a drive thru at the Dunkin Donuts. Joe Correnti said no, it is at the CVS. Atty. Correnti said that they are not asking for any changes to the Planning Board's decision or to the plan. • Robin Stein said that she did not have a problem with granting the petitioners request as long as it was limited to the uses plan that was approved (not just any uses). Kathy Desilets (6 Greenlawn Ave) asked about the construction time. The applicant responded saying that it would be a total of 14 months until occupancy. It would be sequenced that the new building is built in about 4 months, Tri-City Sales will move into it, and then the old building will be torn down and the next building would be built. Kathy Desilets asked, what happens if the land court disapproves the petition? Attorney Correnti said that the variance would allow the project to exist anyways. Robin Stein said she was sympathetic to the Land Court's time table. Steven Pinto made a motion to approve the petition with seven standard conditions and the special condition that the decision refers specifically to the April 9, 2007 Planning Board decision as amended. Robin Stein seconded the motion, and it was approved 4-0. 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. Michael Redford presented the petition for the property he owns at 4 Andrew Street. He • said when he moved to Salem he put a shed on his property to store his lawn mower and other things. He said when he looked around the neighborhood he saw many sheds 2' 5 • from the lot line and so they constructed a shed at this location on their lot. He wants to leave the shed in it's current location. He said that there was no way to take it apart and if it was moved it would need to be moved by a crane. He said he talked to his neighbors and they have no opposition. He said it is situated between two trees and does not block the Fire Department's access to the residence. Judith Beals (6 Andrew Street Unit 1) said she was not notified about this issue. Amy said that she is on the abutters list and is not sure why she did not receive a notice. Amy knows that the notice went out successfully because other abutters have called to ask questions about the petition. Judith Beals said that Michael Redford did not talk to her so therefore he did not talk to all of the neighbors like he had said. She said that she came to the meeting because she wanted to make sure the only issue was the distance from the side lot line, and if so, she did not have an issue with this. Robin Stein said yes that was the only issue. There being no further questions or comments, Beth Debski made a motion to approve the petition that the shed remain in its current location. The motion was seconded by Robin Stein, and approved 4-0. Tom St. Pierre instructed the applicant to come in a pull a permit for the shed following the end of the appeal period. Old/New Business • o Revised Board of Appeals Application Package The Board voted to continue discussion on the revised application package until January when more members would be present. o Vote to adopt 2008 Meeting Schedule Amy noted that she had revised the 2008 as requested by the Board so that the February meeting would be on the second week of the month, and not during school vacation. Robin Stein made a motion to adopt the 2008 meeting schedule, seconded by Rick Dionne, and approved (4-0). The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Amy Lash Staff Planner • 6 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,January 16, 2008 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein(chairperson),Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Annie Harris arrived at 7:15 (participating only in Old/New Business) Business Items A motion was made by Beth Debski to approve the minutes of December 19, 2007, seconded by Robin Stein, approved (5-0). Public Hearing Continued: 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. • The petitioner supplied each member of the Board with a set of color photographs showing the approach to the building from both directions on Boston Street. The petitioner also presented the Board and audience with a poster that had images the proposed sign superimposed at 12 and 20 feet. Beth Debski asked if the applicant was still asking for the same sign at the same height. The applicant said yes. Rebecca Curran asked whether the applicant had considered a blade sign. The applicant said he needed something higher than the roofline. He encouraged the Board to look through the images of the approach to the building from Peabody and imagine what it would look like once the leaves are out on the trees. Rebecca asked what the hours were. The applicant said normal hours are 7 am to 6 pm. Bonnie asked if most customers make an appointment. Robert Cucurull said yes, you can assume that, though if he is going to spend money on a sign he wants people to see it. Bonnie replied that she understands his point that a sign is a form of advertising, though she is concerned that if this sign is approved surrounding businesses will want similar signs. Bob Bronhy(165 Boston Street) asked whether the sign would stick out from the building. To . answer his question, Robert Cucurull showed him the image of the sign superimposed in front of the building. 1 • Bonnie Belair said she was concerned about the look on the entrance corridor, and would not want to set a precedent with this sign. She fears others will want a sign of equal height. Rebecca Curran said she agrees with Bonnie and with the Planning Department's suggestion for a 20 ft externally illuminated sign. Beth Debski said she understands that the petitioner wants people to see his business, but she feels the sign is too big. She said the Planning Department spent a lot of time working on a design; she would like to see the applicant explore a sign off the building or take the Planning Department's recommendation for a 20 ft sign. Robert Cucurull asked how many votes he would need. Robin Stein said he would need four (4) votes for it. Robert said he already had three (3) against his request and because of this would like to withdraw his petition. Richard Dionne made a motion to allow the withdrawal of the petition for 171 Boston Street, seconded by Beth Debski, approved (5-0). Petition of David Pabich seeking a special permit to expand an existing non-conforming structure by constructing a 22 ft. x 24 ft. second story addition at the rear of 92 Bridge Street [R-2]. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition on behalf the petitioner David Pabich. He introduced the Pabich family, owners of Renewal Real Estate. He explained that Renewal Real Estate recently purchased 92 Bridge Street which has four studios and five one bedroom • apartments. It is a grandfathered eight (8) family that had an illegal ninth (9`h) unit. They are requesting a special permit for an addition which would allow the building to be reconfigured into eight (8) one bedroom units. It would also be a safer structure because plans include the installation a new fire escape from the second and third floor down to the ground. They expect tenants who rent one bedrooms to stay longer and be less transient than those renting studios. They feel that this change would not be an extension of non conformity. Attorney Atkins said they were willing to discuss the issue of parking, though he believes the Building Inspector is of the opinion that with no additional units, no additional spaces are required. Tom St. Pierre confirmed he agreed with the statement. Tom St. Pierre noted that the applicant had stated in his letter to the Board that the footprint would not be changing; he said that technically the addition of the fire escape staircase would change the footprint slightly. Rebecca Curran asked Tom whether side yard setback requirements would be met. Tom said yes. David Pabich said there is still 24 ft between the new staircase and the side lot line. Rick Dionne asked what style the roof would be. David Pabich said they would be maintaining the same style as the roof on the existing first story addition. He said that when he first looked at the property he brought the Fire Department through because • he was concerned about the fire escape. 2 Dottie Tracey(82 Bridge Street) is concerned with the parking situation in the neighborhood and doesn't want people parking in front of her house. She is excited there are new owners and is optimistic that past problems they have had will improve. Attorney Atkins said that the Pabich's have been involved in many buildings in Salem and their experience is that tenants in one bedroom units do not typically have two cars. He said it is likely that some of these tenants will use the train. David Pabich said he is expecting a different more stable type of tenant and he is aware or the problems that have occurred in the past. Cynthia Hutchinson (4 Conant) asked what the fire escape would look like. David Pabich showed her the plans. There being no further comments from the public, Robin Stein closed the public portion of the hearing and asked the Board whether they had additional questions or comments. Bonnie Belair said the Pabich family has done nice renovations. She likes that they aren't looking to increase the number of units and knows they won't be absentee landlords. Tom St. Pierre said that the Pabich's truly restore buildings and the quality of the buildings attracts good tenants. Rebecca Curran made a motion to approve the petition with seven standard conditions, seconded by Beth Debski, and approved 5-0. . • Councilor Pelletier said that he hopes the confusing language about parking can be cleaned up as part of the Zoning Ordinance Recodification. Petition of William and Catherine Harrison seeking a Variance from side yard setback to construct a 23' x 15' one-story addition for the property located at 7 Beacon Street [R-2]. Katherine Harrison presented the petition for the property she owns at 7 Beacon Street. She explained that they would like to put a one (1) story addition on the back of the existing residence and wouldn't be able to do this and meet the side yard setback requirement. Tom St. Pierre said he knows the petitioners are not doing this for speculation and they are only doing this for their retirement. No members of the public had questions or comments about the petition. Robin Stein said she thought it was a small dimensional request. Rebecca Curran made a motion to approve the petition with seven standard conditions, seconded by Rick Dionne, and approved 5-0. . • Petition of Dennis and Linda Korumpas seeking a Variance from side yard width and a Special Permit to expand an existing nonconforming structure to allow for the extension of 3 • an existing room by 5 ft. and the addition of a 14 ft. x 24 ft. single car attached garage for the property at 3 Larkin Lane [R-1]. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the property owner Dennis Korumpas. He said they would like to expand the family room by five (5) ft. and construct an attached single car garage. This would cause a new nonconformity with side lot encroachment. Attorney Atkins read a letter from Mark Coughlin the owner of 30 Memorial Drive into the record. The letter expressed support for the relief, Mr. Coughlin said he is the closest abutter and that his own lot and residence was quite similar to the Korumpas lot and residence. Attorney Atkins explained that the property was originally used as a pre school and the resulting layout of the lot would make if difficult to have a disconnected garage in the rear. Bonnie Belair made a motion to approve the petition with seven standard conditions, seconded by Rick Dionne, and approved 5-0. . Old/New Business Revised Board of Appeals Application Package Robin Stein said she felt the new application form is working well and people are filling it out in its entirety. Amy said what the Board needed to discuss is the Notice to Petitioners and • specifically the instructions to petitioners on plan requirements. Tom St. Pierre said the certified plot plan should only be prepared by a registered engineer or land surveyor. He also said that certain special permit requests don't require plot plans and to include a line about this exclusion and suggested that requests relative to construction and alterations require plot plans. Robin said that currently the wording suggests that everyone needs have a certified plot plan. Tom St. Pierre said certified plot plans cost $1,000 and the Board decided they did not want people to go to that expense. Robin said she is satisfied with mortgage plans in certain cases. Tom suggested requiring certified plot plans for buildings other than one and two families. Rebecca said she had no problem with that except when something is real close to the property line and then a mortgage plan is not accurate enough. The Board decided construction and alterations to one and two families within two feet of a property line should have a certified plot plan. The Zoning Board voted (6-0) to adopt the new application package with the changes discussed. Amy will email the cleaned up language to the Board to confirm everyone agrees with the wording before it is formally used. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Amy Lash, Staff Planner 4 r • Zoning Board of Appeal Meeting Minutes November 14, 2007 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday, November 14, 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, Annie Harris, and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St. Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Members absent: Richard Dionne and Steven Pinto (alternate) Business Items Approval of October 17, 2007 Meeting Minutes Annie Harris suggested two changes to the October 17`h meeting minutes; the minutes were approved with these changes 5-0 (Stein, Debski, Harris, Curran, Belair). Public Hearine • Petition of Gary Parker requesting a Variance from number of stories allowed (2 1/2) to allow a third floor shed dormer for the property located at 10 LARCHMONT RD [R-1]. Petitioner, Gary Parker presented the petition. He held up the plans for his residence for the Board to see. Robin Stein asked him to describe the petition. He said that with the addition of the dormer the total height would be less than the maximum height allowed of 35 feet, and he believed it would be about 30.9 feet. He said the proposed dormer would be at the rear of the house. He passed around photos showing neighboring residences to show that the addition would not be out of scale with the neighborhood. Bonnie Belair asked, would there be plumbing? The petitioner said no there wouldn't be plumbing. The petitioner described the dimensions and said that the dormer would add about 500 square feet. Annie Harris asked for clarification what side was the front and what side was the back. The petitioner said the dormer was proposed on the rear side, and pointed to the location on the plans and the photos. The petitioner presented a sketch showing the dimensions of the lot. He said that there was 66 feet between the rear of his residence and the rear property line, and 80 feet between the rear of the residence and the residence on the next . property. 