Loading...
2009-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • ry' BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ?`�'�"78NClln ALE:978-745-9595 + FAX:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISGOLL MAYOR ~ N -C o C� r7i AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ''T r December 16,2009 - 6:30 P.M. „`" 3"D FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MA co Robin Stein, Chair 1. Approval of Minutes - November 18, 2009 meeting. 2. Petition of THOMAS McDONALD, seeking to remove a clause from a previous Zoning Board decision requiring owner occupancyfor 3 family use for the property located at 11-13 BRYANT STREET, Salem, MA (Residential Two-Family Zoning District). • 3. Petition of TERRANCE NEYLON, seeking to amend a previously issued Special Permit allowing a third dwelling unit on the property located at 10 GARDNER STREET, Salem, MA (Residential Two-Family Zoning District). Petitioners seek to remove a clause from the previous decision requiring the Neylons to live on the premises and to own the property, in order for the third floor dwelling unit to exist. 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment { at q, zs 9/h € 3 f€' € a e � , #� Of . L N� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS x DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ?Gf ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: December 9, 2009 RE: Meeting Agenda—December 16, 2009 Board Members, • Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of November 18, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for new Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 1. Petition of THOMAS McDONALD, seeking to remove a clause from a previous Zoning Board decision requiring owner occupancy for 3 family use for the property located at 11-13 BRYANT STREET, Salem,MA (Residential Two-Family Zoning District). This application and the original decision issued was included in your packet from the last meeting, but the item was continued last month. In 1986, the owner at the time received a special permit to convert a two-family house to a three-family,with the condition that the premises be owner-occupied. I have included the minutes from the meeting at which the Special Permit was granted. In 2005, the new owner,Thomas McDonald, came to the Board to request that the owner occupancy condition be waived. Given the direction he felt the Board was going, he withdrew without prejudice. There are no minutes from that meeting on file. He is before the Board s -I- now with the same request. I have received three letters in support of the petition,which are enclosed. • 2. Petition of TERRANCE NEYLON, seeking to amend a previously issued Special Permit allowing a third dwelling unit on the property located at 10 GARDNER STREET, Salem, MA (Residential Two-Family Zoning District). Petitioners seek to remove a clause from the previous decision requiring the Neylons to live on the premises and to own the property, in order for the third floor dwelling unit to exist. Unfortunately, the minutes from the meeting at which the original Special Permit was granted are missing from the files. The original decision is included in your packet. 3. Old/New Business: I've made up a schedule of next year's meetings and put it in your packet. • -2- City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board 7 t R6�r� Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email Page I of__L oA� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 -D� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 2010 JAI"J January 5, 2010 CITY Decision Petition of Thomas McDonald seeking to Amend Decision of February 19, 1986 Requiring Owner Occupancy for the Property located at 11-13 Bryant Street A public hearing on the above petition was opened on December 16, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members being present: Robin Stein, Beth Debski, Becky Curran and Jimmy Tsitsinos. The petitioner, Thomas McDonald, owns a three-family home at 11-13 Bryant St. in the Two-Family Residential (R-2) district. Pursuant to a Decision of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal granted on February 19, 1986 and date stamped March 4, 1986, the property was granted a Special Permit for the nonconforming use, subject to the following conditions: 1. No less than seven (7) non-piggyback parking spaces be provided on the • premises; 2. Access to the parking spaces be hottopped; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained; 4. The premises be owner occupied. The applicant requests that the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal allow an amendment of the earlier decision to remove the condition of owner occupancy. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Thomas MacDonald, the owner and petitioner, represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped October 28, 2009, the petitioner requested the removal of the clause from the previously issued Board of Appeals decision requiring owner Occupancy for a three-family use. 3. As grounds for his request, Petitioner states that each of the three units in the building is improved for use as a rental apartment, and each unit was so used from the time he purchased the property in 1995 until several years ago, when he became aware that the property could only legally contain two units if not owner- occupied. In late 2005 the petitioner undertook to improve the parking area to create seven parking spaces. After a delay caused by the nonperformance of a 1 landscaping contractor, he was able to complete the improvements to the parking • area, and he provided the Board with photographs of the improved parking area at the hearing on December 16, 2009. 4. Although Petitioner does not occupy the building, he stated that he is a committed landlord with a responsible attitude toward his tenants and toward the neighborhood. He further stated that if the building were used as a two-family, one of the units would be overly large and would be difficult to rent out. 5. Petitioner submitted a petition with 105 signatures of neighborhood residents who supported the use of the building as a non-owner occupied 3 family residence, including both resident and non-resident owners and tenants. Five neighbors also submitted letters in support of the petition. Support letters indicated that the property had been well maintained and that the petitioner was a conscientious landlord who made sincere efforts to address neighborhood concerns. Two residents spoke in support of the petition at the hearing. 6. One neighbor called two sent letters in opposition to the petition, including Ward 6 City Councilor Paul Prevey. Opposition letters stated that the property had not been properly maintained and managed with regard to issues such as parking and snow removal. No one spoke in opposition at the hearing. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor, none • (0) opposed, to grant the petitioner's request for an amendment to the March 6, 1986 Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeal, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. With the exception of the owner occupancy requirement, the terms and conditions of the 1986 special permit are incorporated herein. Where the concerns that often result in this Board requiring owner occupancy for an additional unit, such as adequate parking and property maintenance are not at issue here, amending the special permit as requested by the petitioner is consistent with the guidelines and safeguards of our zoning ordinance: p 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 that . 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been 2 dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • 3 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETfS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE'fTs 01970 >.- T ELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-740-0404 ........... KIMRERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,December 16, 2009 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: THOMAS MCDONALD Location: 11-13 BRYANI'STREET, Salem,MA(R2) Request: Amendment to Previously Granted Special Permit Description: Amendment rY re sought of a decision of February 19 1986 uirin owner b 1 b occupancy for the property located at 11 Bryant street for a three-family use. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on 1/5/10 • Th s notue is being sere in mnpliarze with the Massadnaetts Cereral Laura, Chapter 40A,Sat ors 9& 15 and does not require aaion by the rmpiem Appeals, if arty,shall be nude pursuant to Chapter 40A, Seetiorr 17,and shall be filed within 20 dais from dx date wlr dr dae derision was fill wth the City CXerk. • loft • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, December 16, 2009 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair), Becky Curran,Beth Debski, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Rick Dionne,Annie Hams and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner. Stein opens dx meting at 6:30 p.in Approval of Minutes The minutes of 11/18/09 are reviewed. Debski moves to approve the minutes, seconded by Curran and passed 3-0 (Curran, Debski and Tsitstnos). Petition of THOMAS McDONALD, seeking to remove a clause from a previous Zoning Board decision requiring owner occupancy for 3 family use for the property • located at 11-13 BRYANT STREET, Salem,MA(Residential Two-Family Zoning District). Mr. McDonald,the owner, presents his petition. He explains he purchased a 2-family building that had a third unit, and he came to understand that there was a stipulation previously made that the building be owner occupied to keep the third unit. He says for 12 years he operated the building as a three-family without knowing about the restriction; he says the previous owner did not disclose this to him. He says he has neighbors who have objected, believing he did know about the restriction. He presents documentation from when he purchased the house indicating it was a three-family. He says he found out when neighbors with a broken down car parked in front; and neighbor told the owner of the car she couldn't park there. The neighbor called the city to complain, and Mr. McDonald says this is how he first came to be aware of the restriction. He says once he discovered it, he came to the ZBA to amend the Special Permit decision. He says he hired someone to build a retaining wall and double his parking area. He explains the configuration of the parking area. He says when he hired for the wall to be constructed, his contractor ripped him off, he lost $6K and he never got the wall built- the contractor is now in prison for this and other schemes. He says this is why the parking area was never finished. Mr. McDonald explains that once he discovered neighbors opposed the petition, he spent 50-60 hours, he went to everyone in the neighborhood- all who would speak with him he asked them to contact him if they had any problems. He presents the Board with a map of • the properties he spoke to - the length of Bryant St., School St. corridor extension,School St., and Buffum St. He said everyone he could find whom he spoke to supported him. He presents a petition with 105 signatures of people who supported him. 1 . Curran: Do you live there now? McDonald: No. Curran: It's a three family now? McDonald: No - I'm limited to two apartments now. Mr. McDonald explains that he has lost 1/3 of the rental income from the property. He details the construction and improvements he has done to remedy the parking situation. He shows the Board photos of the property. Mr. McDonald says he has 11 feet of backfill that was in there and took time to settle. He says he replaced the length of sidewalk and hot topped the parking area. He shows the retaining wall which was replaced. He says the driveway is now 57 feet wide and can now accommodate 6 cars. Stein asks the Board members if they have any questions. Curran asks when he bought the property,Mr.McDonald said 14 years ago. Curran asked him to explain the parking situation. Mr. McDonald said the previous special permit required him to have 7 non piggyback spaces. He says he now has space for 10 • spaces. Curran: It was a three-family until you found out it was legally only a 2-family? McDonald: yes Debski: The special permit was granted with the condition that 3 units be owner occupied. Stein says that when she first started on the Board, they did this a lot... when there were concerns about increases in density,there were worries about absentee landlords. Debski says she had just started on the Board when this came in the last time - there were quite a few people at that meeting and it was withdrawn. She says that when the Special Permit was granted in 1986,the Board had a good reason for the building to be owner occupied, and she has a hard time going against what that Board decided. McDonald says the house is set up as a three family, what he'd like to do is keep it as three smaller 2 bedroom units. He says he screens all his tenants, does court checks, etc. He says he's surrounded by three families, a 6 family and a couple of 2 families. He says as a 2 family, he would have a deleaded 10 room house which is going to get turned into a 6 or 7 room unit. He says he has much larger units elsewhere, and those are his more difficult properties because of kids,etc. As a two family,he says he thinks it would be more • detrimental to the neighborhood because of the size of the units. He says a smaller family group would be better for the neighborhood. He's worried about having one jumbo unit, and wouldn't have as much choice of tenant. 2 • Stein says her memory is that in this case, if the neighbors don't have a problem, she doesn't, but procedurally,she wants to check with Tom St. Pierre what exactly the Board needs to do to grant this request— is it an amendment to the special permit? St. Pierre says that's what it is; he clarifies that the request is to remove a clause from the previous special permit decision requiring owner occupancy for the third unit. Debski wants to know the exact language of the legal ad. McKnight reviews it. Tsnsinos says the concern is about absentee landlords, but he's seen the property and McDonald has done a nice job. Curran says she doesn't have a problem either. McKnight says she has a few letters to distribute to the Board concerning the application. She says Peter Copelas, 55 and 57 Buffum St. called to oppose the petition. McDonald explains what he thinks the problem is — parking situation, which he says is now remedied. He shows the Board in his photos the parking area that had once been a problem; he says it's now resolved. Curran asks if McDonald plows the snow; he responds that the tenants shovel it. McKnight distributes a letter to the Board from John MacDonald,who opposes the project. • Stein says there are 3 families living there, according to John MacDonald's photos of the mailboxes fixed to the house. McDonald says these are old and there are only 2 families living there. He also says he does not want to advertise that he has a vacant unit because of fear of vandalism/theft. He says one tenant was vacated when he found out about the restriction. He explains the tenant history. McKnight distributes letters from the Board from Councillor Prevey, who opposes the project. She then reviews letters from neighbors supporting the petition. Stein opera the issue up for public wnnkm Tony Marfongelh speaks in support of the petition. He says his impression is there is hostility against McDonald. He says as a captain in the Salem fire department he's very familiar with code violations. He speaks highly of McDonald's character and his abilities as a landlord. Scott Houseman, a Beverly resident, is a friend of Tom's and a former member and chair of the Beverly ZBA. He says he is familiar with what McDonald does for a living and with this property in particular. He speaks in support of McDonald's character and says that clearly the area has plenty of parking. He points out there are 105 signatures of support and no one has come to the meeting to oppose the petition. • Tbm Ding no further mrrnoz, Stein doses the public portion cf the hearing 3 Debski says she doesn't like being put in this position, and the previous board did the right thing by putting in the condition restricting the use. She says to McDonald: If this is your full time job, you should have been more careful about knowing what the restrictions on the property were. She points out that this was on record. While she says she doesn't really want to,she will support the petition. Stein agrees and says these decisions are recorded and will show up in a title search. Curran makes a motion to remove the clause from the previously granted special permit requiring owner occupancyto continue the use as a three-family house; all other terms and conditions of the 1986 special pemut decision are to remain in effect and be incorporated into the new decision. The motion is seconded by Stein and passes 4-0 (Debski, Stein, Tsitsinos and Curran in favor, none opposed). McKnight says there is a request to continue the 10 Gardner St. petition to January 20. Curran moves to grant the request to continue, seconded by Stein. The motion passes 4-0 (Stein, Curran, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed). The upcoming yearly meeting schedule is briefly discussed. There being no further business before the Board, Curran moves to adjourn the meeting, Stein seconds and the motion passes 4-0 (Stein, Curran, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor,none opposed). • The meeting adjourns at 7:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 3/1/10 • 4 ���� :. CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �F 120WASFUNGTONSTREET♦SALEKMASSACHUSETN01970 "ni.E:978-745-9595 +FAX:978-740-9846 K[NMERLEYDRISGOLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING November 18, 2009 - 6:30 P.M. T 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET - SALEM,MA , o '� > Robin Stein, Chair( 99 1. Approval of Minutes — October 21, 2009 meeting. 2. Old/New Business: ➢ Request of North River Canal LLC for an extension of the Variances granted for the property at 28 Goodhue Street. 103. Petition of REINIER CABRERA,seeking Variances from minimum side and rear yard setbacks,and minimum lot area per dwelling unit,to allow for the conversion of the one-family house on the property located at 12 WILLSON STREET, Salem,MA(Business Neighborhood Zoning District) to a two-family house, and to allow for the addition of an emergency exit at the rear of the house. 4. Petition of JOSEPH A. SKOMURSKI,seeking a Variance from minimum rear yard setback to construct a two-level deck at the rear of the existing two-family house, and a Variance from minimum side yard setback to construct a covered side porch, on the property located at 29 CARLTON STREET,Salem,MA(Business Neighborhood Zoning District). 5. Petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA(MARIGOT BAY REALTY),seeking a Professional Office Special Pen-nit to use the first floor unit of a 2-unit building as both a residence and a home-based computer repair business on the property located at 18 BRIDGE STREET,Salem,MA(Residential Two-Family Zoning District). 6. Petition of THOMAS McDONALD,seeking to remove a clause from a previous Zoning Board decision requiring owner occupancyfor 3 familyuse for the propertylocated at 11-13 BRYANT STREET, Salem,MA (Residential Two-Family Zoning District). 7. Adjournment y ° 1ro r �VV city P �R/11 At �, ' i M AI* P CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS z91 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-74o-0404 DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: November 10, 2009 RE: Meeting Agenda—November 18, 2009 Board Members • Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of October 21, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for new Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 1. Old/New Business: Request of North River Canal LLC for an extension of the Variances granted for the property at 28 Goodhue Street. Attorney Cortenti has requested another extension for these variances for six months to June 30, 2010,in order to put in place the funding to begin construction;they do intend to go forward with the project. 2. Petition of REINIER CABRERA, seeking Variances from minimum side and rear yard setbacks, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, to allow for the conversion of the one-family house on the property located at 12 WILLSON STREET, Salem,MA (Business Neighborhood Zoning District) to a two-family house, and to allow for the addition of an emergency exit at the rear of the house. Similar petitions have been brought to the Board by different owners for this property. • In 1994, the owner at the time, Cecile Berube,received variances from lot area and width from the Board of Appeals, and a Waiver from Frontage from the Planning Board,in order to 4, proceed with an Approval Not Required plan to divide what was once one property (18 Willson • St.) into two smaller ones: 18 Willson and 12 Willson (12 Willson was referred to as Lot B in that application). The conditions of the Planning Board's Waiver from Frontage decision, which is included in your packet,were: "1) A notation be put on the plan which indicates that Lot B is intended for residential use;and 2) Petitioner agrees to Lot B being used for a residential use only" (my emphasis). The property is in the B-1 district and could have been used commercially or residentially. In 1997, the new owner,Joseph Reither,wanted to convert the house to a two-family,but the Building Inspector at the time made a fording that the property could only legally be used for a single-family residence. Reither appealed this fording to the Board. The Board denied the request in part because of language in Planning Board's Waiver from Frontage decision; the denial letter states that the Waiver"[w]as granted upon the condition that the property would become available for a single family dwelling only." However, this was not the wording used in the Waiver decision,which is quoted above. Joseph Reithet then appealed the Board of Appeals' decision to Superior Court,which upheld the Board's denial. Reither then brought the case before the Appeals Court,which upheld the Superior Court's judgment. In the Appeals Court's response to the case,which is included in your packet,it is noted that the Cecile Berube sought only a variance from lot size and width requirements, not from density requirements, so the variance only gave her the right to build one home. The Court disagreed with Reither's contention that"there is on the record no restriction limiting the use of the lot B to a single family residence,and therefore he is entitled to a permit for a two-family house." The Court also agreed with the City that there was • evidence that the Planning Board intended to restrict the property's use to a single-family, but also agreed with Reither that this evidence "was not translated into a condition on the formal record." Finally, the Court stated that language in the Planning Board decision restricting use to "a residential use only" (the singular a) provided some evidence that the Board intended to restrict the property to a single-family use,but also noted that this was not dispositive—the Planning Board's language should have been clearer if they wanted the property to remain restricted to a single-family house, and if the Board of Appeals wanted to make the same restriction, they should have done so in their decision (but did not). Now, Reimer Cabrera, the current owner of the property,is seeking the variance that was not previously sought by either Cecile Berube or Joseph Reither: relief from lot area per dwelling unit for a two-family home. Previous attempts to convert the home to two-family were done by applying for a Special Permit to change the use. However, in the B-1 zone, a two-family use is allowed (but is only possible on this property with relief from lot area per dwelling unit because of its size). Residential buildings in the B-1 zone are subject to dimensional requirements of R-3, so 3,500 SF is the required lot area per dwelling unit for this property; Ms. Cabrera is proposing 2,500 SF per dwelling unit (the lot is 5,000 SF). In order to accommodate the emergency exit stairs needed for a legal second unit, she also requests rear yard setback relief(30' required, 26'10" proposed) and side setback relief(20' required, 9' proposed). 3. Petition of JOSEPH A. SKOMURSKI, seeking a Variance from minimum rear yard setback to construct a two-level deck at the rear of the existing two-family,house, and a • Variance from minimum side yard setback to construct a covered side porch, on the -2- i P • property located at 29 CARLTON STREET, Salem, MA (Business Neighborhood Zoning District). With the construction of the deck in the rear (shown in pink on the plan), the owner is proposing a rear yard of 25.77' (30 is required). The other part of the project is the construction of a roof over the existing concrete stairs on the side of the property. The stairs currently have no setback from the side line, so he needs relief from side yard setback in order to construct the roof over the stairs (a 10' side setback is required). At the time Mr. Skommski filled out the application, he was in the process of purchasing the property but had not yet closed—he has told me that since then he has, and is now the legal owner. 4. Petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA(MARIGOT BAY REALTY), seeking a Professional Office Special Permit to use the first floor unit of a 2-unit building as both a residence and a home-based computer repair business on the property located at 18 BRIDGE STREET, Salem, MA(Residential Two-Family Zoning District). The owner is proposing to rent his first floor unit to a tenant with a home-based computer business;he says he has not been able to find a purely commercial tenant,which is how the space was used in the past. No exterior changes are proposed. 5. Petition of THOMAS McDONALD, seeking to remove a clause from a previous Zoning Board decision requiring owner occupancy for 3 family use for the property located at 11-13 BRYANT STREET, Salem, MA (Residential Two-Family Zoning • District). In 1986, the owner at the time received a special permit to convert a two-family house to a three-family,with the condition that the premises be owner-occupied. This decision is included in your packet. In 2005, the new owner,Thomas McDonald, came to the Board to request that this condition be waived. Given the direction he felt the Board was going, he withdrew without prejudice. He is before the Board now with the same request. • -3- CITY OF SALEM 4 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND 7f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT rFrllml"w U 14 KIMBERLEY DRISGOLL 1?0 W,uw MAYOR NO'roNSr ut Ree�r�Sall ,bL�sAa-users}01970 "IF.1:978.619-i68i Fnx:978-740-0404 LrNN G(X)NIN DUNC:AN,AICP DIRECTOR November 24, 2009 o Joseph C. Correnti, Esq. Serafini, Serafmi, Darling & Correnti, LLP 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 D co Re: Request for extension 28 Goodhue Street (-n Dear Mr. Correnti: On March 19, 2008 the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals extended the variances granted • October 18, 2006 for 28 Goodhue Street for six (6) months to September 18, 2008. On September 17, 2008, the Board again met to discuss a request by North River Canal, LLC, to extend the variances, and voted unanimously on another six (6) month extension, until March 18, 2009. On March 18, 2009, the Board again met to discuss a request by North River Canal, LLC, to extend the variances, and voted unanimously on an extension until December 31, 2009. On November 18, 2009, the Board again met to discuss a request by North River Canal, LLC, to extend the variances to June 30, 2010, due to the time the petitioner needs to put in place the necessary funding to begin construction. Sincerely,, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner • Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk gONWTA� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 4' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR a ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • ��n�' "'� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 oo� FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL -< p MAYOR CD W November 30,2009 — D Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JOSEPH A. SKOMURSKI, seeking a Variance from minimum rear yard setback to construct a two-level deck at the rear of the existing two-family house, and a Variance from minimum side yard setback to construct a covered side porch, on the property located at 29 CARLTON STREET, Salem, MA(Business Neighborhood Zoning District). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §4.0,Dimensional Requirements. Statements of fact: • 1. The owner of the property,Joseph Skomurski, represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated October 28, 2009, the applicant requested Variances from minimum rear yard setback to construct a two-level deck at the rear of the existing two-family house, and a Variance from minimum side yard setback to construct a covered side porch. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on November 18, 2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The pubic hearing was closed on November 18, 2009, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Richard Dionne (chairing the meeting),Annie Harris, Becky Curran, Beth Debski, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 4. There was no public opposition expressed at the meeting. Nat Lord, 27 Carlton St., asked about the plans for drainage,and whether a gutter would be installed. The applicant confirmed that a gutter would be built to handle roof drainage. 5. At its meeting on November 18, 2009, the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant Variances from the dimensional requirements of§4.0, Dimensional Requirements. • 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. 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 zoning ordinance. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Business Neighborhood Zoning District to construct the proposed additions, which are consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 the additions as proposed, the requested Variances from dimensional requirements for structures in the Business Neighborhood zone are granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Hams, Curran, Debski, Tsitsinos 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 statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved bythe 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. Petitioner shall install a gutter on the new side entrance to prevent water from shedding onto the neighboring property. • Inc iar Dt 16 zow Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 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. • • �oNDITAA^ CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL u 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR - • ; ( � SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 :Z o KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL �' 2 MAYOR O O November 30, 2009 D Decision 6 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RICHARD JAGOLTA(MARIGOT BAY REALTY), seeking a Professional Office Special Permit to use the first floor unit of a 2-unit building as both a residence and a home-based computer repair business on the property located at 18 BRIDGE STREET, Salem, MA(Residential Two-Family Zoning District). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, 53.3.2, Nonconforming Uses. Statements of fact: • 1. The owner of the property, Richard Jagolta, represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated October 29, 2009, the applicant requested a Special Permit to use the first floor unit for a residential use with a home business. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on November 18, 2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The pubic hearing was closed on November 18, 2009, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Richard Dionne (chairing the meeting), Becky Curran,Annie Harris, Beth Debski, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 4. There was no public opposition at the meeting. 5. At its meeting on November 18, 2009, the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant a Special Pemut pursuant to 53.3.2, Nonconforming Uses. 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. 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 zoning ordinance. 2 • 2. The proposed use would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use. 3. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 is granted to allow the change from a nonconforming use (commercial) to a residence with a home-based business. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Harris, Curran, Debski, Tsitsinos and Dionne) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be trade 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. • ovmr�.� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 • � O TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �? � FAX: 978-740-9846 m a KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL �o MAYOR N D cxr November 23, 2009 0 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of REINIER CABRERA, seeking Variances from minimum side and rear yard setbacks, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, to allow for the conversion of the one-family house on the property located at 12 WILLSON STREET, Salem,MA(Business Neighborhood Zoning District) to a two-family house, and to allow for the addition of an emergency exit at the rear of the house. A hearing on this petition was held on November 18, 2009 with the following Board of Appeals members present: Rick Dionne, Annie Harris,Jimmy Tsitsinos, Beth Debski, and Becky Conan. The Petitioner sought Variances pursuant to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.0: Dimensional Requirements. Relief was sought from lot area per dwelling unit from rear yard setback in order to accommodate construction of a rear emergency stairway and the conversion of the single-family house to a two-family house. • At the request of the Petitioner,the Board of Appeal voted 4-1 (Conan, Harris, Dionne, and Tsitsinos on favor, Debski opposed) to allow the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE NOVEMBER 19, 2009. Richard Tonne 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 Cry 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 Meeting Sign-In Sheet v� Board ji aid 6� J�ea Date H _/ I /�_ Name Mailing Address Phone # Email �tO 1, orJ 27 Cc�vl(�,j S �7�'2�3-7GZ6 Page of va l o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS °as' BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WA51-IINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAMUSETn O1970 9H"f"I(NG_L? 'IkLE:978-619-5685 *FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISOOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,November 18, 2009 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: REINIER CABRERA Location: 12 WILLSON STREET, Salem,MA (B 1) Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from minimum side and rear yard setbacks, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit,to allow for the conversion of the one-family • house on the property located at to a two-family house, and to allow for the addition of an emergency exit at the rear of the house. Decision: Withdrawn without prejudice;withdrawal filed with City Clerk on 11/24/09 phis notice is baTsent in arrrphanx with the Massadnaetts Gemral L aws, Chapter 40A, Sea7m 9& 15 and does not require action by the recipiem Appeals, if arty,shall be nnde pt nuant to C Vter 40A, San me 17,argil shall Ee filet'whin 20 day from the date wlndr the derision was filed with the City C L • ,��uoiaorrg4��� QTY OF SALEM, MASSA d 1VSE 1 1 S BOARD OF APPEAL i it5ix '� tPS' s, o. 120 WASHNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAQ4USEM 01970 ' < lrlfitifD2 ' 'IELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 Ki W ERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 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: JOSEPH SKOMURSKI Location: 29 CARLTON STREET, Salem,MA (B 1) Request: Variances Description: Variance sought from minimum rear yard setback to construct a two-level deck at the rear of the existing two-family house, and a Variance from minimum side yard setback to construct a covered side porch. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on 11/30/09 Petition of: RICHARD JAGOLTA(MARIGOT BAY REALTY) Location: 18 BRIDGE STREET, Salem,MA (R2) Request: Special Permit Description: Professional Office Special Permit sought to use the first floor unit of a 2- unit building as both a residence and a home-based computer repair business. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on 11/30/09 This mane'is baT sent in awpl atxe with the Massadmetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Seam 9 fr 15 and does not wire aaion by the mzprent Appeals, if arty,shall be nude pursuant to Gxipter 40A, Section 17,and shall Ee file!within 20 days frmnthe date Much the decision uns filed uith the City Clerk. loft CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL a 120 WASHINGTON STREET $ALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 i TELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740.9846 KIMRERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR c'] -C o AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING October 21,2009- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313- 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stem,Chair ,o v> 1. Approval of Minutes - September 16,2009 meeting. c- 2. Petition of MARGARET HANNIFIN, seeking a Variance from side and rear yard setback requirements, and for a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure, to allow for the construction of a 3'x3.5' one- story addition to the existing single-family house on the property at 21A PICKMAN STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. • 3. Petition of PETER STROUT seeking a Variance from minimum front yard setback requirements to allow for a construction of a one-story addition, including a new front entrance and deck above, on the property located at 19 INTERVALE ROAD, Salem, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District. 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment rp '-'eny HallHai n 39 r-��/9��'c,t/t�� ' • �_0N11ITq�, . CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS s' I 3 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND • Pj�twxo�-/j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON.STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHusETTS 01970 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: October 13, 2009 RE: Meeting Agenda— October 21, 2009 Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo • ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of September 16, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for new Agenda Items ➢ Copy of the newly recodified Zoning Ordinance Notes on Agenda Items: 1. Minutes: Those eligible to vote on the September 16 minutes are Beth, Rick,Annie,Bonnie and Jay. 2. Petition of MARGARET HANNIFIN, seeking Variances from side and rear yard setback requirements, and for a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure, to allow for the construction of a 3'x3.5' one-story addition to the existing single-family house on the property at 21A PICKMAN STREET, Salem,MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. The petitioner has requested Variances, but based on updated case law, which our recodified zoning reflects, only a Special Permit is needed. Sec. 3.3.5, Nonconforming Single and Two Family Residential Structures, now states that nonconforming one-and two-family homes can be expanded/altered by Special Permit (without Variances) if the Board determines the change would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. • The 3' x 3.5' proposed addition will extend the porch (which functions as a mud room). It would encroach on the side yard setback; a 7.3' setback is proposed, and 10'is required. (over) 3. Petition of PETER STROUT seeking a Variance from minimum front yard setback requirements to allow for a construction of a one-story addition, including a new front entrance and deck above, on the property located at 19 INTERVALE ROAD, Salem, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning • District. The proposed one-story addition with deck would result in a front yard setback of 7' (15'is required). The addition will contain a mud room that will extend 13 feet out from the front of the house. This petition, like the one above, requires a Special Permit rather than a Variance based on the newly recodified zoning. • • -2- • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board ' ,g.,m. ,Y\� aaJ oL /� (?(� k Date 10 / 2 ( / 1 Name Mailing Address Phone # Email 1l /41 OAKPE� g �df6PE VA L,,� 9 7�1 -ILt � S7iodt c9l SNI1PVAL'5 e0 9�7? -7y.Y $02i Page of o DI CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970: TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �. FAX: 978-740-9846 IMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1QOq _2 A 9 41 MAYOR November 2,2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PETER STROUT seeking a Variance from minimum front yard setback requirements to allow for a construction of a one-story addition,including a new front entrance and deck above, on the property located at 19 INTERVALE ROAD, Salem,MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §4.0,Dimensional Requirements (previously 56-4,recodified on September 10,2009). Statements of fact: 1. The owner of the property,Timothy Barden,and project's contractor,Peter Strout, presented the.petition together. • 2. In a petition dated September 2,2009,the applicant requested a Variance from front setback requirements to accommodate the construction of a one-story addition, which includes a new entrance covered with a deck above,to the existing single- family house. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on October 21,2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A,% 11. The pubic hearing was closed on October 21, 2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair),Richard Dionne,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair(alternate),and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 4. At the hearing,Peter Strout explained that accessing the property currently requires driving up a very steep driveway, and the existing stairs and platform zigzag down the hill, making the house difficult to enter. 5. Mr. Strout stated in his application that the house was built on the front portion of the property and set at a high elevation in order to avoid blasting of the bedrock that is found throughout the property. At the hearing,Board members noted that the presence of bedrock made the site difficult to build on. 6. At the hearing,Board members noted that the project would improve the streetscape. • 2 7. There was no public opposition expressed at the meeting. 8. At its meeting on October 21,2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant Variances from the dimensional requirements of 54.0, Dimensional Requirements. 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, as bedrock is found throughout the property, making it difficult to build on, and causing the house to be situated at a high elevation. 2. Owing to the soil and topography of the property, literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. 3. 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 zoning ordinance, since the project would not only make access to the property easier, but would also improve the streetscape. 4. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family District to construct . the proposed addition,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 5. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requites certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 the addition as proposed, according to the plans submitted titled"Proposed Plans &Elevations,Barden Residence,Salem,MA, " last revised 9/30/09, and prepared by Margolis Incorporated,the requested Variance from dimensional requirements for structures in the Residential Two-Family zone are granted. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran,Belair,Tsitsinos and Dionne) 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. • 3 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 7. The new construction may not encroach more than eight (8) feet into the front yard setback Robin Stem,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. • . DNDIr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 -FAX: 978-740-9846 �IMBERLEY DRISCOLL 7Coi moo -2 A 42 MAYOR cc CITY C!_r.: November 2, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MARGARET HANNIFIN,seeking a Variance from side and rearyard setback requirements,and for a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure,to allow for the construction of a 3'x3.5' one-story addition to the existing single-family house on the property at 21A PIQUviAN STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance,§4.0,Dimensional Requirements. Statements of fact: 1. The owner of the property,Margaret Hannifin,was present at the meeting. The • project's contractor,Andrew Ambrose,presented the petition. 2. In a petition dated October 2,2009,the applicant requested a Variance from side setback requirements to accommodate the construction of a 3.5'x 3.0'addition to the existing single-family house. The Building Inspector determined a Special Permit under§3.3,Nonconforming Uses and Structures,was also needed. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on October 21,2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The pubic hearing was closed on October 21, 2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair),Richard Dionne,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair(alternate),and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 4. There was no public opposition expressed at the meeting. 5. At its meeting on October 21,2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant Variances from the dimensional requirements of§4.0, Dimensional Requirements. 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, as the property • is oddly shaped. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. 3. 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 zoning ordinance. 4. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family District to construct the proposed addition,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 5. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 the addition as proposed,the requested Variance from dimensional requirements for structures in the Residential Two-Family zone, and a Special Permit for extension of a nonconforming structure, are granted. • In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran,Belair, Tsitsinos and Dionne) 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 the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. • 3 Robm m,Ch= Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TEE 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 Pemrit 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 MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL q �C *'3 1A A'f tom; 120WnsfnNCTONSTRRar+SALEivi,MnssncxosaTTs01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAx:978-740-0404 KIMRERLEYDRISooLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 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: PETER STROUT Location: 19 INTERVALE ROAD, Salem,MA Request: Variance Description: Variance sought from minimum front yard setback requirements to allow for a construction of a one-story addition,including a new front entrance and deck above (Residential One-Family Zoning District). Decision: Approved- Filed with the City Clerk on November 2,2009 Petition of: MARGARET HANNIFIN Location: 21APICEMAN STREET, Salem,MA Request: Variance and Special Permit Description: Variance sought from side and rear yard setback requirements, and Special Permit sought to alter a nonconforming structure,to allow for the construction of a 3x3.5'one-story addition to the existing single-family house (Residential Two-Family Zoning District). Decision: Approved- Filed with the City Clerk on November 2, 2009 This mice is Im Tsent m mnpliarxe with the Massadmeas Gereral Law, Uwpter 40A,Seam 9& 15 aryl does rot re-yare action by the 7aVxnt Appeals, Vl�ar shall lx mde pursuarn to Chapter 40A,Section 17,ardslall lx filerd wthm 20 dais frwn tlx daze ubuh the derision ws fil<d wth the City CYeriz. • 1 of 2 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET B BOARD OF APPEAL G �+, 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SArEM,MASSAO-lbSETIS 01970 %'jMINR I10� TALE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR r � N b -O AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING IJ September 16,2009- 6:30 P.M. co 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stein,Chair - r= 1. Approval of Minutes - August 19,2009 meeting. 2. Old/New Business o Request of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC to extend Variances previously granted for a period of six(6) months for land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem,MA. Attorney John Keilty. " 3. Public hearing:Petition of MICHAEL BUCCO seeking a Variance from maximum building height(number of stories) jto allow for the addition of a dormer on the third floor of the two-family home on the property at 72-74 WEBB STREET,Salem,MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. 4. Public hearing:Petition of JOHN BERTINI,TRUSTEE,JAB TRUST,seeking a Variance from minimum front yard setback,and a Special Permit for the extension of a non-conforming structure,to allow for an addition onto the restaurant on the property at 284 CANAL STREET,Salem,MA in the Business Highway Zoning District. Attorney George Atkins. 5. Continuation of public hearing:Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units,on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET,Salem,MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Attorney Scott Grover. 6. Continuation of public hearing:Petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area,lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET,Salem,MA,in the Residential One-Family Zoning District. Attorney Bill Quigley. 7. Adjournment ; notic, pas!