1 Annie said that the only concern she has is the application did not have a statement on . Y why the dormer is needed and why the relief should be granted. The petitioner said that his family needs more space. Annie said moving forward she wants to see the explanation of why a variance is needed on the application form. Beth asked Tom St. Pierre if a variance from height was needed. Tom said no, it was only from the number of stories and that the proposed dormer would be a 1/2 story higher than what was allowed. Bonnie Belair made a motion to approve the request for a variance subject to seven(7) standard conditions. The motion was seconded by Rebecca Curran and approved 5-0 (Stein, Harris, Curran, Debski, Belair). Robin Stein explained to the applicant that the decision would have to be filed with the clerk and that the 20 day appeal period would have to pass with no appeals before a building permit could be obtained. 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. • The petitioner was not present, though another employee of AllStar Collision was. The other employee said that Robert Cucurull was going to try and make it and she would call him to see where he was. Robert Cucurull was reached over the phone, he was not going to be able to make the meeting. Robin Stein disclosed that at one time prior to joining her firm, her firm was involved with All Star Collision in some way, thought she does not believe she has ever met the applicant. Though there was an employee of AllStar collision present, Robin Stein said she thinks it would be unusual to go forward without the petitioner there. Bonnie Belair said she felt he should really be there and that since he wasn't the decision could be appealed. She said that the employee's name wasn't on the petition and hasn't properly been given authority to represent the petitioner. The Board decided to continue the petition the next meeting on the condition that a signed extension form was submitted. Old/New Business Discussion- Revised Board of Appeals Application Package • Robin Stein said that she thinks the new application package is a big improvement. She asked if the Board wants to require certified plot plans for all applications. Tom St. 2 . Pierre said he thinks that would be too costly to those applicants who are only doing something like a dormer. Robin said she wanted to have the discussion. Tom said for 1 and 2 family homes they used to just require a mortgage plan. Rebecca Curran said in Marblehead that they require instrument surveys when something is within a few feet of a lot line. She said she liked how Salem does not always require the applicant to spend a lot of money. Annie Harris said that one of the applications in front of them tonight was incomplete and pp g P that they should no longer be accepting incomplete applications. She said that she liked the example statement on the new form. Rebecca Curran said in Marblehead the staff signs off when they receive a complete application. Amy said she could hold of from getting an application stamped by the clerk until it's complete. She believes the new application form will encourage the application to fully explain what they are asking for. Robin Stein said she thinks that they should give the new application a few months to see how it is working. Beth Debski asked whether statements could be required for Special Permits when it wasn't something required in the ordinance. Robin Stein said yes, because the Board is allowed to adopt rules and regulations. Tom St. Pierre is going to check with Building Commissioners in other communities to see what they require for plot plans and get back to the Board. At the next meeting the • Board will make final adjustments to the new application package and take a vote to officially start using it. 2008 Meeting Schedule Amy will revise the 2008 Meeting Schedule to avoid holding a meeting during a school vacation and the Board will take a vote at the next meeting to adopt the 2008 schedule. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Lash, Staff Planner • 3 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,February 13,2008 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday,February 13, 2008 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (chairperson), Richard Dionne,Elizabeth Debski,Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St.Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Business Items A motion was made by Beth Debski to approve the minutes of January 16, 2008, seconded by Rebecca Curran and approved (5-0). Public Hearing Petition of DARREN THOMPSON seeking a Special Permit for a home occupation to operate an internet sales and coffee roasting business at 3 GOODELL ST (R-2). The petitioner has been roasting coffee in his home as a hobby. He would like to turn his hobby into a business and roast coffee to sell over the internet. • Rebecca Curran asked if customers would come to the home to purchase coffee. The petitioner responded no. Rebecca asked whether roasting created odors. The petitioner said that 90% of the odor was eliminated by a new machine he purchased, and the remaining odor depends on the roast. Rick Dionne asked if the petitioner plans to have other employees. The petitioner said no, he would be the only one for now and he plans to do it part-time in addition to his current job. Bonnie Belair asked what the hours of operation would be. The petitioner said he would continue to do the roasting around 8:00 or 9:00 pm, like he does currently. JB Master(7 Goodell Street) has lived next door to Darren Thompson for 10 years. He stated that Mr. Thompson has been a good neighbor, he has not noticed odors from the coffee roasting, and he is in support of the petition. Gregory Turpin (a resident of Peabody) spoke in favor of the petition saying he enjoys Mr. Thompson's coffee. Robin Stein said it seemed like a good business, but she would not want sales out of the house. She would also only want one (1) or two (2) employees. Building Inspector, Tom St. Pierre, noted that the Zoning Ordinance already limits the number of • employees for home occupations to no more than one (1) not residing at the dwelling. The ordinance also limits the size of the sign. 1 Rick Dionne asked what the business would be called. Darren Thompson said he plans to call • his business Witch City Roasters. Rebecca Curran made a motion to grant the request for a special permit, subject to three(3) standard conditions and the special condition that no retail sales take place at the home. The motion was seconded by Rick Dionne and approved (5-0) (Stein,Debski, Dionne, Belair, Curran). Petition of DOMINIC MONDI seeking a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow for a photocopy and print shop at 40 BOSTON STREET (R-2). Attorney Sally Calhoun presented the petition along with the petitioner, Dominic Mondi. Any. Calhoun explained that they are requesting a special permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the professional offices at 40 Boston Street to become a photocopy and print shop. She said that it was a minor change to make the use compliant. She said the building is currently vacant. Tom St. Pierre mentioned that the building has houses several nonconforming uses over the years and the petition was being done as a technicality. Rebecca Curran asked if there was any parking. Dominic Mondi said there is parking in front of the building and around the corner; parking is not allowed where Boston Street splits into two • lanes. Atty. Calhoun explained that due to the internet, more and more of her clients business was done electronically rather than in person. Robin Stein asked how many people worked in the building at 40 Boston Street when it was used as a law office. Dominic Mondi said he believed there were five (5) employees at 40 Boston Street at that time. Rebecca Curran asked how many people the copy and print shop employed. Dominic Mondi said one other besides himself. Tom St. Pierre asked how long he had been in business. Dominic Mondi said he had been operating his business in another location for twenty (20) years. Bonnie Belair asked whether the petitioner would be buying or renting. The petitioner said he would be buying. Robin Stein said she felt this use was no more intense. Rebecca Curran asked what the hours of operation were. The petitioner said he is typically open 8:00 am - 4:30 or 5:00 pm during the week. • 2 • Rick Dionne made a motion to approve the request for a special permit for a change in nonconforming use subject to seven (7) standard conditions and (1) special condition that there be no more than five (5) employees. The motion was seconded by Beth Debski and approved(5- 0) (Stein, Debski, Curran, Belair, Dionne). Petition of MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN seeking a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit and a Special Permit to modify an existing non conforming structure to retain the fifth and sixth units at 22 PRINCE STREET (R-3). Petitioner, Michael McLaughlin recently purchased 22 Prince Street in the Point Neighborhood. He said the building had historically been used as a six (6) unit building and that it had two means of egress. He said he had an agreement with the Building Inspector to vacate two (2) units. Because the space exists, he would like to maximize his investment and keep six (6) units. He said he would prefer to have modest one (1) bedroom units without kids in the school system than larger units with more bedrooms. He said he knows there is a parking problem in the Point, but he feels the neighborhood has absorbed the parking for these units already. He feels that there is sufficient on street parking on this block because parking is allowed on both sides of the street, and the neighborhood park also has a parking lot. He said this was his first property investment in the Point, though he owns a business on Jefferson Avenue which he fixed up. He would like to make the Point property a nice place for people to live. He said if he was not granted the two units he would turn the building into subsidized housing. • Rebecca asked how many bedrooms the units had. The petitioner said there are four(4) two bedroom units, and two (2) one bedroom units. The units are approximately 600-700 square feet. Rick asked about fire protection. The petitioner said he put in a fire alarm panel in September and is in compliance as of the conveyance date in September. Rebecca asked Tom St. Pierre whether this triggered sprinklers. Tom said it would usually be triggered by a renovation, but since the units are already there he is not sure. Tom St. Pierre said the property owner had complied with his order to abandon the units. Bonnie asked if the other units were rented. The petitioner said yes, they are rented. Robin asked whether he planned to do work on the whole building. The petitioner said that he planned to give the whole building a face lift and feels it would work better as a six unit building rather than a building with larger subsidized units. Beth asked if there is any parking on site. The petitioner said there was one (1) driveway where two (2) cars could park one in front of the other. Beth asked what the petitioner means by subsidized housing. The petitioner said his alternate plan would be to connect the second and third floors to create a unit with at least four bedrooms which he would offer to students at Salem State College or accept Section 8 vouchers. • 3 , 1 Linda Locke (1 Pickering Street) who owns the abutting property at 44-46 Dow Street, was not • present, but submitted a letter opposing to the petitioner's request which was read aloud at the hearing. Rebecca Curran asked whether this type of building was typical in the neighborhood. Tom St. Pierre said that yes, this building was typical. The petitioner said the building is surrounded by similar buildings with a similar number of units. Robin Stein said she is usually conservative with allowing increases in density, but in this case the units have already been existing and they are talking about what to do with them now. Rick asked whether each unit had separate kitchen facilities. The petitioner said yes. Robin is happy to see somebody improving the building and feels this could be a less intense use than fewer but bigger units so close to the college. Beth Debski said that a unit with four bedrooms near the college might end up housing eight students with eight cars. Robin Stein reviewed the relief needed. Bonnie Belair made a motion to approve the request for variances from lot area per dwelling unit • and parking requirements, and a special permit to modify an existing nonconforming structure. The motion was seconded by Beth Debski and approved four (4) in favor(Debski, Stein, Curran, Dionne) and one (1) opposed (Belair). Petition of PAUL CARRO seeking a Variance for a second curb cut to allow for two new parking spaces and a Variance from minimum stall dimensions and minimum setback to allow the existing four spaces to remain at 7 ENGLISH STREET (R-2). Petitioner Paul Carro presented the petition. He said that he would like to add parking to the property because the parking in the neighborhood is tight. He said that the parking spaces in the back have existed since the building was used. He said that the second and third units have been sold and the parking spaces in the back have been deeded to those units. Paul Carro said the first curb cut is considered to be off an unpaved paper street. Robin confirmed that the paper street labeled "Way" is how the parking in the back is accessed. R Photos were supplied by the applicant. Members of the audience came up to view the plans. A letter of support from Dawsom Mertz (7 English Street, Unit 3) was read aloud. The letter said he had lived at the property for 