®d nrl "®me9ai ®unetin Board' "y Ha14 a n ., Mass. in �w 8, 009 l;vq P is: r Afhh Chap. 39 i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ EAx:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: September 9,2009 RE: Meeting Agenda- September 16,2009 Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of August 19, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for new Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 1. Old/New Business: Request of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC to extend Variances previously granted for a period of six(6) months for land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem,MA. Attorney John Keilty. Attorney Keilty has submitted a request to extend the variances granted on this property for six months. The original decision was filed on October 8, 2008, and would expire a year from that date (October 8, 2009). This request would extend the variances to April 8,2009. The original decision granting the variances was included in your packet from last month. We did not vote on this item last month because not enough eligible members were present. Becky and Robin are recused. 2. Petition of MICHAEL BUCCO seeking a Variance from maximum building height(number of stories) to allow for the addition of a dormer on the third floor of the two-family home on the property at 72-74 WEBB STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. • The petitioner is proposing the addition of a 10.5'dormer on the third floor of the two-family house. R-2 zoning allows a maximum of 2 Ih stories;the house has 3 stories and is adding another dormer to the already existing third floor space. The interior of the new dormer will be a bathroom. 3. Petition of JOHN BERTINI,TRUSTEE,JAB TRUST, seeking a Variance from minimum front yard setback, and a Special Permit for the extension of a non-conforming structure,to allow for an addition onto the restaurant on the property at 284 CANAL STREET, Salem,MA, in the Business Highway Zoning District. Attorney George Atkins. The proposed addition would encroach on part of the front yard setback up to the sidewalk/lot line (front yard setback of 0'; required is 30'). A new entrance is also proposed leading to the bar area on the side of the property, as shown on the plans, but this does not require relief as proposed. City Engineer Dave Knowlton is evaluating the plans in order to determine whether they would interfere with the City's reconstruction plans for Canal Street. Prior to the meeting,Dave will speak with the applicant to discuss this, and he will also tell me if there is anything the Board needs to consider. 4. Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Attorney Scott Grover. A letter is enclosed in your packet from Meg Twohey,who opposed the density as originally proposed. The letter was written prior to the last meeting. However,the petitioner stated at the last meeting that the plans have been revised to reduce the number of units. I have not received the newly revised plans. • 5. Continued petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District. Attorney Bill Quigley. At the last meeting,the petitioner stated that the plans were being revised and that he wished to share them with the neighborhood prior to coming back to the Board for a vote. I received revised plans today. They show two proposed house lots rather than the originally proposed four. The lots are now 11,043 SF (lot 1) and 10,402 SF (lot 2) in area. The required lot area (and lot area per dwelling unit) is 15,000 SF. The required lot width is 100 feet, and while it appears that this requirement is met when measured 15 feet back from the frontage line,this dimension isn't shown on the plan and will need to be verified by the petitioner. I wasn't given enough sets of plans to distribute before Wednesday, but Attorney Quigley will be presenting the new plans at the meeting. • -2� • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, September 16, 2009 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Rick Dionne (chaired the meeting in the absence of Robin Stein),Beth Debski,Annie Harris (arrived at 7:30 p.m.),Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner. Those absent were: Robin Stein (Chair) and Becky Curran. Rick Dionne opens the meeting at 6:32 p.m. 1. Approval of Minutes: August 19, 2009. No comments or edits are suggested. Debski moves to approve the minutes of August 19, 2009, seconded by Tsitsinos and approved 3-0 (Belair,Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed). • 2. Old/New Business: Request of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC to extend Variances previously granted for a period of six (6) months for land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA. Attorney John Keilty. Attorney Kielty presents the request. He says they are seeking an extension of the previously granted variance for this project. He says the extension is needed because there was a 1500 square foot parcel in the middle of the land that was acquired by the city which was thought to have been taken for taxes, but it was discovered it was not. He says there had been an effort to take the land,but the owners (the Livingston family) paid their taxes and were then in a position to put a price on the land. Since then,Arty Keilty says he has been working to acquire that land since the grant of the variance. He says the Livingstons were at all times aware of the application, and they have come to an amount they would like to be paid and the city is working with the developer to remedy that. He says because of the situation, and another issue with the SESD — there is an alleged sewer pipe on the land that's not used— but there doesn't appear to be an easement, and SESD is in the process of working with the City Engineer to determine whether it will be moved or abandoned. He says he believes it will be abandoned, and once that situation is remedied, they will be able to fmish the project. Dionne asks if anyone in the public would like to comment. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., says she isn't stating an objection to the project, but she has a question: she says she called, and Shallop Landing LLC is not registered with the state. • Arty Keilty says it was fully registered in December of 2008. 1 Debski moves to approve the extension, seconded by Tsitsinos and approved 4-0 (Debski, • Belair, Tsitsinis, and Dionne in favor, none opposed). 3. Public hearing: Petition of MICHAEL BUCCO seeking a Variance from maximum building height (number of stories) to allow for the addition of a dormer on the third floor of the two-family home on the property at 72-74 WEBB STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Michael Bucco presents the petition. He explains there is already a third floor on the house, where the bedrooms and the existing bathroom are, and he and his wife would like to put a dormer on. The new dormer would become a new bathroom, and the existing bathroom would become a new bedroom. Tom St. Pierre asks if it has been explained to the applicant that if only four board members are present, the vote will need to be unanimous for the petition to pass, and that the applicant has the right to wait until five members are present tonight or postpone the hearing. The applicant this has been explained to him, and he prefers to go forward. Belair asks if there is another egress on the third floor—an interior stairway? Mr. Bucco confirms there is an interior stairway. Dionne opens the issue up forpublic comment. No comments are made. Dionne closes the public comment portion. Belair says she is satisfied—this is a reasonable thing to want to do;her only concern is that • they cannot create a third floor rental unit. Dawna Bucco explains no part of the house is now or will be rented. Tsitsinos notes that they are taking out the second floor bathroom. Bucco clarifies that the bathroom that exists today will become a bedroom. Belair moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Debski and approved 4-0 (Belair, Debski,Tsitsinos and Dionne in favor, none opposed). Attorney George Atkins, who is here to present the petition for 284 Canal Street, requests to wait for five Board members before his petition is beard. McKnight explains Attorney Grover, who is presenting the 162 .Federal Streetpetition, also wishes to waitforfive members. 4. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District. Attorney Bill Quigley. Attorney Quigley presents the petition. He says when he was before the Board last time, there was considerable neighborhood opposition to the proposal, and his client has now revised the plans. He says the first plan showed a four-lot subdivision; the current proposal now shows two house lots. He says one concern had been emergency vehicle access. Now, a cul-de-sac is being proposed, and he thinks this will meet the requirements of the Fire Department,but he says this will be dealt with when they are before the Planning Board. 2 • Attorney Quigley says another objection had been that neighbors had not been given an opportunity to see the plans and they have now had an opportunity to meet with the developer. Debski asks what relief they are now asking for. Arty Quigley says the relief they are now asking for is significantly different from what they requested originally; he says the lot size is no longer an issue. He says he does have one question—lot 1 has a 13.5 foot setback and asks if this can be considered the side setback based on how the house is situated. He says if it's the side,it's conforming, but if it's the rear, he would need relief, since the rear setback would be 10 feet. Debski points out that the rear setback requirement is actually 30 feet. Atty Quigley says they had positioned the houses to make them comply. Belair asks if the only relief they now need is the side and rear setback;Arty Quigley says that's correct. St. Pierre points out they still need relief from lot size, since the minimum size is 15,000 square feet;Arty Quigley agrees that he was mistaken. Belair asks about the distance between the houses. Atty Quigley says the distance is 40 feet, and asks if they need a certain distance between buildings if those buildings are on separate lots. St. Pierre says his interpretation of the Zoning is that the distance requirement is between buildings on one lot, not adjacent lots. Atty Quigley says if there is any doubt that they do not meet side setbacks, he would like to request that relief as well. St. Pierre confirms that the petitioner now needs lot area,and side and rear setbacks. Belair asks if this will now be going to the Planning Board; McKnight and St. Pierre say they • do not need to go to the Planning Board for a subdivision,but for a two-lot ANR. St. Pierre says they may need a waiver of frontage from the Planning Board. Arty Quigley says he thought the frontage requirement was met. St. Pierre says the decision will state that the project is subject to any other approvals that may be needed by other City boards or commissions; and approval is given as per the plan submitted. Dionne opens the issue up forpublic comment. Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., says the neighbors had opposed it when they had four lots proposed, and that two is a much better proposal. However, he says they are still concerned about flooding, since the area slopes down from Albion St.; the Cormiers and Olcotts have flooding problems. He says Mr. Sullivan has met with them and has said he would work on the drainage to alleviate the flooding. Councillor Ryan says that Lawrence Olcott, 23 Summit St., sent him an email opposing the project because of the proximity of one of the houses to his property, the placement of the houses at an angle (which he says is not consistent with neighborhood), and flooding concerns. Councillor Ryan says Olcott's house is pretty far from the property line but wonders if the house can be turned slightly. Councillor Ryan says he himself is not opposed to the proposal as long as there is a condition to alleviate the flooding and one to add trees as a buffer for privacy for abutters. There being no further comment, Dionne closes the public comment portion of the hearing. • 3 Belair comments that the developers have significantly changed their proposal—they cut it • in half—and have listened to the concerns of the neighbors. She says she will not have a problem with this as long as they condition the drainage and landscaping. Debski asks if there is a fence or wall along the property line; Councillor Ryan says there is a stone wall on part of it, but a few evergreens or a fence would help with buffering. St. Pierre asks, through the Chair,what is proposed for the drainage. Arty Quigley says there was a drainage plan done for the roadway from the previous plan,but he can have the engineer update this to show drainage coming off the roof and going straight into dry wells. The proposal would be to drain everything out through the cul-de-sac toward the roadway. St. Pierre asks through the Chair if the applicant would be amenable to submitting a drainage alteration plan. Attorney Quigley says they would be willing to do that. Tsitsinos asks about the stone wall -would they be removing it? Councillor Ryan says there is a stone wall on part of the property,but he doesn't know whose wall it is, so he's unsure if it will be removed. He says the wall doesn't have to be removed, and they don't want trees removed. Belair asks what type of houses they will build; Sullivan says a 2200 to 2500 square foot, 2- story Colonial or Cape. Debski asks if they will be building garages;Sullivan says they are hoping to. Debski moves to approve the petition with seven standard conditions and three 3 PP P �� ( ) special conditions: Petitioner will submit a drainage alteration plan to be approved by the engineering department; trees on the site will remain;and petitioner will submit a landscaping plan for the tree warden's approval prior to issues. Belair seconds the motion, and it passes 4-0 (Belair, Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). • At 6:00 p.m., Dionne announces the Board will take a short recess until the f ftb Board member arrives. The meeting resumes at 7:30 p.m. when Annie 1 lar is arrives. 5. Public hearing: Petition of JOHN BERTINI,TRUSTEE,JAB TRUST, seeking a Variance from minimum front yard setback, and a Special Permit for the extension of a non-conforming structure, to allow for an addition onto the restaurant on the property at 284 CANAL STREET, Salem, MA, in the Business Highway Zoning District. Attorney George Atkins. Attorney Atkins presents the petition. He says the petition is for a Special Permit and Variance because of the nonconformities of the building— the side and front yard setbacks. John and Frank Bertini, owners of the restaurant, are present. Atty Atkins says they wish to create additional bathroom space located at the front of the building, and in order to do that, they will need to reduce the setback. He says there are proposed City improvements to Canal Street, and one of the proposed changes is the elimination of parking in front of the building. This proposal will work with that. He says it will also eliminate a free-standing pylon sign. He says there are certain things that can't be addressed until the City completes its plans for improvements, such as new telephone poles,landscaping, etc. He says they will wait until the improvements are complete to do their construction. He also addresses the floor plan of the restaurant and says this is the only way to add bathroom space without eliminating seating or having an awkward foot traffic situation within the restaurant. He says • there will also be handicapped access ramp and on the left of the building at the bar 4 • entrance, there will be another vestibule with handicapped access as well. He says this is not in the petition because this part of the plan does not require relief. As to the Special Permit requirement that the increase of nonconformity may not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than what exists,Atty Atkins says there will be improved public safety due to the elimination of parking in front,visual improvements due to the removal of the pylon sign, and conformance with the Canal St. improvement plans. He says the use is already a conforming one. Dionne opens the issue up forpublic comment. At-Large Councillor Thomas Furey, 77 Linden St., speaks in favor of the proposal. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., speaks in favor of the proposal. Attorney Atkins adds that there is sufficient parking on the site to meet the requirements of the Ordinance, even with the elimination of parking in front. There being no further comment, Dionne closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Belair asks for clarification about the location of the bathrooms in relation to the front entrance. Attorney Atkins confirms there will still be access to the front, even with the new bathroom space. • Dionne asks if the existing bathrooms will be eliminated. Mr. Bertini says they have not yet made that decision. Harris asks for clarification about why they need a Special Permit. Attorney Atkins explains that this is because they are changing a nonconforming structure; they are increasing that nonconformity. Belair says removing the parking from the front will increase the safety—it's currently dangerous. She agrees with everything that's been said and says the Board should support a longtime Salem business. Dionne agrees that it's a good proposal. Belair moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions, seconded by Debski and approved 5-0 (Harris, Belair, Debski,Tsitsinos and Dionne in favor,none opposed). 6. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Attorney Scott Grover. Attorney Grover presents the petition. He thanks the three Board members who have listened to the meeting tapes and submitted Mullins affidavits in order to participate in the vote. 5 Atty Grover says Bill Wharff, the developer, and Peter Pitman, the architect, are here • tonight. He briefly reviews the proposal. He hands out copies of a revised parking/site plan to the Board. He says the largest change since the beginning of the project is that Bill now has an agreement with the archdiocese to include a abutting parcel of land in the proposal, which has allowed the building to be moved on the site, and allows for more green space and additional parking. Arty Grover says at the last meeting, the Board asked them to provide a letter from the Archdiocese authorizing the use of this land in the plan, and he now gives the requested letter to the Board. McKnight ready the letter into the record. Atty Grover says the addition of 10,000 square feet of new land from the archdiocese significantly reduces the density of the project (which increases the lot area per dwelling unit), and adds parking spaces (18 now,in comparison to the originally proposed 15, and the required 12), as well as green space. He says the other major change in the project is the reduction of the number of proposed units from 9 to 8. He says that all of these changes were in response to a series of meetings they had with the Federal Street Neighborhood Association, to address their concerns. He says the lot area per dwelling unit is now significantly larger than originally proposed—about 3200 SF. He says at the last meeting, these plans were newly completed, so at the request of the neighborhood association to allow more time for the neighbors to review, they continued to the petition to this month. He says, however, that they have a purchase and sales agreement with deadlines that need to be strictly adhered to, and would not like to move forward with a vote this evening. • Dionne asks if all the parkin g g is now shown in the green area on theplan;Arty Grover says yes, and confirms that access to the parking area is from Bridge Street. Atty Grover says the other favorable thing about this plan is that the access easement, based on the original deed of the property from the Archdiocese, could have been anywhere over the parking lot of the St.James school, but the developer has agreed to extinguish this easement in exchange for the recently added parcel of land. Harris says it looks as though they are allowing the Archdiocese to continue using part of their parking area on the property at 162 Federal St., and asks if this was part of the agreement;Arty Grover says it is. Harris asks if there is pedestrian access to Federal St.;Arty Grover says there is. Wharff says the front entrance is only for the first floor unit;in order to access the elevator, and the other units, the side entrance by the parking area must be used. Harris says it's a shame since this is a walking neighborhood, and it would be nice for people to access the units from the front, but Atty Grover says this was in response to concerns of abutters,who were concerned that the new units would infringe on neighborhood parking,which is already scarce. Dionne opens Ibe issue up forpublic comment. Kenneth Wallace, 172 Federal Street,gives the Board his own alternative floor plan and accompanying narrative. He discusses access from the street to each entrance. He says those who live in units 2,4, 5 and 6 will park on Federal St. because it's easier to park there than the lot provided in back. He says the neighborhood association opposes this. He says 6 • they commend the developer on the addition of parking in the back but says the distance to walk from the back is too far for people to use. Harris points out that these are private parking spaces versus street parking. Belair asks if parking is his objection to this petition; he says yes, he is opposed to new residents parking on Federal St. Tsitsinos says he has been paying attention to Federal Street and there is no room for occupants of the building to park on the street. Attorney John Carr, representing the Federal St. Neighborhood Association, 9 North Street, passes out a package for each member and says the proposal is very close to what the neighborhood wants. He says they had originally criticized the proposed nine units, and they felt the change to eight units was a big improvement. He also says they applaud the acquisition of the land that increases the minimum lot area per dwelling unit from roughly 1600 to 3100 SF. He also says they love the green space. He says the only problem they have,which the handout addresses,is one unit. He says they wanted to deal with the problem of math; the total square footage of the building as stated on the plans is 16,359 SF, whereas the assessor's records indicate the building is 10,312 SF. He attributes the discrepancy to the fact that the assessor doesn't assess for living space the basement or attic, so they agree that based on the plans, the square footage is 16,359. He draws the Board's attention to page 2 of his handout,indicating a comparison between this property and 95 Federal St., a former nursing home, and 7 Carpenter, particularly the latter. He says they are • trying to bring something more in character with the neighborhood, such as these two projects. In order to achieve this,he would like the project to be reduced by another unit for a total of 7 units. He says the third floor units are small; he wants to see fewer, larger units in to make them mote "of the neighborhood." He says they have no problem with the units on the first and second floors,but the third floor unit has a duplex, and unit 8 is 660 SF and another is 550. He says they are advocating that the space in the third Yd floor unit be allocated to the other 3' floor units so that the density would be more like that of 7 Carpenter. He says the rehab costs of 7 Carpenter were huge. He says they would enthusiastically endorse the plan and they think they have compromised more than halfway on the density. They want a development that will bring people invested in the neighborhood. There being no further comment, Dionne closes the public comment portion of the bearing. Harris asks Atty Carr if he is commenting on the parking, as Mr. Wallace did. Atty Carr says the real solution to the parking is the reduction of the number of units. He asks if the Board could put in conditions that would keep residents from parking on the street. He says he hopes there will be conditions in the Board's decision putting controls on the parking on Federal St. from these residents —that they would be ineligible for parking stickers or passes. He says they are anxious about the parking situation,yet says they can endorse the plan with a slight tweaking of reducing one unit. • Belair says the Board can't compare this property to 7 Carpenter St. and 95 Federal St. — those conversions were done over a decade ago, and with the economic climate having 7 changed so much,renovations are much more costly now. She says she would rather see • this residential use rather than something else that could be here; she says this proposal is definitely in harmony with the neighborhood. She says the relief requested is not that great —it's two variances and a Special Permit just to change one use to another. She says she lived on Federal St. for 13 years and always parked in her assigned off street space rather than on the street because there just is not parking available on the street. She says she would support the project as is. Debski says she agrees with Belair, and she says it would be unfair to restrict people who would be living on Federal St. from parking there—Federal St. is a public street, and they pay taxes too. However, she says this is not going to be an issue, because people will use their dedicated parking, not try to drive around the block to park on Federal St. In any case, she doesn't think the Board would have the authority to restrict residents from parking on their own street. She says this is a much improved plan and she has no issue with 8 units. Tsitsinos says he fully supports the petition. Harris says this is a great improvement; she would prefer the building be access differently, but she doesn't think the parking is a problem. She says the nice parking area in the back really is preferable to street parking. She says the entrance is awkward, but this plan is a good one. Dionne says every effort has been made to meet the needs of the area. He notes that they have increased the green space and parking. • Harris asks if the Board should see whether the petitioner wants to make a modification as to the number of units;does the applicant want the Board to vote? Grover says they have taken a hard look at whether the project would be economically feasible with fewer units, and also explored their ability to sell the larger unit in this market, and they felt they'd be unable to. Dionne notes there has been considerable expense added to the project with the addition of new land. Grover says that this adds costs even though it was a land swap. Debski says dropping down to 7 units would not raise the lot area per dwelling unit by very much. Debski moves to approve the petition (including the parking plan dated August 4, 2009), with eight (8) standard conditions and one (1) special condition, seconded by Belair and approved 5-0 (Harris, Dionne,Belair,Tsitsinos, and Debski in favor, none opposed). There being no further business before the Board, Dionne moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Belair and unanimously approved. The meeting is adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • 8 Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals on 10/21/09 • • 9 QTY OF SALEM .n�eN TA. 4 , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND t . DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVE as 200q SEP 2U P 3: 01 9'P�IMINB�� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASEUNGroNSIREET♦SALE-\I,MnssnalLSEMCLI970 TEL-978-619-5685 ♦FAX49 4J.640*"1, S?,!