11 months and doesn't have a problem with the size of the spaces. • 4 1 • A letter of support from Heather and Michael Ukstins (7 English Street, Unit 2) was read aloud. The letter said that they understand the motivation for requesting a curb cut and they have no difficulty with the size of the parking spaces in the back. A letter from Attorney Robert Allison was submitted to clarify any questions which may arise about Gerrish Place, labeled as "Way" on the plan. When the petitioner was before the Board in the past he said his neighbor questioned the ownership of the "Way" Amy Conrad (5 English Street) is opposed to the second curb cut. She said she has five children in her home and feels this would be dangerous. She know there is a two foot buffer required. She said they visited this in January 2006 and can't remember if it was withdrawn or denied. She said this was the first building in the neighborhood to be turned into condos. Robin Stein said she believed it was withdrawn. She said that they don't have to add the parking when creating condominiums. Rick asked whether there was a fence. The applicant said yes. Bonnie asked, are you objecting because you would loose a space on the street? Amy Conrad said no, she does not have problems parking in front of her house. She feels people do not always use the driveways they have so it is unnecessary. She is concerned about safety and cars coming in and out of the driveway. • Matthew Connelly (Cherry Hill Avenue) worked on the driveway in the back. He said he felt some of the neighbors opposition was fear of the units being turned into condos. He said he's been involved with fixing up the property and knows the goal is to dress the existing property up. He would work with Paul Carro on the driveway in the front and making it safe and attractive like they had done in the back. David Heisler(7 Essex Street) thanked the petitioner for taking a property that needed help and turning it around. He said he is not necessarily opposed. He is concerned that those that use the proposed driveway will squeeze in three (3) cars and block the sidewalk. He said there is no parking enforcement in the neighborhood. He is concerned that parking will be taken away from the neighborhood as a whole and transferred to the condominium owners. Andrew Conrad, said his children live at 5 English Street and he feels the driveway will not free up any parking or visually help the neighborhood. He said that people don't currently park in their driveways. He said the people in the back don't use their four spaces on a daily basis. Helen Twardowski (9 English Street) said that the reason the residents don't park in the back is that there is no space to do so. She said that the car doors open over her property. She said that the parking area in the rear was not always parking and the former owner used it as a back yard. She mentioned there had been a problem with residents of 7 English Street driving on the .Way„ • 5 Robin Stein said that the dispute over the "Way" was not a Zoning Board issue and that it should • be handled outside of the Zoning Board Meeting. Paul Carro said he lives on Daniels Street and he would love to have a parking space. Amy Conrad said that she would like to keep as much green space in the neighborhood as possible. Ron Sweeney (16 English Street) is concerned about extra stormwater from the additional impervious surface flowing to Essex Street. He said there is problem with puddles. Tom St. Pierre noted that if the Board was to approve additional spaces the Engineering Department would require a drainage plan. Phillip Carro (8 Beach Avenue) said in the rear of the property they put done peat stone so water would seep through. Beth Debski asked if the intention would be to construct the front like the back. Paul Carro said yes. Rick Dionne suggested that could be a condition. Rick said that he felt this was a difficult area for parking and that they should attempt to get cars off the street. Robin Stein is concerned about the narrowness. Bonnie Belair thinks getting cars off the street improves safety. • Robin Stein said that she felt the economic benefit for one person would mean taking something away from the neighborhood as a whole. Rebecca Curran said she agrees with Robin. Rick Dionne complemented the petitioner for doing a nice job fixing up the property. Beth said she did not see a problem with allow parking on the side. Rick said he agreed. Bonnie Belair is not sure she likes that other people are telling the petitioner what to do with parking. Robin Stein said that was the point of the Zoning Ordinance. She feels the parking benefit is neutral because it takes a spot off the street which would be available to the public. She feels they should clean up the spaces in the back to make them legal for the people they have been deeded to. The Board decided to take two separate votes on the two requests. Bonnie Belair made a motion to approve the request for a curb cut seconded by Beth Debski and denied by a vote of three (3) in favor (Debski, Dionne, Belair) and two (2) opposed (Stein, Curran). • 6 w Bonnie Belair made a motion to approve the request for variances to allow the existing parking spaces in the rear to remain seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0) (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Debski, Belair). Robin Stein explained to the petitioner and other in attendance that the result of the votes meant that the rear spaces could stay as they are undersized, but the curb cut was denied. She explained the filing and appeal process. Old/New Business Update of the Board of Appeals Rules and Regulations Robin Stein asked whether anybody had comments on the draft of the Rules and Regulations. Nobody had comments. Robin noted that the Board needed to choose a Vice Chairperson and Secretary. Robin nominated the Beth Debski as Vice Chairperson seconded by Rebecca Curran and approved (5-0). Robin nominated Richard Dionne as the Secretary seconded by Beth Debski and approved (5-0). Rebecca Curran made a motion to accept the February 2008 Board of Appeals Rules and • Regulations, seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0) (Stein, Curran, Debski, Belair, Dionne). Final revisions to the Notice to Applicants Robin Stein agreed the current language in the first paragraph of the notice to applicants was unnecessary and the instructions should be to fill out the petition form entirely. Beth Debski made a motion to accept the revised Notice to Applicants dated February 2008 seconded by Robin Stein and approved (5-0) (Stein, Curran, Debski, Belair, Dionne). The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Amy Lash, Staff Planner 7 City of Salem DPCD Meeting Sign In Sheet Board: Z 1 Date: 2—A3 Ip$ Name Mailing Address Phone # Email PAV(- CARBO I5.PAF1Y/EL5 SE 7787s37953 yW .3 �,OEGL 5 1 N 3 c?R 53) X26Y' -// .8 CITY OF SALEM 4�i s A • s ,z DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND �� Rr ` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT otyNrvnon�°P KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL:978-619-5685 FAx:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Amy Lash, Staff Planner DATE: February 5, 2008 RE: Meeting Agenda- February 13, 2008 Hello Board Members, • Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of January 16, 2008 ➢ Petitions and Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 3 Goodell Street The petitioner, Darren Thompson, is seeking a special permit for a home occupation to operate an internet sales and coffee roasting business at 3 Goodell Street (R-2). 