_Ei,!, M9 SS. LYNN GWMN DUNcwN,AICP Dincrm September 24, 2009 John R. Keilty, Counselor at Law 40 Lowell Street Peabody, MA 01960 Re: Request for extension of Szetela Lane Variances Dear Attorney Keilty: At its meeting on September 16, 2009, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals discussed the request of Shallop Landing at Collins Cove Partnership, LLC to extend the Variances granted by • the Board on September 24, 2008 and filed with the City Clerk on October 8, 2008, for a period of six (6) months to April 8, 2009. The Board understands Shallop Landing at Collins Cove Partnership, LLC intends to go forward with the project, though additional time is needed to resolve issues related to an SESD sewer pipe on the property, and to finish acquiring the necessary land. The Board decided by a unanimous vote to approve the extension requests making the Variances valid through April 8, 2009. Sincerely, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • cONDIT4�4, QTY OF SALEM yt m 43 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �CIMlN&D� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WAswNCTON STREET#SA can MASSACHUETTS 01970 T'EI_978-619-5685 FAr:978-740-0404 LYNN GCX)N1N DLxcn:N,AICP DIRECTOR < o � o I .a O October 5, 2009 D John R. Keilty, Counselor at Law :L n 40 Lowell Street N Peabody, MA 01960 Re: Request for extension of Szetela Lane Variances Dear Attorney Keilty: At its meeting on September 16, 2009, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals discussed the request of Shallop Landing at Collins Cove Partnership, LLC to extend the Variances granted by the Board on September 24, 2008 and filed with the City Clerk on October 8, 2008, for a period • of six (6) months to April 8, 2010. The Board understands Shallop Landing at Collins Cove Partnership; LLC intends to go forward with the project, though additional time is needed to resolve issues related to an SESD sewer pipe on the property, and to finish acquiring the necessary land. The Board decided by a unanimous vote to approve the extension requests making the Variances valid through April 8, 2010. A previous letter filed on September 24, 2009 with the City Clerk indicated that the Board extended the Variances through April 8, 2009; however, this was my Scrivener's error. The correct extension date is through April 8, 2010. Sincerely, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • . ONDIT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ~+ ^ f SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 ' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Qo� FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1009 SEP 30 A 8: 09 MAYOR 1= September 28,2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MICHAEL BUCCO, seeking a Variance from maximum height(number of stories) to allow for the addition of a dormer onto the third floor of a two-family home on the property at 72-74 WEBB STREET,Salem,MA, in the Residential Two- Family Zoning District(R2). Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §64, Table I: Residential Density Regulations (recodified on September 10,2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Tonal Requirements). Dimens , Statements of fact: • 1. Michael Bucco represented himself at the hearing. Idis wife,Dawna Bucco,was also present. 2. In a petition dated August 24, 2009,the petitioner requested a Variance to construct a dormer on the third story of a two-family home. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on September 16, 2009,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch.40A, §11. The pubic hearing was closed on September 16,2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rick Dionne (chairing the meeting),Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair(alternate),and JimmyTsitsinos (alternate). 4. At the hearing, no members of the public spoke in opposition to or in favor of the petition. 5. Members of the Board of Appeals commented that the project seemed reasonable, as long as there was no intention to create an additional rental unit. Dawna Bucco assured the Board that no part of the house is currently rented,nor will it be, and that the purpose of the project was to create another bedroom only. At its meeting on September 16, 2009,the Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant a Variance under 56-4,Table I: Residential Density Regulations • (recodified on September 10, 2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements). 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. 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 zoning ordinance. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to construct the proposed addition,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. In pemritting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 an addition of a dormer onto the third floor of the two-family home at 72-74 Webb Street,the requested Variance from dimensional requirements for the Two-Family Residential Zone is granted. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,four(4) in favor(Dionne, to rant petitioner's requests for a • opposed, Belau Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0) pp g P terms conditions,and safeguards: e subject to the following , Variance g 1 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board. • 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 3 floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of • destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • . ONDIT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS A�ai BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR as SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 K 1�09 CAP 3� g- O$ IMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR I" iL-f_ 11 September 28,2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JOHN BERTINI,TRUSTEE,JAB TRUST, seeking a Variance from minimum front yard setback, and a Special Permit for the extension of a non- conforming structure, to allow for an addition onto the restaurant on the property at 284 CANAL STREET, Salem,MA, in the Business Highway Zoning District(132). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §6-4,Table II:Business and Industrial Density Regulations (recodified on September 10,2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements). Petitioner also seeks a Special Permit pursuant to §5-30), Extension of Nonconformity(recodified on September 10,2009 as §3.3.3,Nonconforming Structures). • Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner,John Bertini,who was also present at the meeting. 2. In a petition dated August 27, 2009,the petitioner requested a Variance and a Special Permit to construct an addition to the front of the existing nonconforming building. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on September 16, 2009,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A,§11. The pubic hearing was closed on September 16,2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rick Dionne (chairing the meeting),Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 4. At the hearing,two residents spoke in support of the petition,emphasizing the importance of supporting the improvement of a longtime Salem business. Supporters included At-Large Councillor Thomas Furey,77 Linden Street. No one spoke in opposition to the petition. 5. Members of the Board of Appeals commented that the project,which would involve eliminating parking from the front of the building,would increase safety for • pedestrians and patrons. 6. In a statement submitted with the application,the petitioner stated that due to the existing floor plan of the restaurant facilities and the need to maintain sufficient 2 parking,enforcement of the front setback provision of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship. At its meeting on September 16,2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant a Variance under§6-4,Table II: Business and Industrial Density Regulations (recodified on September 10,2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements),and a Special Permit under§5-36),Extension of Nonconformity(recodified on September 10, 2009 as §3.3.3,Nonconforming Structures). 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building,which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district;the petitioner made the argument that the layout of the building was such that necessary expansion could only be reasonably done by encroaching on the front setback,and the Board concurred. 2. 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 zoning ordinance, as the proposed changes would benefit public safety and improve a neighborhood restaurant. • 3. The applicant may vary the terms of the Business Highway District to construct the proposed addition,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 an addition onto the restaurant on the property at 284 Canal Street,the requested Variance from dimensional requirements for the Business Highway zone is granted,and the requested Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure is granted. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Dionne, - Belair,Harris,Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance and a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances, codes and regulations. 3 • 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Pemrit 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. • aa�. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUrSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR • �+ SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 ill TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �pP FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZUa9 SEP 30 A a C8 ' MAYOR CITY September 28, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single- family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District(R1). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §6-4,Table I: Residential Density Regulations (recodified on September 10, 2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements). • Statements of fact: 1. William A. Quigley,Jr., Esq. represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated May 21, 2009,the petitioner requested dimensional Variances to create four(4) buildable,single-family house lots. 3. A Statement of Hardship submitted with the petition explained that the proposed parcels were originallylaid out in 1961,but were not built on;since 1961,the zoning has changed such that the originally proposed house lots no longer conform to current dimensional requirements. 4. The Statement of Hardship also explained that the site had been contaminated with asbestos when purchased, and the petitioner had expended a great deal of time and money cleaning the site and bringing into its current clean,usable state. In order to recover costs expended during cleanup,the petitioner stated, it was necessary to develop four house lots on the site. 5. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on June 17,2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40,4, §11. 6. At the meeting on June 17, 2009, numerous residents, including direct abutters, spoke in opposition to the project,citing concerns that the project's density was too • great and the proposed house lots were too small for the neighborhood. Other comments included concerns about emergency vehicle access, flooding,lack of parking, snow removal and traffic. Among the residents who stated opposition to the project were Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan,4 Nichols St.;Ward 3 Councillor 2 • Arthur Sargeant, 8 Maple Avenue; and At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Avenue. 7. At the June 17, 2009 meeting,Board members also expressed concern about the proposed density of the project and size o f the house lots, and indicated that the Board might view the project more favorably if two or three house lots were proposed rather than four,the Board also suggested that a cul-de-sac or turnaround of some type would improve the project. 8. The hearing was continued to August 19, 2009 and September 16, 2009. 9. On September 16,2009,the petitioner presented revised plans,dated June 24,2009, showing a reduction in the number of house lots proposed from four(4) to two (2). The new plans also showed a cul-de-sac. Attorney Quigley stated at the meeting that the only relief now needed would be lot area and rear yard depth. 10. At the September 16, 2009 meeting,Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan again spoke about the project, saying he no longer opposed it,since the density had been significantly reduced;however,he still had concerns about flooding onto neighboring properties, and that at meetings with the developer, he had been assured that measures would be taken to alleviate this effect. He also said that trees should be added to act as a buffer between the new houses and abutting properties. • 11. Lawrence Olcott,23 Summit Street,submitted correspondence via Councillor Ryan opposing the project because of the proximity of the proposed houses to his property and because he felt the angle of the proposed houses was out of character with the neighborhood. 12. The pubic hearing was closed on September 16,2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rick Dionne (chairing the meeting),Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 13. At its meeting on September 16, 2009,the Board of Appeals voted four(4) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant Variances under§6-4,Table I: Residential Density Regulations (recodified on September 10,2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements). 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. 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 zoning ordinance, as the petitioner significantly altered the plans to address neighborhood concerns about density and access, and agreed to submit drainage • alteration plans in order to prevent flooding onto neighboring properties. 3 . 3. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 creation of two (2) single-family house lots on the property at 16 Scotia Street,the requested Variances from dimensional requirements for the One-Family Residential Zone are granted,as shown on the revised plans titled"Board of Appeals Plan, Scotia Street, Salem,Mass.," dated June 24,2009, and prepared by Hayes Engineering,Inc. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,four(4) in favor(Dionne, Belair,Debski 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. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise,any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize 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. • 9. Petitioner is to submit a Street Drainage Alteration Plan to the Building Inspector prior to beginning construction. 4 • 10. The existing trees on the property are to remain. 11. Petitioner is to submit a landscaping plan to be approved by the City Tree Warden prior to beginning construction. 08w..ny.1 �Hm Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk South Reis Clerk has been filed with the Registry of Deeds. • ONDI c T�. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL gi�pp{{ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • p' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 fP TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2001 SEP 30 A E: 09 MAYOR CITY (:LE't!�. SfiLt=h1r1P•S;. September 28, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit; and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District(R2). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §6-4, Table I: Residential Density Regulations (recodified on September 10,2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements). Petitioner also seeks Special Permits pursuant to §5-3(j), • Extension of Nonconformity(recodified on September 10,2009 as §3.3.3,Nonconforming Structures), and§8-6,Board of Appeals, Granting Special Permits (recodified on September 10, 2009 as §9.4,Special Permits). Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner,William Wharff,who has the properly under agreement subject to his ability to convert it to a residential use. The property is owned by Health&Education Services,Inc. 2. In a petition dated March 25,2009,the petitioner requested a Variance and Special Pernnts to convert the existing office building to nine (9) residential units. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on April 15,2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §11. 4. At the April 15; 2009 meeting, Attorney Grover stated that a leaking oil tank exists on the property, and cleanup would be expensive; he also stated that the property is currently being remediated. 5. In a statement submitted with the application,Attorney Grover also noted that the building at 162 Federal Street is substantially larger than any other residential • structure in the area; that conversion of it from a commercial to residential use would require a complete reconstruction of the interior of the building; and that such conversion would be costly enough to require a certain level of density to support costs of rehabilitation. 2 • 6. At the April 15, 2009 meeting,Attomey John Carr,7 River Street, representing the Federal Street Neighborhood Association,opposed the project,citing concerns about density, and stating that the change in use from a mental health center with daily business hours to a residential building would increase the intensity of use. 7. At the April 15,2009 meeting,other residents spoke in opposition to the project, citing similar concerns about density, intensity of use, and the fact that the developer's proposal appeared to have measured the square footage of living space differently from the City Assessor's office. 8. At the April 15, 2009 meeting,Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, spoke in opposition to the project at its current density,stating that units of the size proposed would not be in keeping with the character with the neighborhood. 9. At the April 15, 2009 meeting,Board members expressed concerns about the density,the amount of space available for parking,and whether the proposed use would be less intense than the current use. 10. The hearing was continued to August 19,2009. At the August 19, 2009 meeting, Attorney Grover stated that in response to meetings with the neighbors,the plans had been revised to show a reduction from nine (9) proposed units to eight (8), an • increase in the proposed parking spaces from fifteen (15) to eighteen (18),and additional green space. Approximately 10,000 square feet of additional land area was also shown on the plan,the result of an agreement with the Archdiocese of Boston to acquire part of their property at 150 Federal Street. 11. At the August 19, 2009 meeting,Attorney Grover stated that the relief now requested was for lot area per dwelling unit of 3,200 square feet, rather than the originally requested 1,166 square feet per dwelling unit,and that this was the only dimensional relief needed,as the previously proposed side entrance had been eliminated. 12. At the August 19, 2009 meeting,Attomey John Carr, representing the Federal Street Neighborhood Association,stated that while the project was progressing in a favorable direction, not all of the neighbors were available to view the revised plans, and so they could not yet support the petition. He requested that,if agreeable to Attorney Grover,the item be continued to September 16,2009, by which time the neighborhood would have time to review the new plans, and they would then be able to solidlysupport the project. The Board subsequently voted to continue the matter to September 16, 2009. 13. At the September 16, 2009 meeting,Attorney Grover presented the revised plans. At the meeting,Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street,stated his opposition to the plans due to concerns that prospective residents would park on Federal Street. Attorney • John Carr,continuing to represent the Federal Street Neighborhood Association, stated that he was pleased with the changes made to the plans, but wished to see the number of units reduced further to seven (7). 3 14. The pubic hearing was closed on September 16,2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rick Dionne (chairing the meeting),Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair(alternate),and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 15. At its meeting on September 16, 2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant a Variance under§6-4,Table I: Residential Density Regulations (recodified on September 10,2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements). 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building,which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district. 2. 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 zoning ordinance,as the proposed project is in harmony with the residential character of the neighborhood,particularly with the reduction of density and addition of parking and green space to the original proposal. is hardship Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise,to the appellant,as costs of the building's rehabilitation in the current economic climate would be considerable. 4. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to construct the proposed addition,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 5. In pemutting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 redevelopment of the office building on the property located at 162 Federal Street into eight (8) residential units as per the plans submitted,including the plan titled"Parking Sketch Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Development at 162 Federal Street,Salem,Massachusetts," prepared by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering and North Shore Survey Corporation,dated August 4, 2009,the requested Variance from lot area per dwelling unit for the Residential Two- Family Zone is granted. . In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Dionne, Belair,Harris,Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance subject to the following terms,conditions,and safeguards: 4 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize 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. 9. Parking shall be as per the submitted plan dated August 4,2009. 9 r M /,t5rn Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the • office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision beating the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. , .O tNCITY OF SALEM MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL f I . pro. 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SAi-EM,MASsAmLsETTS 01970 Nk TE E:978-619-5685 +FAx:978-740-0404 KIMRERLEYDRisooLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,September 16,2009 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: MICHAEL BUCCO Location: 72-74 WEBB STREET, Salem,MA Request: Variance Description: Variance sought from maximum building height(number of stories)to allow for the addition of a dormer on the third floor of the two-family home (Residential Two- Family Zoning District) Decision: Approved-Filed with the City Clerk on September 30,2009 • Petition of: JOHN BERTINI,TRUSTEE,JAB TRUST Location: 284 CANAL STREET, Salem,MA Request: Variance and Special Permit Description: Variance sought from minimum front yard setback,and a Special Permit sought for the extension of a non-conforming structure,to allow for an addition onto a restaurant(Business Highway Zoning District). Decision: Approved-Filed with the City Clerk on September 30,2009 Petition of: WILLIAM WHARFF Location: 162 FEDERAL STREET Request: Variances and Special Permits Description: Variances sought from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special Permits sought to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units (Residential Two-Family Zoning District). Decision: Revised plans were approved allowing eight(8) residential units rather than the originally proposed nine (9) units;need for side yard setback relief was eliminated. Filed with the City Clerk on September 30,2009 -0ter- 1 of 1� Petition of: BVS CORPORATION Location: 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem,MA Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from required lot area,lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision of the property into four single-family house lots (Residential One-Family Zoning District). Decision: Revised plans were approved allowing for two(2) house lots rather than the originally proposed four(4),. Relief from side yard setbacks was also granted.Filed with the City Clerk on September 30,2009 7ba now is(wingserr in wnpharxe Faith theMassadnasetts Gemral Law, G*ter 40A, Settrwa 9& 15 and does mt rejcam action by the reipxm Appeals, if an)S shall be nudepmuant to ChVier 40A,Seazon 17,and shall be filed wthin • 20 days firm the date ubi&the deision vm)Ved wth the City Clerk. 2 o f 2 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board a3o��l ea(s Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email — Sry 6', y Ni ��a�f S7! 9P-7ys= 16�Y ��r,y�/�ya� @Ca�.trT, C-t 110 C3,J { R Ail N9 41- IN-OY 1eC C'j. r.�, I r 11�1 14f 0 A)<L JO LeLfl--4915' ucco ( �, �( l� `—� s/vu ,s3z3 Page of J_ QTY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL s ,. . 120 WASHINGTONSTREET+ SALEM,MASSACI-RJSETTs 01970 � f�7fNF ;� TELR:978-745-9595♦FAx:978-740-9846 Kn,mERLEYDRrsooLL MAYOR � O AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING August 19,2009- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313- 120 WASHINGTON STREET v Robin Stein, Chair i�).Vk , ;o 1. Approval of Minutes -July 15,2009 meeting. f 5.; W 2. Old/New Business o Request of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC to extend Variances previously granted for a period of six(6) months fa land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem,MA. Attomey ,John Kedty. 3. Qir mxd petition of CARTER VINSON seeking a Variance from maximum width of entrance and exit drives to allow • for an off-street parking space proposed for the property at 32 BEACH AVENUE,Salem MA,in the Residential One- Family Zoning District. 4. Petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES seeking Variances from minimum distance of an accessory structure to the main building and maximum height of an accessory structure to allow for construction of two storage structures on the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD in the Business Park Development District. 5. Petition of ROY LAPHAM seeking Variances from minimum lot area,minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and minimum rear and front yard setback requirements to allow for construction of a two-family residence on the property located at 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. 6. Petition of MICHAEL&HEATHER UKSTINS seeking Variances from Section 7-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow four(4) existing stacked parking spaces to remain on the propertylocated at 7 ENGLISH STREET in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. 7. Cbmimred petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office budding to nine (9) residential condominium units,on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET,Salem,MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Attorney Scott Grover. 8. Comzmrtrl petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area,lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET,Salem, MA,in the Residential One-Family Zoning District. AttomeyBill Quigley. 9. Adjournment C h0� �` � p�£I��fi�6�m®i1 CITY OF-SALEM MASSACHUSETTS nr DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND • ? nmF fly-i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECIOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: August 13 2009 RE: Meeting Agenda—August 19, 2009 Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of July 15, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for new Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 1. Old/New Business: Request of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP,LLC to extend Variances previously granted for a period of six (6) months for land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA. Attorney John Keilty. Attorney Keiky has submitted a request to extend the variances granted on this property for six months. The original decision granting the variances is enclosed in your packet. Atty Keilty also submitted a new application form with his request,which is also enclosed. The decision was filed on October 8, 2008, and would expire a year from that date (October 8, 2009). The request would extend the variances to April 8, 2009. 2. Continued petition of CARTER VINSON seeking a Variance from maximum width of entrance and exit drives to allow for an off-street parking space proposed for the property at 32 BEACH AVENUE, Salem, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District. The petitioner wishes to withdraw;when I receive a letter formally making the request, I will re-post an amended agenda without this item. If I don't receive that request, the Board will need to act at this meeting to avoid constructive approval. • 3. Petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES seeking Variances from minimum distance of an accessory structure to the main building and maximum height of an accessory structure to allow for construction of two storage structures on the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD in the Business Park Development District. The proposed project includes the construction of two silos for the storage of flour. Relief is requested from minimum distance of an accessory structure to the main building (10 feet is required; 1 foot is proposed), and from maximum height of an accessory structure (18 feet is the maximum allowed; 24 feet is proposed). I have received one letter so far regarding the project—another business in the same . development (Thermal Circuits) wrote in support of the petition (the letter is in your packet). Another business owner in the development called to ask questions about whether there would be impacts to parking, odors or rodents associated with the project, and whether the need for new silos indicated an expansion of the business —but this owner did not state opposition or support of the project. 4. Petition of ROY LAPHAM seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear and front yard setback requirements to allow for construction of a two-family residence on the property located at 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. The petitioner proposes construction of a two-family house on the property at 2 Atlantic St. (previously known as 17 Lussier St.; according to the City Assessor, the address has been legally changed). A decision was issued in 1995 granting variances from lot width and lot area for a proposed house on this lot (the decision is included with the application). However, the house was never constructed, and the variances expired. The owner now wishes to go ahead with the project and is applying for relief again. The house now being proposed requires relief from lot area (15,000 SF is allowed, 5250 SF is proposed); lot area per dwelling unit (7,500 SF is required, 2625 SF is proposed);tear yard setback (30'is required, 11'6"is proposed); side yard setback (15' is required because this is a corner lot, and 9' on the Lussier St. side is proposed). The lot meets the required 100'width. (Also included in the application is a copy of the Approval Not Required plan showing the creation of this lot,which was done after the original variances were granted in 1995.) 5. Petition of MICHAEL & HEATHER UKSTINS seeking Variances from Section 7-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow four (4) existing stacked parking spaces to remain on the • property located at 7 ENGLISH STREET in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. On June 2, 2009, the matter of Twardowski v. Carro and the Board of Appeals was before the Essex Superior Court. The Judge ordered the matter to be remanded to the Board of Appeals to discuss whether Carro had standing to apply for the variances for the parking spaces he conveyed to the condo unit owners (he did not own the property at the time he applied for the variances). A copy of the order is in your packet, along with a letter sent by City Solicitor Beth Rennard to the owners of the units to let them know that if they wished to keep their spaces, they would need to apply for variances on their own. In response, the owner of unit 2 has filed a petition to request relief for the four spaces in the back of the building. (The space at the side of the building, for which the Board has already denied variances, is not before the Board.) The Board should discuss whether Carro had standing to apply for the variances, in accordance with the Judge's order, before discussing the new petition. The new petition requests relief from parking stall length (22' is allowed, and 16.8'is proposed), and design (two-foot setbacks are required from all lot lines, and the proposed spaces are stacked with no setbacks). Required stall width is 9'; the spaces proposed are 7.8' at their narrowest. 6. Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Attorney Scott Grover. I have not received any revised plans or information about this project. • -2- j" 7. Continued petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning' District. Attorney Bill Quigley. Attorney Quigley intends to request a continuance to the September meeting. I am awaiting his signed request form. • -3- City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting • Wednesday, August 19,2009 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair), Beth Debski, Bonnie Belair, Rebecca Curran, Jimmy Tsitsinos. Also present were Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner. Those absent were: Rick Dionne, Annie Harris Stein opens the meeting at 6:35 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes: July 15,2009 Debski made a motion to approve the minutes of July 15, 2009, seconded by Stein and approved (4-0— Stein, Tsitsinos, Debski, and Belair in favor; Curran was absent at the July 15 meeting). 2. Old/New Business: Request of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC to extend Variances previously granted for a period of six (6) months for land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem,MA. Attorney John Keilty. Because only three members are here tonight who are eligible to • vote on this item (Debski, Belair and Tsitsinos), the Board votes (3-0) to continue the item to September 16, 2009. 3. Continued petition of CARTER VINSON seeking a Variance from maximum width of entrance and exit drives to allow for an off-street parking space proposed for the property at 32 BEACH AVENUE,Salem, MA, in the Residential One- Family Zoning District. McKnight tells the Board this item has been withdrawn. 4. Continued petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET,Salem, MA,in the Residential One-Family Zoning District. Attorney Bill Quigley. ,(Agenda item 8). Brian Sullivan, the property owner, requests to continue the hearing to September 16, 2009. McKnight confirms she has received a signed request form from Attorney Bill Quigley. Sullivan explains he has revised plans; the neighbors had requested to see these updated plans, and he wants the opportunity to share them before coming before the Board again. Beth moves to continue the hearing to September 16, 2009, seconded by Stein and approved (5-0). 5. Petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES seeking Variances from minimum distance of an accessory structure to the main building and maximum • 1 height of an accessory structure to allow for construction of two storage structures on the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD in the Business Park Development District (agenda item 4). • Marc Hazel presents the petition. He says they have spoken with the other condo owners in the business park complex, and they do not have any issues with the proposal. Bill Yuhas shows photos of the property to the Board. Stein opens up the issue for public comment. Fred Hutchinson, 15 Robinson Rd., says he doesn't want his business to be impacted by the proposed food storage, particularly any dust that would be generated. Stein says she doesn't see how the project would impact him, and furthermore, the project must comply with any requirements the Board of Health may have. There being no further comment, Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Belair asks how the flour is put into the silos. Hazel says a truck hooks up to a hose and pipes the flour into the silos. To get it out into the bakery, the use a vacuum system. Flour will be deposited through piping inside the building. He says it's a fully hermetically enclosed system, not open to the air. Debski asks if they need a permit from the Health department; Hazel says no, but they are inspected by the Salem Board of Health and the FDA. He has contacted Janet Mancini to let her know what their plans are. He says this is a common technology for storing and delivering flour and sugar. • Stein says this seems like a minimal request that is consistent with City ordinances. She notes there would be no other place to put it, given the shape of their lot. Curran references a letter the Board received from Thermal Circuits, located in the same business park, supporting the project. Belair makes a motion to approve the petition with six (6) standard conditions, seconded by Stein. The motion passes 5-0 (Belair, Debski, Stein, Curran, Tsitsmos in favor, none opposed). 6. Petition of ROY LAPHAM seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear and front yard setback requirements to allow for construction of a two-family residence on the property located at 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District(agenda item 5). Paul Fermano, architect for the project, presents the application. He says this was a site that was previously approved in 1995, but never built, and so he is asking for relief again. He says this is a two-family wood frame home, much like others in the neighborhood. He says the project is consistent with the average dimensions in the surrounding neighborhood. • 2 1 Curran asks if this is the same footprint as the original proposal; Fermano says it is. Belair asks about the composition of the outside. Fermano says that due to cost it will • probably be vinyl, possibly cement plank if budget will allow. Curran asks which way the front is —Ferman says it's now facing Lussier. Debski says the old decision states the house was to be built according to the submitted plans. Fermano says this is true, but drawings other than the plot plan were never submitted. Debski asks for clarification for when the ANR was granted and when the variances were granted—McKnight says the variances were granted to allow for the ANR. Stein says the ANR was not submitted with the original variance application. Fermano says there are no other drawings on file with the building department or at the Registry of Deeds. Curran asks about the information Fermano provided on the other houses in the neighborhood. Fermano says most of the houses are two-family with a couple of three-families and single-families. Belair asks if the tree shown on the plan is existing; Fermano says yes. Belair asks if there would there be parking; Fermano says yes. Belair says the project is consistent with the neighborhood but she's bothered that there's no other landscaping. Debski says parking spaces need to be 9 x 18', and these spaces are smaller. Fermano says the 15' dimension indicated on the plan is actually a setback, but the parking spaces are 16' x 19', and he could pull them over another foot or two. Stein says they will need • to be 9' x 18'. Stein says she's glad they are providing four spaces on the site. Stein opens the public comment portion of the hearing. Dan Tremblay, who is working on the project, says the property will stay in the family; they agree additional landscaping should be done and they intend to do that. There being no further comment, Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Belair says this is consistent with the neighborhood, but comments that she'd like to see more landscaping. She understands they intend to do more, but it is a big house on a small lot with no green space and she wants some assurance it will be landscaped. Curran wonders about the curb cut so close to the corner—does it need to be 20 feet from the corner? Stein says the applicant should bring the final plans to the building inspector to ensure these dimensions are all right. She also says this project would benefit from St. Pierre's giving it a final word and suggests they come back. Fermano says he'd be happy to give up the current parking design, ask for relief from tandem parking, and condition landscaping in the decision - he'd prefer to do that and have the Board vote tonight. Stein agrees, and says he will also need a buffer along the parking area. She notes that she thinks the project is appropriate and consistent with the neighborhood and notes that no one has spoken in opposition. • 3 Curran moves to approve the petition with tandem parking and with landscaping requirements, eight (8) standard conditions and one (1) special condition, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0. • 7.Petition of MICHAEL & HEATHER UKSTINS seeking Variances from Section 7-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow four(4) existing stacked parking spaces to remain on the property located at 7 ENGLISH STREET in the Residential Two- Family Zoning District (agenda item 6). Attorney John Keilty presents the petition. He says the Ukstins own Unit 2 of the condo unit. The condo was created in February of 2007, and there were spaces deeded at that time to the residents —they are tandem, stacked spaces. In 2008, Mr. Carro, the original developer, came before the Board for permits to put parking spaces in front. Atty Keilty says those always require variances, and the parking area had reached the curb cut, and there could have been loss of parking along the street and parking in front yard. He says the Board approved those spaces. Stein corrects him and says the Board denied the spaces in front but granted those in back. Atty Keilty concurs. He says the case was appealed to Superior Court; the case was bifurcated and his clients are now seeking approval only on the spaces in back. He says they no longer have the benefit of the approval of the rear spaces because of the first case being withdrawn. Atty Keilty says the spaces are accessed via a paper street shown on the plan, and he believes his clients have access and egress for these spaces. He presents the Board with pictures of the property, showing the access to the spaces. He says in Superior Court, the focus was whether his clients had the right to use the way. He says the matter before this Board is whether the use of the stacked spaces derogates from the intent of the zoning. • He shows additional photos showing the alignment of the spaces. Curran asks about the use of the parking spaces— are there three units that use them? Atty Keilty says three of the units have deeded spaces, and the other parks on the street. Stein asks about the status of the lawsuit. Keilty says that according to City Solicitor Beth Rennard, the case has been remanded to the Board of Appeals. Stein says it's a remand, but the action is still alive. She says there has been no judgment of dismissal, and the Court remanded the case back to the Board with the parties retaining all their rights. She says the variance is still out there—Mr. Carro isn't asking the Board to withdraw it, and so there is a live variance under appeal. Stein says the Board could declare he didn't have standing the first time, deny it, and then evaluate this petition. Stein says pursuant to a court order and judgment, the Board will determine whether Mr. Carro had standing to petition the Board for the variance granted. She says that given that Carro did not own the property at the time he submitted his petition, he did not have standing to pursue the variance, so the variance was improperly granted. She says the Board will treat the current petition as a new petition for a variance for four parking spaces. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. • 4 Attorney William Delaney, 246 Andover St., Peabody, is here on behalf of Ellen • Twardowski, who is present. He says Attorney Keilty referred to a public way, and there may a difference of opinion of what that's called, but he says Mrs. Twardowski owns the property to the rear of the parking area. He was party to the previous litigation and involved in negotiating this with Ms. Rennard; he says the Board's interpretation was what was intended. He says they asked the court to send it back in the fashion Stein suggested. Arty Delaney says he is in opposition to the new petition—while he's sympathetic to the property owners, the difficulty was with the developer. He says the applicants purchased a condominium with deeded parking spaces which did not really exist as a matter of law. He says when Atty Keilty talks about the previous existence of the spaces, they actually only began use this way when the condo was created in 2007. Prior to this, a third was grass and two-thirds was paved in an enclosed patio area with a chain link fence; he has photos he can share. He says in 2007, the spaces were created, but should not have been created or sold as they were, since they didn't comply with zoning. They are undersized and require setbacks of 2 feet, which they do not have. There are also aisle requirements that are not met. He says Mrs. Twardowsky has lived there a long time and this impacts her quality of life, with the ingress and egress of this shared way; when cars back out of that, they come.close to the corner of her porch. There are also issues with fire safety and snow removal. He says it will impact the value of her property. He refers to the Board's previous decision on the curb cut on this property; in the wording of the denial of the parking area, the Board had found that not everyone had parking on site in the city, that • many parked in the street, and that no hardship was demonstrated by lack of parking. He says there is not a legitimate legal hardship and requests that the Board deny the relief. Stein says previously, Mrs. Twardowski said she owned the right of way, and asks what her current position is. Belair asks if that is an easement. Stein says it's a derelict fee, and all the abutters own to the center and have rights to use it. Stein says they have to consider the impacts to the neighborhood on the whole neighborhood—if parking isn't on the property, there will be more cars on the street. Stein asks if we approve this, Mrs. Twardowski can't drive immediately along her side of the way? Atty says potentially she wouldn't be able to. Stein says that previously, her belief that she was being impacted was premised on her ownership of this way. Stein says putting the parking on the street would potentially impact the neighborhood and Mrs. Twardowski more than parking in this way would. Atty Delaney says the Ukstins don't have enough area to rightfully park in the right of way. Stein says they could possibly give two spaces. Stein says she sees a de minimus impact on Mrs. Twardowsky if the spaces are used. Atty Delaney says impact isn't the legal criteria for issuing the variance. Stein says Atty Delaney said this would negatively impact Mrs. Twardowsky as part of his argument against the petition. Atty Delaney says he referenced this, but it's not the legal standard that decides the issue. Stein says the 5 Board has to consider the impact of the petition on the neighborhood. Arty Delaney says his client suffers less impact by having the allowed number of cars there. There being no further comment, Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. • Belair says she feels very strongly that the Ukstins bought the condo and thought there were parking spaces; if they resell, that's a burden on them. She says the recourse may be to go after the developer, but she thinks this is a de minimus impact on the abutter's quality of life. She says two or four cars wouldn't affect her that much; a fire apparatus wouldn't be able to go in there anyway. She feels very strongly on the side of the condo owners, and this is third time this has been before the Board. Debski agrees; any opportunity the Board has to get off street parking, she says they need to take. She doesn't think this is a lot.of relief to give. Curran says not much has changed other than the remand; they are looking at 5 feet in length and 1.2 feet in width less than what is required. She has no problem with this, and none of the issues have changed since last year. Stein agrees, she stands by the original decision, that the variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. She says it would cause substantial hardship to the applicant if denied. She says it's in the interest of the neighborhood to keep off-street spaces. She says without this, the Ukstins would suffer a hardship to their quality of life. Tsitsinos likes it the way the original variance was granted and sees no reason to change • it. Stein says the Board should first annul the original variance and rescind the decision. Curran moves to rescind the variance granted to Paul Carro due to lack of standing for the variance from minimum stall and setback requirements at 7 English Street, seconded by Stein and approved (5-0). Curran makes a motion to approve the petition with one (1) standard condition; seconded by Debski and approved 5-0. 8. Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET,Salem, MA, in the Residential Two- Family Zoning District. Attorney Scott Grover (agenda item 7). Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. Bill Wharff, the developer, and Peter Pittman, the principal architect, are also present. Any Grover shows photos of the old convent, saying it was once part of St. James Church. He says Mr. Wharff is under agreement to purchase the property contingent on his ability to develop it into condos. • 6 Arty Grover says when they first presented this project in the spring, the original • development called for 9 units and 15 parking spaces. At the hearing, there was concern expressed by the neighbors about the density. He says they have been working with the neighborhood on the density issue. He says one reason it's taken so long to come back to the Board is they has been trying to negotiate purchase of the property behind this site in addition to the site of the original proposal. Atty Grover shows a plan showing the whole area owned by the archdiocese; which is about a 10,000 SF parcel. He says the archdiocese has authorized them to submit this proposal. He says the addition of this piece of land allows them to respond to concerns about density; this allows them to move the parking lot back and include much more green space. Atty Grover also says he heard the neighbors' concern that other houses on the street had yards, and this one would not, as originally proposed. He says the addition of the land also allowed them to plan three more parking spaces in back of the site; even though there was parking on the site previously, there might not have been enough to accommodate visitors. He says this plan has 18 spaces shown, which will be an improvement. He says they have also reduced the number of units in the building from 9 to 8. He explains how this changes the relief needed—they still need a variance from lot area per dwelling unit, but before they were proposing 1166 SF per dwelling unit, and with the addition of 10,000 SF now, and dropping a unit, they're now at 3,200 SF per dwelling unit. He says that is the only dimensional relief the project requires. In the previous petition, they were going to put a side entrance,but that's been eliminated. They are also asking for a Special Permit to go from one nonconforming use to another. • Peter Pitman, Pitman & Wardley Architects, 32 Church St., says there will be no architectural changes to the front and side other than repairs. He says the color scheme draws from historical pallets and he shows the color plates. .He says there will be new doors, windows, and landscaping, with as much green space as they could fit. He runs through the layout of the units in the building. He says there is no common access from the first floor to the elevator, so all access to that area will be through the floor nearer to their parking space. He says the first floor will be all dedicated to the units except for egress space. The second floor will have two more units of 1600 SF each, the third floor has two units— a 1400 and an 1100 SF unit, and half a townhouse unit, partly on the third floor and partly in the attic floor. Wharff says there are 150 trips per day for the current use; he says with the 8 units he's proposing, the bulk of the traffic will go to the Bridge St. side. He says there no longer is a common hallway on the first floor to allow the upper floors to the elevator, meaning not everyone will come in through Federal St. He says the average square footage of the units has also increased. He discusses the pricing of the units -4 of the 8 will be at or over $400,000. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Attorney John Carr represents the Federal St. neighborhood association. He agrees there's been progress, but he says their support is not confirmed yet. He says that at the 7 May 20 meeting, the Board agreed with the neighbors that the density was too high. He says there was a subsequent walk-through of the building. He says there was a discrepancy between the square footage that the assessor had on record for the building • and that presented by Mr. Wharff. He says today at noon he and Mr. Grover met to discuss that discrepancy. He says it was due partly to the fact that he has living space in the attic and basement, where the assessor doesn't count living space. He says the problem is, as a group, they have several key abutters who couldn't be here because of vacations. He says they like the direction this is going,but not everyone is here. He says they prefer the project continue to September and he says Mr. Grover is agreeable to that — if they put this off, the neighborhood can be solidly behind the project. Ken Wallace, 172 Federal ST. — says he likes the way this is going, though he would like to see the plans. Joyce Wallace, 172 Federal St. —says she had participated in the walkthrough—they have not yet seen plans, and this is the first they are hearing about 8 units instead of 9. McKnight says Meg Twohey has submitted a letter, but that in light of recent events it may not apply;she asks Arty Carr if he would like the letter read. Carr and Stein say to wait to read the letter until next month. Stein says she has no problem continuing, but she won't be at September's meeting. Stein says Harris or Belair could vote, but they would need to listen to the tape of the May 20 meeting. Stein requests a letter from the archdiocese authorizing the petitioner to act on their behalf, so there are no standing issues. Atty Grover said the reason the plans • were submitted so late is because they just found out this morning that the archdiocese felt the negotiations had progressed far enough that it made sense to come before the Board with this proposal. Debski moves to continue the hearing to September 19, 2009, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0. Stein moves to close the meeting, seconded by Beth and approved 5-0. The meeting adjourns at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 9/16/09 • 8 oeorr�.�Q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACH.USETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • � . q+ /r _ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Gn / TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 2001 SEP - I P I: 30. KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR CITY [:I_;:.:�(. 'J,'J.E���, � September 1, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Michael and Heather Ukstins requesting Variances to allow four (4) existing stacked parking spaces to remain on the property located at 7 English Street [R-2]. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 19, 2009 pursuant to Mass. General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on August 19, 2009 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Bonnie Belair, Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, and Jimmy Tsitsinos. 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. In a petition dated January 24, 2008, Paul Carro requested relief from requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a curb cut. Upon review by the Building Commissioner, it was determined that further relief was needed for four parking spaces to remain on the property and for the addition of two new parking spaces. At its meeting on February 13, 2008, the Board opened and closed a public hearing on this matter. 2. The plan submitted to accompany the petition was titled "Plot Plan of Land, 7 English Street, Salem, Property of Paul Carro," dated December 13, 2005, and prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation. 3. In a decision dated March 3, 2008, the Board of Appeals denied variances for a curb cut, and also denied relief for the two new parking spaces, which were shown on the plan along the West side of the property, abutting property belonging to Amy Conrad. 4. In the same decision, dated March 3, 2008, the Board also granted relief from dimensional requirements of§ 7-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the four spaces at the rear of the property to remain. This decision was appealed by • abutter Helen Twardowski (9 English Street). Paul Carro did not respond to the appeal because he claimed he did not own 7 English Street at the time and therefore did not have standing to petition the Board of Appeals for the variance. 2 • 5. On June 2, 2009, Essex Superior Court issued an Order and Judgment remanding the matter to the Board of Appeals to address defendant Paul Carro's standing to file a petition for a variance relative to 7 English Street, and to entertain a further petition from the current owners of the property for a variance from minimum stall and setback dimension. 6. In a petition dated July 28, 2009, Michael and Heather Ukstins, current owners of 7 English Street, Unit 2, requested relief from parking stall length and design to allow the four parking spaces at the rear of the property to remain. 7. At its meeting on August 19, 2009, the Board of Appeals opened and closed the public hearing regarding the Ukstins' petition. Attorney John Keilty presented the petition on behalf of the Ukstins. 8. Attorney William Delaney, representing direct abutter Helen Twardowski (9 English Street) spoke at the hearing against the petition. The Board of Appeals, 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: 1. Order and Judgment from Essex Superior Court: • a. Because Paul Carro did not own 7 English Street at the time he petitioned the Board of Appeals for relief from off-street parking requirements to allow the four spaces at the rear of the property to remain,he did not have standing to receive the Variances requested. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Stein, Debski, Curran, Tsitsinos and Belair) and none(0) opposed, to rescind its decision to grant Variances issued on February 13, 2008 from minimum stall and setback requirements for the four rear parking spaces at 7 English Street, and to annul said Variances. 2. Request for Variances from parking stall length and design to allow the four existing spaces to remain at the rear of 7 English Street: 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. • 3 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. 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. 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 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. 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, Curran, Tsitsinos and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's request for variances from off-street parking regulations to allow the existing four spaces to remain. • The variances granted shall be subject to the following term, condition, and safeguard: 1. Petitioner is the 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. • 0 D17 re CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL - - m" 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 • W� FAX 978-740-9846 7001 SEP - I P I: 30 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR CITY CL.-. ,.. ..:',1_ ti. September 1, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JACQUELINE'S GOURMET COOKIES, seeking Variances from minimum distance of an accessory stricture to the main building and maximum height of an accessory stricture to allow for construction of two storage structures on the property located at 96 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD in the Business Park Development District(BPD). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §7-8: Accessory Buildings and Structures. Statements of fact: • 1. Mark Hazel,President of Jacqueline's Gourmet Cookies, and Bill Yuhas,consultant architect on the project,presented the petition. 2. In a petition dated August 12, 2009,the petitioner requested Variances from minimum distance of an accessory structure to the main building and maximum height of an accessory structure,to allow for construction of two storage structures. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on August 19,2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The pubic hearing was closed on August 19,2009, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair),Becky Curran,Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and JimmyTsitsinos (alternate). 4. At the hearing, a resident spoke in opposition to the project,saying he was concerned about impacts to his business due to dust. The petitioner stated that the flour storage and delivery system would be fully enclosed and hermetically sealed, with no dust or flour emissions. 5. The Board of Appeals received a letter from Thermal Circuits, another business in the same development at 96 Swampscott Road, in support of the project. 6. At its meeting on August 19, 2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and • none (0) opposed to grant a Special Permit under§7-8: Accessory Buildings and Structures. 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other]and or buildings in the same district. 2. 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 zoning ordinance. 3. The applicant may vary the terms of the Business Park Development District to construct the proposed development,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 two storage silos,the requested Variances from dimensional requirements for accessory structures in the Business Park Development zone are granted. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein, Belair, Curran,Debski and Tsitsinos) 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 statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. • 3 Robin in, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH TEE PLANNING BOARD AND TIE 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 O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W FAX: 978-740-9846 •IMBERLEY DRISCOLL 200q SEP - i P 1: 29 MAYOR CITY CLEi ,;, September 1,2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ROY LAPHAM seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum rear and front yard setback requirements to allow for construction of a two-family residence on the property located at 2 ATLANTIC STREET (AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET) in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §6-4, Table I: Residential Density Regulations. Statements of fact: • 1. Paul Fermano,the project's architect,presented the petition. 2. In a petition dated July 29, 2009,the petitioner requested Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and minimum rear and front yard setback requirements to allow for construction of a two-family residence. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on August 19, 2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 404, % 11. The pubic hearing was closed on August 19,2009, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair),Beth Debski,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair(alternate),and JimmyTsitsinos (alternate). 4. At the hearing,Board members noted that the parking spaces shown on the plan were smaller than required and that no buffer was shown. They expressed their preference that the parking area be altered to meet these requirements and noted that relief from tandem parking would be necessary in order to allow for these changes. 5. No one voiced opposition to or support of the petition at the meeting,and no letters regarding the project were received by the Board from residents. 6. At its meeting on August 19, 2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant Variances under§64, Table I: Residential Density • Regulations. 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. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantiallyderogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family District to construct the proposed house, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 the two-family house as proposed,the requested Variances from dimensional requirements for structures in the Residential Two- Family zone are granted. Additionally, relief from parking requirements is granted to allow for four(4) tandem parking spaces. • In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran,Belair,Debski and Tsitsinos) 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 statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner 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. f 3 I' 9. Petitioner is to provide a landscape plan with construction drawings prior to • issuance of a building permit. Robin ern, Chair�.CS Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A DOPY 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 40,k 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©erk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • coNotra,9,��s CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSE7TS BOARD OF APPEAL 7 R y: 22 :O �a t 120 WAswNcroN S'I'Reer+SAlEM,MAssna-nrseTls 01970 �FZ'/^ONEUU�P TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERIEY DRIsooLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,August 19, 2009 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: Roy Lapham Location: 2 Atlantic St. (AKA 17 Lussier St.)., Salem,MA Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from minimum lot area,minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and minimum rear and front yard setback requirements to allow for construction of a two-family residence (Residential Two-FamilyZoning District. . Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on September 1,2009 Petition of Michael and Heather Ukstins Location: 7 English St., Salem,MA Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from Section 7-3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow four (4) existing stacked parking spaces to remain on the property(Residential Two- Family Zoning District). Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on September 1, 2009 Petition of: Jacqueline's Gourmet Cookies Location: 96 Swampscott Rd. Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from minimum distance of an accessory structure to the main building and maximum height of an accessory structure to allow for construction of two storage structures on the property(Business Park Development Zoning District). Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on September 1, 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 of 1 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board 2_oM1,Yt-� Date /�_/ Oq Name N ailim Add es Phone=# �— Email '.4u e1�a7UkShS ��n��iSl S2 t� [-15 � 3000 S'h � AM ba,w Sow [✓lr,.-�- 1 ('�c,{;,sk Sr � .� I --o h-:T /Jal NA C o(V6N I61 fiORLt s1 c GS-3- 7 � L4 ak,ktiKaIK a) �w. Page of aNntrq �c� CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL r� b pia r8 � 120 WASHINGTON$7REET*SAIPM,MASSAQ-IUSETIS 01970 ' TELE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 RIMBERLEYDkso:)LL MAYOR 7 � O AMENDED AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING July 15, 2009 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET � 0 Robin Stem, Char .. r) 1. Approval of Minutes -June 17,2009 meeting Cr 2. Petition of LESLIE BYRNE,seeking a Special Permit in order to increase the size of a legally nonconforming structure, and Variances from front and side setback requirements,to allow for the addition of a second story(with attic) and expansion of the footprint of the house on the ro e P P m' located at 16 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem,MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R 2). • Attorney Scott Grover. 3. Petition of KEN CORNEAU, seeking Variances from maximum lot coverage and minimum front,side and rear yard setbacks,to allow for the construction of a 14'x 20' one-story garage and breezeway attached to the house on the property at 30 ALBION STREET,Salem,MA,in the Residential One- Family Zoning District (R 1). 4. Petition of BASLAND DEVELOPMENT, seeking Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit on 134 BRIDGE STREET and Variances from required side and rear yard setbacks, lot width,lot coverage, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit on 142 BRIDGE STREET,to allow for the construction of a two-familyhouse on the property at 142 BRIDGE STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R 2). 5. Petition of WOODBURY CT. TRUST,seeking Variances from required side and front yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit,to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 12 WOODBURY COURT,Salem,MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R 2). 6. Petition of YMCA OF THE NORTH SHORE seekinga determination under Sec. 7-3 of the (� Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for proposed additional parking for 90 cars,in addition to the 246 spaces previously approved by the Board, on the YMCA recreation facility located at 40 LEGGS HILL ROAD,Salem and Marblehead,MA,in the Residential One-Family Zoning District (R 1). .' 7. Old/New Business ails notic,, por-tod on "OffUal Bulletin Board* 8. Adjournment City Mall . afem, Mass. on spy 1�( Boa at in acoomMme with Chap. 39 Oft 23A & 238 of M.G.L. CITY OF SALEM MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET+$ALEbf,MASSACHUSETIS 01970 'PELE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-9846 KaoERLEYDRiscoLL MAYOR r.. y a 0 f* AMENDED AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING July 15, 2009 - 6:30 P.M. == 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET - > -0 Rom Stein, Chair / � cn 1. Approval of Minutes -June 17,2009 meeting 2. Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units,on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET,Salem,MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. 3. Petition of LESLIE BYRNE,seeking a Special Permit in order to increase the size of a legally nonconforming structure,and Variances from front and side setback requirements,to allow for the addition of a second story (with attic) and expansion of the footprint of the house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem,MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R-2). Attorney Scott Grover. 4. Petition of KEN CORNEAU,seeking Variances from maximum lot coverage and minimum front,side and rear yard setbacks,to allow for the construction of a 14'x 20'one-story garage and breezeway attached to the house on the property at 30 ALBION STREET,Salem,MA,in the Residential One-Family Zoning District(R 1). 5. Petition of BASLAND DEVELOPMENT, seeking Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit on 134 BRIDGE STREET and Variances from required side and rear yard setbacks,lot width,lot coverage, minimum lot area,and minimum lot area per dwelling unit on 142 BRIDGE STREET,to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 142 BRIDGE STREET, Salem,MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District(R-2). 6. Petition of WOODBURY CT.TRUST,seeking Variances from required side and front yard setbacks,minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit,to allow for the construction of a two-familyhouse on the property at 12 WOODBURY COURT,Salem,MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District(R 2). 7. Petition of YMCA OF THE NORTH SHORE,seeking a determination under Sec.7-3 (g) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for proposed additional parking for 90 cars,in addition to the 246 spaces previously approved bythe Board, on the YMCA recreation facility located at 40 LEGGS HILL ROAD,Salem and Marblehead,MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District (R 1). 8. Old/New Business 9. Adjournment Thl An atty HallSalem, aSS. on T,� � a � -,.gONDITggo CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET.TS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 9 F Q SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 200`1 jUIL _q P 4: 2b KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR i Pi AGENDA C':1-Y C1 rri, BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING June 17,2009 - 6:30 P.M. 31iD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stein, Chair IIQ-y 1. Approval of Minutes - May 20, 2009 meeting 0� 0�� 2. Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit,and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase mexisting side yard setback nonconformity,to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the propertylocated at 162 FEDERAL STREET,Salem, MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. 3. Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, seeking a Special Permit in order to increase the size of a legally Cf,. nonconforming structure, and Variances from front and side setback requirements, to allow for the addition of a second story (with attic) and expansion of the footprint of the house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family vj Zoning District (R-2). Attorney Scott Grover. 4. Petition of KEN CORNEAU,seeking Variances from maximum lot coverage and minimum front, �e side and rear yard setbacks;to allow for the construction of a 14'x 20'one-story garage and C O breezeway attached to the house on the property at 30 ALBION STREET,Salem,MA,in the os� Residential One-Family Zoning District (R 1). 5. Petition of BASLAND DEVELOPMENT, seeking Variances from lot area and lot area per c ad dwelling unit on 134 BRIDGE STREET and Variances from required side and rear yard setbacks, �- lot width, lot coverage, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit on 142 BRIDGE 8A 0 to€">d STREET,to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 142 BRIDGE STREET, Salem,MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R 2). 6. CARTER VINSON seeking a Variance from maximum width of entrance and exit drives to allow for an off-street parking space proposed for the property at 32 BEACH AVENUE, Salem, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District (R-1). 7. Petition of WOODBURY Cr. TRUST, seeking Variances from required side and front yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit,to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the properly at 12 WOODBURY COURT,Salem,MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R 2). 8. Continued petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area,lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the properly at 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem,MA(Rl zoning district). Attorney William A Quigley, Iof2 • Jr. 9. Petition of YMCA OF THE NORTH SHORE, seeking a determination under Sec. 7-3 (g) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for proposed additional parking for 90 cars, in addition to the 246 spaces previously approved by the Board, on the YMCA recreation facility located at 40 LEGGS HILL ROAD, Salem and Marblehead, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District(R-1). 10. Old/New Business 11. Adjournment • • 2of2 Ar n c. �.,� CITY OF SALENL Os;, -. l DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND � '�MlNE OO�P� CObINtUNITY DEVELOPMENT K.IMBERLEY DRISCOLI, 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,NlAsSACHUSETT, 01970 MAYOR Tt�L:978-619-5685 FAX: 978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN, AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members Q ` FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: July 8, 2009 RE: Meeting Agenda—July 15, 2009 • Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of June 17, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for new Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 1. Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem, MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. I have not received any additional materials/comments for this project. 2. Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, seeking a Special Permit in order to increase the size of a legally nonconforming structure, and Variances from front and side setback requirements, to allow for the addition of a second story (with attic) and expansion of the footprint of the house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R- • 2). Attorney Scott Grover. The proposed addition requires relief from front setback (9 feet proposed, 15 required), and side setback (4 proposed, 10 requited). Attorney Grover told me he anticipates some opposition from neighbors concerned about the new height blocking views. However,relief from height or number of stories is not required. I have not received any comments about the petition. 3. Petition of KEN CORNEAU, seeking Variances from maximum lot coverage and minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks, to allow for the construction of a 14' x 20' one-story garage and breezew attached to the house on the property at 30 ALBION STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential One- Family Zoning District (R-1). The proposed garage and breezeway require relief from lot coverage (40% proposed, 30% required), front setback (7.5' proposed, 15' required), side setback (4.8' proposed, 15 required), and rear setback (27.5' proposed, 30' required). 4. Petition of BASLAND DEVELOPMENT, seeking Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit on 134 BRIDGE STREET and Variances from required side and rear yard setbacks, lot width, lot coverage, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit on 142 BRIDGE STREET, to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 142 BRIDGE STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R-2). The building that previously existed on this site was condemned, then the property was acquired by Mr. Boches, who demolished it. The construction of the proposed two-family house would require relief from lot area (5373 SF is proposed and 15,000 SF is required), side setbacks (7.46'is proposed, 10'is required),rear setbacks (10' proposed, 30'required), lot width (4'proposed, 100' required), and lot area per dwelling unit (2686 SF proposed, 7500 SF required). Mr. Boches is also proposing to provide an easement across his land to the adjacent property in order to give parking access to a neighbor. 5. Petition of CARTER VINSON seeking a Variance from maximum width of entrance and exit drives to allow for an off-street parking space proposed for the property at 32 BEACH AVENUE, Salem, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District (R-1). Mr. Vinson is proposing an off-street parking space on his property and requires dimensional relief under 710 which limits entryways to a 20'width; the proposed width of the entrance to the house after construction of this space would be 27'. One abutter came in to review the plans, and had no objections to the proposal. She commented that the on-street parking in this neighborhood is very tight and she would welcome a car being taken off the street. 6. Petition of WOODBURY CT. TRUST, seeking Variances from required side and front yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, to allow for the construction of a two- family house on the property at 12 WOODBURY COURT, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R-2). The Board of Appeals issued variances in 2001 to allow for the construction of a two-family house on this property. However, the house was never constructed, and the variance and building permit expired. The original decision is included in your packet. The petitioner is again asking for dimensional relief from side setbacks (6' on both sides proposed, 10' required), front setback (6' proposed, 15' required), lot area (9574 SF proposed, 15,000 SF required), and lot area per dwelling unit (4787 SF proposed, 7500 SF required). 7. Continued petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem, MA (111 zoning district). Attorney William A. Quigley,Jr. I have not received any additional materials/comments for this project. 8. Petition of YMCA OF THE NORTH SHORE, seeking a determination under Sec. 7-3 (g) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for proposed additional parking for 90 cars, in addition to the 24 spaces previously approved by the Board, on the YMCA recreation facility located at 40 LEGGS HAW ROAD, Salem and Marblehead, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District (R-1). � 2 In 2005, the Board of Appeals issued a determination of reasonableness for parking per Section 7-3 (g) of the zoning ordinance. The Board granted a determination that 246 parking spaces were reasonable, and explicitly reserved the right to revisit the adequacy of parking if needed. A copy of the letter is included in your packet. • The new proposal is for an additional 90 spaces. This project will not go back to the Planning Board for further site plan review, since it is exempt under the Dover amendment as an educational use. • • . DNDir,(A� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL z ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 y TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 • <c7,p,I,�Do� FAX: 978-740-9846 7 KIMBERLEY ORISCOLL 2 0C9 JUL 29 A 9' OS MAYOR CITY July 29, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of BASLAND DEVELOPMENT, seeking Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit on 134 BRIDGE STREET and Variances from required side and rear yard setbacks, lot width, lot coverage, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit on 142 BRIDGE STREET, to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 142 BRIDGE STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District(R-2). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §64, Table I: Residential Density Regulations. • Statements of fact: 1. Brian Boches,the property owner and petitioner, represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated June 24,2009,the applicant requested Variances from lot width, side and rear setbacks,lot area and lot area per dwelling unit to accommodate the construction of a two-family dwelling to replace another two-family dwelling which was condemned and demolished. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on July 15, 2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The pubic hearing was closed on July 15, 2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair),Richard Dionne,Beth Debski, Annie Harris,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 4. At the hearing, several residents spoke, stating they did not oppose the project, but had concerns relating to parking and congestion. They wished to see adequate green space on the property, and sufficient buffering between the property's parking area and neighbors. They also requested that the fence around the properly be replaced. 5. At its meeting on July 15,2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant Variances from the dimensional requirements of§6-4, Table I: Residential Density Regulations. 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, as the property is oddly shaped and has very little frontage. 2. 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 zoning ordinance. 3. The applicant mayvary the terms of the Residential Two-Family District to construct the proposed new house,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. In pemtitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 the two-family house as proposed,the requested Variances from dimensional requirements for structures in the Residential Two- Family zone are granted. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein, Harris,Belair,Debski 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 statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Conunissioner. 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 number 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. _3 • 8. Petitioner shall replace the fence between 146 Bridge Street and 9 Northey Street. 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. • .goNDIr,L� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL -' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • �, ; SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Eoo�' FAX: 978-740-9846 2001 JUL 28 P 3: 45 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR CITY July 28, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of WOODBURY CT. TRUST, seeking Variances from required side and front yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 12 WOODBURY COURT, Salem,MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District(R-2). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §6-4, Table I: Residential Density Regulations. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner,Wayne Silva, represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated June 22,2009,the petitioner requested Variances from required side and front yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and lot area per dwelling unit,to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 12 Woodbury Court. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on July 15,2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The pubic hearing was closed on July 15,2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair),Richard Dionne,Beth Debski,Annie Harris,Bonnie Belair (alternate), and JimmyTsitsinos (alternate). 4. One resident submitted a letter of support for the project because she felt it would enhance the neighborhood. 5. Two residents spoke at the meeting, stating that concerns they had previously about the design of the project and access to parking had been addressed by Mr. Silva when they met with him prior to the hearing. They submitted to the Board a copy of a letter they wrote to Mr. Silva detailing their concerns. At the hearing,Mr. Silva agreed to incorporate the requests, with Board modifications, as conditions of approval. • 6. At its meeting on July 15, 2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant Variances under§6-4, Table I: Residential Density Regulations. 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. 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 zoning ordinance. _ 2. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district. 3. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family District to construct the proposed development,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 redevelopment of the property as proposed,the requested Variances from dimensional requirements for structures in the Residential Two- Family zone is granted. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein, Harris, Belair,Debski 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 statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office • and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Conunission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 3 • 8. Exterior of the new structure shall be wood or wood composite clapboard, but in any case not vinyl. 9. Shutters shall be placed around all windows, where possible. 10. Decorative details shall be added to doorways. 11. Two (2) windows shall be added to the front of the house, and two (2) to the rear for a total of four(4) additional windows. 12. Six over six lattice windows shall be used. 13. Applicant shall provide a permanent easement of 10 feet in width to the neighbors at 10 Woodbury Court that will allow access to proposed parking area from the street adjacent to where the present shed at 10 Woodbury Court is located as shown on the plans submitted.. Robinem,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. odoirr� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS qs, -BOARD OF APPEAL n ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 1001 AL 28 P ?. 4S poi FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL h�! MAYOR July 28, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, seeking a Special Permit in order to increase the size of a legally nonconforming structure, and Variances from front and side setback requirements,to allow for the addition of a second story(with attic) and expansion of the footprint of the house on the property located at 16SAUNDERS STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District(R-2). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §5-30), Extension of Nonconformity, §84,Nonconforming Structure, and §8-6,Board of Appeals; Granting Special Permits. Petitioner also seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §6-4,Table I: Residential Density Regulations. • Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner,Leslie Byrne, at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated June 24, 2009,the applicant requested a Special Permit and"such other relief as the Board deems appropriate" in order to increase the size of a legally nonconforming structure. The Building Inspector determined Variances were needed because the plans submitted with the application show an expansion of the house's footprint such that the structure would encroach on the front and side yards. 3. Plans also showed the addition of a second story. The portion of the proposed second story that did not represent any increase in the existing footprint did not require Board of Appeals relief. 4. A public hearing On the above mentioned Petition was opened on July 15, 2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The pubic hearing was closed on July ul 15, 2009, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin m Stein (Chair), Richard Dionne,Beth Debski, Annie Has,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 5. At the hearing,several residents voiced opposition to the project, citing concerns • that the project would block water views and light,and would decrease the value of an abutting house. Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe also spoke in opposition. A petition was submitted with 13 names of residents in opposition to the project,one 2 • of whom also submitted a letter of opposition. An additional four residents submitted letters of opposition. 6. Several residents spoke in support of the petition, saying the project would enhance the streetscape and improve the neighborhood. In addition,two neighbors submitted letters to the Board in support of the project. 7. At its meeting on July 15,2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant a Special Permit under§5-30),Extension of Nonconformity, §84,Nonconforming Structure, and §8-6,Board of Appeals, Granting Special Permits, and Variances from the dimensional requirements of§64, Table I: Residential Density 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: I. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, as the property is oddly shaped: it is nearly triangular, with an angled Northwest lot line. Additionally, the house is smaller than the other houses on Saunders Street and is the only one-story house on the street. • 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. Space is needed to accommodate a growing family, and owing to the small size of the house (smaller than others in the district) and the irregular shape of the lot, expansion of living space in accordance with zoning requirements is difficult. 3. 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 zoning ordinance. The change most detrimental to neighbors—addition of a second story— is already allowed as of right. The additional relief granted to allow expansion of the footprint is de minimus. 4. The applicant mayvarythe terms of the Residential Two-Family District to construct the proposed development,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 5. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 house as proposed,the requested Special Permit for the extension of a nonconforming structure, and Variances from dimensional requirements for structures in the Residential Two-Family zone is granted. -- 3 • In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Hams,Belair,Debski and Dionne) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Special Permit and Variances subject to the following terms,conditions,and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of 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 structures) 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 Rim, 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 404, 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 Pemrit 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. . roNoira.4 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 poi FAX: 978-740-9846 K 1�04 JUL 29 P 3= 45 IMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR I:I� July 28, 2009 CITY CLE"',(. Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of YMCA OF THE NORTH SHORE, seeking a determination under§7-3 (g) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for proposed additional parking for 90 cats, in addition to the 246 spaces previously approved by the Board, on the YMCA recreation facility located at 40 LEGGS HILL ROAD, Salem and Marblehead,MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District(R-1). Petitioner seeks a determination of reasonableness for proposed parking pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §7-3(g) for the recreational facility on the property at 40 Leggs Hdl Road. Statements of fact: • 1. Attorney George Atkins represented YMCA of the North Shore at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated June 24, 2009,the petitioner requested a determination under Section 7-3(g) of the Zoning Ordinance,which provides that the number of parking spaces for a charitable institution is subject to determination by the Board of Appeals. The applicant proposes additional parking for 90 cars in addition to the 246 spaces previously determined by the Board in a decision dated December 1, 2005. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on July 15,2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The pubic hearing was closed on July 15, 2009, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair),Richard Dionne,Beth Debski,Annie Harris,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 4. At the hearing,Attorney Atkins presented a three-phase landscaping plan the YMCA is proposing. He stated that he had met with abutters to discuss the landscaping proposal, and the YMCA was willing to incorporate the first phase of the plan into the Board's determination as a condition. This phase addressed the most pressing concerns of neighbors regarding screening views of the facility from their homes. 5. A resident of Marblehead submitted a letter to the Board,not opposing or supporting the project, but requesting that the house lots on Leggs Hill Road that are part of the original plan remlm residentially zoned, and that landscaping be incorporated into the site design. 2 • 6. Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe spoke in support of the landscaping plan the YMCA proposed. Several other residents spoke out to say they would welcome the proposed landscaping,since they were unhappy with the current lack of plantings on the site. Marblehead Town Administrator Tony Sasso said he wished to seethe landscape plan incorporated if any new parking were to be added. 7. At its meeting on July 15,2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant a determination of reasonableness for an additional 90 parking spaces as shown on the submitted plans. 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 addition of 90 new parking spaces,as shown on the plan submitted to the Board titled "Site Plan,Proposed Layout (showing 340 parking spaces): Salem& Marblehead YMCA," byPatrowicz Land Development Engineering,dated June 22, 2009,is reasonable. 2. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. • 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 the parking as proposed,the requested determination of reasonableness for parking is granted. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Harris,Belair,Debski and Dionne) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for Variances subject to the following terms,conditions,and safeguards: 1. The landscaping shown on the plan titled "Phase I Landscape Plan at the Lynch/Van Otterloo YMCA,Salem MA," dated July 15,2009, is to be completed, with plantings done no later than Spring 2010. Final landscape plans are subject to approval bythe CltyPlanner. 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 3 • 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. • • or+DI CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • ' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 "+off FAX: 978-740-9846 1pD9 JUL 28 3: KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 4o MAYOR CITY C!. July 28, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of KEN CORNEAU, seeking Variances from maximum lot coverage and minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks,to allow for the construction of a 14'x 20' one-story garage and breezeway attached to the house on the property at 30 ALBION STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District(R- 1). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §64,Table I; Residential Density Regulations. • Statements of fact: 1. Jesse Tremblay, a contractor working on the project,presented the petition. The owner and petitioner,Ken Comeau,and his wife Patricia Comeau,were also present. 2. In a petition dated June 16, 2009,the petitioner requested Variances from lot coverage and minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks,to allow for the construction of a 14'x 20'one-story garage and breezeway attached to an existing house. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on July 15, 2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The pubic hearing was closed on July 15, 2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Richard Dionne, Beth Debski, Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair(alternate), and JimmyTsitsinos (ahemate). 4. A statement of hardship was submitted with the application, stating that the garage was needed to help accommodate the health conditions of two residents of 30 Albion Street, since travel into and out of the car in the winter was difficult. A letter from Mr. Comeau's physician was also submitted confimung he has ocular pharyngeal muscular dystrophy. 