40 Boston Street The petitioner, Dominic Mondi, is seeking a special permit for a change in non conforming use to allow for a photocopy and print shop at 40 Boston Street (R-2). The Board of Appeal has previously granted special permits to allow for changes in nonconforming uses on this property. Copies of these decisions have been included in your packet. 22 Prince Street The petitioner, Michael McLaughlin, is seeking a variance from lot area per dwelling unit and a special permit to modify an existing non conforming structure to retain the fifth and sixth units at 22 Prince Street (R-3). Section 6-4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a lot area per dwelling unit of 3,500 square feet; the lot is only 3,049 square feet. There are currently six units in the • building, four are grandfathered. Michael McLaughlin recently purchased the property and would like to retain the fifth and sixth unit. He is requesting a variance to allow for a lot area per dwelling unit of 508 square feet. He is also requesting a special permit because the property is currently nonconforming with a lot area per dwelling unit of 762 square feet. This request does not involve alterations. � cJ 7 English Street Paul Carro is seeking a variance for a second curb cut to allow for two new parking spaces and • a variance from minimum stall dimensions and minimum setback to allow the existing four spaces to remain at 7 English Street (R-2). The existing curb cut is on Gerrish Place, which is labeled "way" on the plan. The proposed curb cut is on English Street. Section 7-3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires stall width to be 9 feet and stall depth to be 19 feet. The existing and the proposed spaces do not meet the requirements for stall dimensions. There is no buffer between the existing parking area and the side and rear lot lines; the proposed parking does leave the required buffer area of two feet. Update of Rules and Regulations The Board of Appeals' Rules and Regulations need to be updated to be consistent with the plan requirements that were decided on as part of the application package revisions. Additionally, there is some outdated information in the Rules and Regulations (last amended in 1990) we can update at this time. You will find the updates I am proposing in the draft included in your packet. There is a strike through the text I am suggesting we remove, new text is in red. I have also suggested an additional revision to the Notice to Applicants to simplify the petition form instructions and stay consistent with the language used in the rules and regulations. • • oND7Tq,gd CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS �t�3! BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • "ate .,... M SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 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 February 13, 2008 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: Darren Thompson Location: 3 Goodell Street Request: Special permit for a home occupation. Description: The petitioner is seeking a special permit for a home occupation to operate an internet sales and coffee roasting business at 3 Goodell Street(R-2). Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk March 3, 2008 Petition of. Dominic Mondi Location: 40 Boston Street Request: Special permit for a change in nonconforming use Description: The petitioner is seeking a special permit for a change in nonconforming use to . allow for a photocopy and print shop at 40 Boston Street (R-2). Decision: Approved-Filed with City Clerk March 3, 2008 Petition of: Michael McLaughlin Location: 22 Prince Street Request: Variance from lot area per dwelling unit, number of parking spaces required, and a special permit to modify an existing nonconforming structure. Description: The petitioner is seeking a variance from lot area per dwelling unit, number of parking spaces required, and a special permit to modify an existing nonconforming structure to retain the fifth and sixth units at 22 Prince Street (R-3) Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk March 3, 2008 Petition of: Paul Carro Location: 7 English Street Request: Variance for a second curb cut, A Variance from minimum stall dimensions and minimum setback Description: The petitioner is seeking a Variance for a second curb cut to allow for two new parking spaces and a Variance from minimum stall dimensions and minimum setback to allow the existing for spaces to remain at 7 English Street (R-2) Decision: Approved the Variances to allow the existing spaces to remain; denied request for second curb cut- Filed with City Clerk March 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. cotTe.�d CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL _ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 • KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ' MAYOR 7 , J Y AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING January 16, 2008 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 314 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stein, Chair 1. Approval of Minutes o December 19, 2007 2. Continued: 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. 3. Petition of David Pabich seeking a special permit to expand an existing non- conforming structure by constructing a 22 ft. x 24 ft. second story addition at the rear of 92 Bridge Street IR-21. 4. Petition of William and Catherine Harrison seeking a Variance from side yard setback to construct a 23' x 15' one-story addition for the property located at 7 Beacon Street JR-21. 5. Petition of Dennis and Linda Korumpas seeking a Variance from side yard width and a Special Permit to expand an existing nonconforming structure to allow for the extension of an existing room by 5 ft. and the addition of a 14 ft. x 24 ft. single car attached garage for the property at 3 Larkin Lane [R-11. 6. Old/New Business c Revised Board of Appeals Application Package 7. Adjoununent This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board` City Hall • 1<,•,:,, has. . art SAN - t' 1rtn,r at /O; 3y ////Y 23A 91 333 4111 M.G.L. �x City of Salem DPCD Meeting Sign In Sheet Board: 7-5/ Date: ► /i o o S Name Mailing Address Phone # Email �J/� lt`rpMry T 9.06& ,m T2 1.t4fJle�CiaJ�r�lfr�n� n�. &A cop ���n 3 LAskik, Lnav °l 79-/l Li- r -7s""ky �l CITY OF SALEM � 7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND 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 A, DATE: January 8, 2008 RE: Meeting Agenda- January 16, 2008 Hello Board Members, I hope you all enjoyed the holidays! • Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of December 19, 2007 ➢ Petitions and Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: CONTINUED: 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 Board voted in December to continue this item so that it could be heard by a full Board. If you missed the December meeting, but will be attending in January, please find the audio and affidavit for this item included in your packet. The petitioner will be bringing additional photographs to the next meeting; he also will bring a certified plot plan since the location of his property line came into question. 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. .,a 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. 92 Bridge Street The petitioner, David Pabich of Renewal Real Estate, is proposing to construct a 22' x 24' second story addition to an existing nonconforming eight-family building at 92 Bridge St in the R-2 Zoning District. This would add 520 square feet to the eight-family building and allow for the reconfiguration of the property into eight one-bedroom units. As part of the addition, a new second means of egress would be constructed. 7 Beacon Street The petitioners, William and Catherine Harrison are seeking a variance from side yard setback to construct a 23' x 15' one-story addition for their home at 7 Beacon Street. This is a single family home in the R-2 district. Ten feet are required for the side yard setback; 6.1 feet are proposed. • 3 Larkin Lane The petitioners, Dennis and Linda Korumpas are seeking a Variance from side yard width and a Special Permit to expand an existing nonconforming structure to allow for a 5 ft x 12 ft extension to an existing TV room, and the addition of a 14 ft. x 24 ft. single car attached garage. The residence is a single family home in the R-1 district. A side yard width of 10 ft. is required, a side lot width of 2 ft. is proposed. Revised Application Package In December, the Board voted to continue the discussion on the revised application package to January when more Board members would be present. The Board left the discussion in November wanting to further consider the plan requirements. So that the discussion may continue, please see the examples of requirements in other communities, which I sent out in the December packet. Rebecca, can you share details about what is required in Marblehead? I also included the Board's Rules and Regulations in your December 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 appeals. 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. Assistant City Solicitor Jerry Parisella has looked at this issue and concluded that a public hearing would not be required for a board of appeals to amend its rules and regulations. ..,pemr,fq 0� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS , BOARD OF APPEALS-" 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O1970 .J %�• • '�' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 <l' oo� FAX 978-740-9846 J7 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL -� MAYOR DECISION- WITHDRAWAL January 17, 2008 Robert Cucurull AllStar Collision 171 Boston Street Salem,MA 01970 RE: 171 Boston Street Dear Mr. Cucurull: The Salem Zoning Board of Appeals met Wednesday,January 16, 2008 to discuss your request for • Withdrawal Without Prejudice for the request to appeal the Building Inspector's decision to deny a sign permit for AllStar Collision. The Board decided by a unanimous vote (5-0) to approve the request for Withdrawal Without Prejudice. To apply for a sign permit for a different sign, please contact Tom Daniels in the Department of Planning &Community Development (978) 619-5685. Sincerely, Cli-I4L,,x Amy J. Lash Staff Planner Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk gONDIT.q Q CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL `S 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR - • 9fAO SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 .. _ TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W� FAX 978-740-9846 l KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL cam` MAYOR January 31 , 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of David Pabich seeking.a special permit to expand an existing non-conforming use and structure by constructing a 22' x 23' 11" second story addition at the rear of 92 Bridge Street [R-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was held on January 16, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 1 I with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Elizabeth Debski, Rick Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Rebecca Curran. (Absent: Annie Harris). Petitioner seeks special permit pursuant to Art.V § 5-3 0) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to alter an existing non-conforming use and structure. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition for the property owned by Renewal Real Estate LLC at 92 Bridge St [R-2]. 2. A statement of grounds, a lot layout plan, and elevations accompanied the petition. 3. The petitioner recently purchased 92 Bridge Street; the building had previously been functioning with nine (9) units, but is recognized by the City of Salem as a grandfathered eight (8) family. 4. There are currently five (5) studio apartments and four (4) one bedroom apartments. The petitioner is proposing to constrict a 22' x 23' 11" second story addition (-520 sq 11) at the rear of the property in order to reconfigure the building's layout into eight (8) one bedroom units. 5. The petitioner expects the impact on the character of the neighborhood to be positive; in his experience, one bedroom units tend to attract professionals who may be less transient than those seeking studios. 6. The building will continue to serve a need for housing, but will conform to the currently recognized legal number of units. 2 7. The addition will allow for the reconfiguration of the second means of egress for • the third and floor units. This will have a significant positive impact on safety. 8. The Building Inspector said the footprint is slighting changing due to the second means of egress, though this change does not encroach on setback requirements. 9. Since construction is almost entirely within the existing building footprint, the proposal will not effect the environment or drainage. 10. Traffic flow and safety will be unchanged, as the lot has adequate parking for eight cars. The Building Inspector is of the opinion that additional parking requirements would not be triggered by this petition, and that it would only be triggered by the addition of units. 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 proposed addition is reasonable and will allow for improvements to the property without being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use. 2. The special permit may be granted without substantial detriment to the public • good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Salem Zoning 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 addition, the special permit may be granted under § 5-3 (j) Extension of nonconformity in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in sections 8-6 and 9-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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 (Robin Stein, Elizabeth Debski, Rick Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Rebecca Curran) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for a special permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. I r 3 • 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 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 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 this Ordinance. lA,. • Robtn 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. • v �o to��rq,�J CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • '� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 oor FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR January 31, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals - Petition of William Harrison and Catherine Harrison requesting a Vaelimce from the from side yard setback to construct a 23' x 15' one-story addition for the property located at 7 Beacon Street [R-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was held on January 16, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Elizabeth Debski, Rick Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to section § 6-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for a side yard width of 6.1 ft. instead of the required 10 ft. Statements of fact: 1. Catherine Harrison presented the petition for the property she owns at 7 Beacon Street [R-2]. 2. A sketch showing the lot lay out, and a plan entitled "7 Beacon Street, Salem, MA" prepared by La Vecchia Designs, Inc., sheet A-1, dated November 5, 2007, accompanied the petition. 3. The petitioners need more space in their home; due to the location of the driveway and garage, this is the only possible location for an addition. 4. There was no opposition to the request for variance 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 ad additional space to the home in conformance with the Ordinance. 2 3. The addition is not out of character with the neighborhood; 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 addition, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance § 6-4, specifically minimum width of side yard. 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, Dionne, Belair, and Curran) and 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 statues, 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 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 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 this Ordinance. 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. oos+�uira ! CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • - Y ( � SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR January 31, 2008 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Dennis Korumpas and Linda Korumpas seeking a Variance ` from side yard width and a Special Permit to expand an existing �> nonconforming structure to allow for the extension of an existing room 5 ft. x 12 ft. and the addition of a 14 ft. x 24 ft. single car attached - garage for the property at 3 Larkin Lane [R-11. A public hearing on the above Petition was held on January 16, 2008 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§.11 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Elizabeth Debski, Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and Bonnie Belair. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to section§ 6-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to • allow for a side yard width of 2 ft. instead of the required 10 ft. and a special permit under § 5-30) to alter an existing nonconforming structure. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition for the property owned by Dennis Korumpas and Linda Korumpas at 3 Larkin Lane [R-1]. 2. A plot plan entitled "3 Larkin Lane, Salem, MA" prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, dated December 11, 2007, as well as scaled floor plans and elevations accompanied the petition. 3. The proposed location of the garage was explained as the only option because the location of an accessory unattached garage in the rear yard would be inconvenient, ad impervious driveway area, increase costs to the homeowner, and be impractical resulting in a loss of rear yard area. 4. There was no opposition to the request for variance at the public hearing. 5. A letter in support of the request was submitted by Mark Coughlin, the owner of the abutting property at 30 Memorial Drive. The letter states that he is the most affected abutter and that the plans keep with the style of the neighborhood; Mr. • Coughlin has a similar Cape Cod style house, with a similar garage and addition, and side lot clearances. F 2 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 construct a garage on the property in conformance with the Ordinance. 3. The addition is not out of character with the neighborhood; therefore desirable relief from the density regulations, and a special permit 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 Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed addition is reasonable and will allow for improvements to the property without being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. 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 addition, the petitioner may vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance § 6-4, specifically minimum width of side yard. 2. To allow for the addition, a special permit may be granted under § 5-3 (j) Extension of nonconformity in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in sections 8-6 and 9-4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Debski, Dionne, Belair, and Curran) and 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 statues, ordinances, codes, and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and v Building approved �y the >3u 1 ns Gmmissuner. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. -a i 3 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 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 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 this Ordinance. V.o6l��-:Z"�- Robin SteK 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. • �oNotraa CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Q , BOARD OF APPEAL m_ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • � °' "'� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 artrveoo� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ' MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday January 16, 2008 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 Pabich Location: 92 Bridge Street [R-2] Request: Special permit to expand an existing non-conforming structure Description: The special permit allows for the construction of a 22 ft. x 24 ft. second story addition at the rear of 92 Bridge Street Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk January 31, 2008 • Petition of: William Harrison and Catherine Harrison Location: 7 Beacon Street [R-2] Request: Variance from side yard setback Description: The variance allows for the construction of a 23' x 15' one-story addition for the property located at 7 Beacon Street Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk January 31, 2008 Petition of: Dennis and Linda Korumpa Location 3 Larkin Lane [R-1]. Request: Variance from side yard width and a Special Permit to expand an existing nonconforming structure Description: The variance and special permit allows for the extension of an existing room by 5 ft. and the addition of a 14 ft. x 24 ft. single car attached garage. Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk January 31, 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.