5. At the hearing,Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan spoke in opposition to the project, • stating the proposed garage would be too close to abutters in an already crowded neighborhood. Another resident also opposed the project,citing concerns that it would be too close to the propane tank on his property. He gave the Board a petition with 15 signatures of residents opposing-the project. 2 • 6. At the hearing,some Board members stated that the propane tank would likely be safer if the cars at 30 Albion St. were parked inside the proposed garage rather than outside. 7. At its meeting on July 15, 2009,the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant a Special Permit under§6-4, Table I: Residential Density 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district. The small size of the lot make it difficult to adhere to the dimensional requirements of the R-1 zone. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. Two residents of 30 Albion Street have health conditions that create difficulties in transportation, which justifies the relief requested. • 3. 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 zoning ordinance. The proposed garage would be located far enough away from the abutters' home that the project would have minimal impact on the neighbors. 4. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family District to construct the proposed development, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 5. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 the garage and breezeway as proposed, the requested Variances from dimensional requirements for structures in the Residential One-Family zone are granted. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, • Harris, Belair, Debski and Dionne) 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 statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved bythe 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 pertnit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. ltobm Stem, 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 ro 9 - 31yF �q 120WASHWCTON$[REET* SALEM,MASSACFNSE'rIS 0197U Te�e:978-619-5685 * FAx:978-740-0404 KINfBERLEY DRISCOI.L MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,July 15, 2009 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: Ken Comeau Location: 30 Albion St.,Salem,MA Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from maximum lot coverage and minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks, to allow for the construction of a 14' x 20' one-story garage and breezeway attached to an existing house (Residential One-Family Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on July 28,2009 Petition of: YMCA of the North Shore Location: 40 Leggs Hill Rd.Salem and Marblehead,MA Request: Determination of reasonableness for parking Description: A determination sought under Sec. 7-3 (g) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow, for proposed additional parking for 90 cars, in addition to the 246 spaces previously approved by the Board, on the YMCA recreation facility. (Residential One-Family Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on July 28,2009 Petition of: Woodbury Court Trust Location: 12 Woodbury Court Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from required side and front yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, to allow for the construction of a two- family house. (Residential Two-Family Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on July 28,2009 (continued on reverse side) • Iof2 Petition of: Leslie Byrne Location: 16 Saunders St. Request: Variances and Special Permit Description: Special Permit sought in order to increase the size of a legally nonconforming structure, and Variances sought from front and side setback requirements, to allow for the addition of a second story (with attic) and expansion of the footprint of a single-family house. (Residential Two-Family Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on July 28,2009 Petition of: Basland Development Location: 142 and 134 Bridge St. Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit on 134 Bridge St. and Variances from required side and rear yard setbacks, lot width, lot coverage, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit on 142 Bridge St., to allow for the construction of a two-family house on 142 Bridge St. (Residential Two-Family Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on July 29,2009 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. • 2of2 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,July 15, 2009 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 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,Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair (Alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate). Absent: Becky Curran. Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Thomas St. Pierre Building Commissioner. Stein opens The meeting at 6:35 p.m. Approval of Minutes -June 17, 2009 Tsitsinos made a motion to approve the minutes of June 17, 2009, seconded by Stein and approved (5-0). Petition of LESLIE BYRNE, seeking a Special Permit in order to increase the size of a legally nonconforming structure, and Variances from front and side setback requirements, to allow for the addition of a second story (with attic) and expansion of the footprint of the house on the property located at 16 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R-2). • Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He shows aerial photos of the lots on Saunders St., and refers to the last petition on Saunders St. where ZBA previously approved two new building lots. He shows photos of the property at 16 Saunders T.. Atty. Grover says Leslie wants to put in a second story and shows the architectural renderings and plans of the addition. He explains the property would be expanded about six feet into the rear yard. He says there are also two small "carve-out" areas that would be filled in to create more living space. He explains that if they were to go up a story only within the existing footprint, they could do that by right—it would not require a special permit for expansion of a nonconforming structure-so the height of the house is not an issue. He says many of the properties in this neighborhood are two stories, and they are built close together, so the proximity proposed between buildings is in harmony with the neighborhood. Arty Grover invites Leslie Byrne to speak to the Board. Ms. Byrne, 16 Saunders St.,reads a statement to the Board explaining the previous uses in the neighborhood. She explains she has been involved with her neighborhood for many years. She says her house is unusually out of scale with the neighborhood because it is so small. She says she tried to purchase land from the property at 24 Saunders St. but was unsuccessful. She explains that she needs to extra space to accommodate stepchildren. Harris asks for clarification of the one or two family exception; Stein and St. Pierre explain that if they stayed within their footprint, they could expand the house by right under the city bylaw. • Stein opens the issue up for public comment. 1 McKnight reads two letters in support and reports a voice message in support of the • petition. Frank Brown, 16 Pearl St.,is in favor of the petition-he says it will be an improvement for the neighborhood. Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl St. supports the project- he says the Board recently issued similar variances. Liz McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., opposes the petition and hands the Board letters in opposition as well as a petition signed by several neighbors. She says her house would lose value and says she has an appraisal showing this. She says she would be too close to Leslie's house, and she would also lose her view. She shows the Board pictures showing the distance between 14 and 16 Saunders St. Stein asks what part of her house this is. McKinnon indicates the kitchen window, by the middle of the house. Stein explains they have an absolute right to put in a second floor, and the only reason they need relief is because they want to expand the footprint. Stein says the Board needs to determine the appropriateness of closing in the porch and having additional space in the carve-outs;but that even if the petition is denied Leslie could put in a second story. McKinnon says she should stay within her footprint and not increase nonconformity. Stein asks if that would impact her, or is it only the height? If she puts the extra six feet in the back,would it impact their house? Eric McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., says two windows at the back of their house would be blocked. Grover says to clarify, the first floor would be an open porch, not enclosed, only the second • floor space would be enclosed . Harris says that what Leslie could build as of right still blocks the windows. Kevin Carr, 12 Southwick St., speaks in opposition; he says they aren't here under Section 8.4,but Stein says they are. St. Pierre clarifies the ordinance and says they need variances to expand the footprint as proposed, and a special permit to increase the nonconformity. Stein says the McKinnons have given the Board 5 letters in opposition, and a market analysis,which she says is different from an appraisal. She says this is all in the file if anyone wishes to read it in its entirety. Councillor Joe O'Keefe, 28 Surrey Rd., representing Ward 7, says he recognizes the applicant is in Ward 2. He says he was once Ward councilor of 2. He says he was on the city council when the zoning ordinance was adopted. He quotes the purpose of the zoning ordinance and states his opposition. He refers to another property on that street, but Stein says this doesn't relate to this petition and says this is not relevant. O'Keefe asks why the petitioner doesn't go out instead of up. Stein says they would need the exact same relief. She also says this would be more nonconformity than they are actually proposing. O'Keefe says the burden of hardship has not been shown and the zoning ordinance should be adhered to. • 2 • Melanie McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., first floor, speaks in opposition. She says if they expand back they will block her windows, affecting the light in her apartment,and it will devalue her parents' home; these would cause hardship to her and her family, George Fallon, 36 March St., speaks in support, and says enlarging the house would improve the vista of the street and would give the house architectural integrity. He says every house on the street could make the claim that any expansion would block view, and zoning rendered all these houses nonconforming. He also says every house on the street has a second story but this one. Stein closes the public comment portion of the bearing. Grover clarifies questions of going"out"— he points out the grade difference on the property and an existing retaining wall that is not structurally sound, and says that's why they want to go up. He acknowledges the impact on the abutters'property, but says these abutters in 1989 put on an addition and shows this in the photos,using the same section of the zoning ordinance we're discussing tonight. Grover then shows a photo of the factory that used to be at 24 Saunders and says there was no view at that time, that the factory was demolished in 1989 according to the building records. He says that property wasn't purchased with the expectation of water views. Belair says Leslie can go up by right,which would preclude the McKinnon's view, tomorrow • if they wanted to. She says she's not minimizing the abutters' concern,but she doesn't see that not granting relief would address their concerns. She would be in favor. Debski agrees —she says by right she can go up. She says the additional relief requested really is minimal. Harris agrees that the real damage is that as of right she can build a second floor—this is the view problem. Dionne agrees —an additional six feet won't make that much difference— one window is already blocked. Stein clarifies the criteria for hardship for a variance,reading from the ordinance, and says the application is consistent with the ordinance: due to the shape and topography of the property and the size of building, Leslie has a hardship affecting her land and building, which does not affect others in the neighborhood. She notes that all the other houses are at least 2 stories, and that the shape of the land is such that it makes it hard to do anything. This addresses the first two requirements for a variance. As to the third: considering she can build up of right, the relief the Board would be granting is de minhnus. She says no one has a problem with or has commented on the porch in front, so they are only talking about the extra 6 feet at the back of the house. Stein says this does not nullify/derogate from the intent of the bylaw. Belair moves to approve the petition, seconded by Debski,with eight (8) standard conditions. The motion passes 5-0 (Stein,Belair, Debski, Dionne and Harris in favor; none opposed). Petition of KEN CORNEAU, seeking Variances from maximum lot coverage and • minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks, to allow for the construction of a 14'x 20' one-story garage and breezeway attached to the house on the property at 30 3 ALBION STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District (R- • Jesse Tremblay, a contractor working on the project, presents the petition; the owners are also present. Tremblay gives the Board photos showing examples in the neighborhood of other garages. Ken Comeau, the petitioner, explains he was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy and says shoveling is difficult for him. Mrs. Comeau says her mother,who resides there, is elderly and this garage would make mobility physically easier for her. Stein opens the issue up forpublic comment. Paul Butler, 32 Albion St., opposes any variances granted. He shows photos of the view from his property. He says the vent for his propane tank is near the proposed garage and says it would be a fire hazard. Stein says they already park cars there,and Belair says isn't it more of a danger to park the cars there if they are not enclosed in a garage? Belair says there is more danger of a car hitting the tank than the garage catching on fire. Stein says the tank is far from where the garage is proposed. Butler also says the construction would devalue his property. He gives the Board a petition from neighbors opposing the project. He says runoff from his garage roof would come onto his property and go into his cellar. Stein says his house is quite a ways away from the proposed garage. Butler says the area is all ledge so he would get the runoff; Stein says it's already paved. Belair says he could bury his propane tank if he was worried about its safety. Butler says he can't because of the ledge. • Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., speaks against the petition, saying Gallows Hill is crowded and a adding garage on wouldn't be justified. He says it's too close to the neighbors. He also discloses that Mr. Butler is his uncle. Stein closes the public commentportion of the bearing. Belair says a garage would create more of a safety and buffer from propane tank, and it's not problematic. She says the driveway is already paved. She thinks this is minimal relief, and there is hardship in the family that would justify this addition. Stein asks what materials the garage will be; St. Pierre says it's a very standard plywood garage,nothing unusual about it. Stein asks if he has any comments on fire safety issue. St. Pierre says he doesn't understand the concerns about the tank;it's far away and the garage. would protect it. As to the runoff, it's already paved, and gutters could direct the water elsewhere. Dionne says he supports the petition—the project would help elderly and sick people. Harris says it's a small lot and a lot of relief is required. Belair agrees, but says it's consistent. • 4 St. Pierre says a regular garage, detached, can have a 5 foot setback—that was investigated • here to see if it could fit,but this wasn't possible. Debski asks about what height it would be: St. Pierre says 12-14 feet to the top. Stein says she's surprised to hear such opposition to this project. Debski moves to approve the petition with six (6) standard conditions, seconded by Dionne; the motion passes 5-0 (Debski,Dionne, Stein,Belair and Harris in favor, none opposed). Petition of BASLAND DEVELOPMENT, seeking Variances from lot area and lot area per dwelling unit on 134 BRIDGE STREET and Variances from required side and rear yard setbacks, lot width, lot coverage, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit on 142 BRIDGE STREET, to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 142 BRIDGE STREET, Salem, MA,in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R-2). Brian Boches, the owner, presents his petition, and explains he negotiated purchase of the property and demolished the structure, which was condemned. He shows the plan and explains how access is limited to the property due to very little frontage. St. Pierre explains that this had been a problem property, it was derelict and had a lot of police activity. The city was in the process of tearing it down, but had to approach Mr. Boches for permission to access it across his property. St. Pierre says the City was fortunate that they didn't have to tear it down, since Mr. Boches acquired it and demolished it himself St. Pierre had also • suggested granting an easement to allow for parking on the neighboring property. Stein opens the issue up forpublic comment. Steve Smith, 140 Bridge St., says he appreciates that the house was torn down. He's not opposed, he just wants to make sure it's not too congested and that there is enough green space on the lot. He is concerned about the size of the house. He says he owns part of the gravel right-of-way adjacent to the property. Liz Hewitt, 9 Northey St., says she also appreciates that the house was tom down, but says she's concerned about so much of the area next to her home being dedicated to parking. She asks if perhaps a fence or some type of buffer could be put up. St. Pierre says there is a requirement for a two-foot buffer, a grass strip of some kind,which keeps the parking back a bit. Ward 7 Councillor O'Keefe examines the plans and asks for clarification of the property's history. He asks how far the building would be from the adjacent one. St. Pierre says if the councilor thought this could be a fire problem, the developer could come to City Council to ask for renumbering to ensure the Fire Dept could find it. He explains the process—when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the police discuss whether an address can be located, and if necessary, Council is approached for it. • Stein explains that an access easement could be granted to neighbors, but Mr. Boches must retain ownership of the strip for his frontage. 5 146 Bridge St.,Bob Cummings, says during the teardown,part of the fence came down and • asks if he is responsible for repairing that. Stein says they would talk about the fence. Cummings asks if the footprint of the building would be larger than what was there previously; St. Pierre shows him the plans. The applicant confirms the footprint is a little smaller than the original. Stein closes the public commentportion of the hearing. Stein asks if the fence at the rear of the property would remain and asks if parking could fit there with the required two-foot buffer. St. Pierre says the buffer must be impervious— either grass or mulch. , Belair asks how big the two units would be. Boches says 24 x 30— two bedroom units. Stein asks about the condition of the fence; the applicant says they plan on putting up a new fence. Stein says she thinks this is consistent with the bylaw, and an appropriate use for the property, and that the addition of parking is a benefit.. Harris moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions and special conditions: that the fence would be replaced, and the petitioner is to coordinate with the neighboring condo association to resolve the fence issue. The motion is seconded by Bonnie and passes 5-0 (Harris, Debski, Stein, Dionne, and Belair in favor, none opposed). • Petition of WOODBURY CT. TRUST, seeking Variances from required side and front yard setbacks, minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, to allow for the construction of a two-family house on the property at 12 WOODBURY COURT, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District (R-2). Wayne Scott, the owner, presents his petition. He says he has spoken to his neighbors who have little parking and would like to use part of his property to access their parking space. He also says the property has coal tar contamination; St. Pierre says he will have an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on the property. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Chris Foley, 10 Woodbury Ct., says he is the one getting access to the right of way. He says the parking on Northey St. is difficult because of the narrowness. He says he's happy Mr. Scott has included that in his petition. He says he had had concerns about the design of the house, but he met with the petitioner, and Mr. Scott has agreed to certain details, such as wood siding instead of vinyl and shuttered windows. He says his concerns are now satisfied. Mr. Foley gives the Board a letter with the items spelled out; St. Pierre says this should go in the decision, so Stein reads them into the record. Rick Bettencourt, 5-11 Woodbury Ct., supports the plans provided that the conditions set forth by Chris happen. He asks if there could be no parking sign in front of the property. • Chris Foley adds that he is concerned about snow removal on Northey because of flooding 6 • on their property. Stein says City Council has the authority to do this, but the ZBA does not, and they should speak to their ward councilor. Chris Weaver, 11 Woodbury Ct., also supports the petition. Stein says it's an appropriate project, and also she is pleased about the provision of parking. She says there is a sufficient amount of green space. The Board and St. Pierre discuss the neighbors' request that the siding be clapboard finish, non-vinyl. Dionne moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions and the following six (6) special conditions: outside construction to be wood or wood composite clapboards, but in any case not vinyl; shutters will be placed around all windows except when too close to be possible; decorative details will be added to doorways;more windows will be added to the side of the house facing the street, for a total of four windows on that side, and also on the side facing the backyard; six over six lattice windows will be used; applicant will provide a permanent easement of 10 feet in width. There are thirteen (13) conditions total. Stein seconds the motion and it passes 5-0 (Stein, Dionne, Harris,Belair and Debski in favor; none opposed). Petition of YMCA OF THE NORTH SHORE, seeking a determination under Sec. 7-3 (g) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for proposed additional parking for • 90 cars, in addition to the 246 spaces previously approved by the Board, on the YMCA recreation facility located at 40 LEGGS HILL ROAD, Salem and Marblehead, MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District (R-1). Attorney George Atkins presents the petition. Also present are Paul Gorman, and Jack Meaney ,,Executive Director of the North Shore YMCA, Scott Patrowicz, engineer, Doug Jones, landscape architect,and Nick Menino, contractor. Arty Atkins says the zoning gives the Board the authority to make a determination on the parking for this facility. He says the original parking determination was made based on an estimate of 4200 "units," or users. He says the plan says if it is found that the parking is inadequate, a playing field could be turned into more parking. He says about 1,000 more users use the facility than anticipated. He says they are trying to prevent parking on the access road. He says Paul Gorman met today with Lt. Griffin of the fine department, since one lot blocked the fie access road, but Lt. Griffin had no objections. Atkins says Scott Patrowicz, the engineer,will meet with the city engineer to confirm that the parking lot meets all requirements for drainage and other requirements. Atkins says they are taking away some green space, but would like to add green space elsewhere. He says they would like to speak about landscaping, since Councillor O'Keefe and neighbors have been asking about landscaping plans for the Y; he says the Planning Board provided its standard condition that says the landscaping plan must be submitted and • approved by the City Planner. However,he says they missed the planting season. He says Doug has a preliminary phase I plan that will address the west end, east end by Riverside Ave., and throughout the lot as Phase I. The YMCA board also wants to proceed with a 7 further master plan of landscaping which calls for Phases 2 and 3,which could involve • walking trails in the Forest River estuary, connecting with other trails in the area. In the short term, they want to address screening and buffering concerns. Scott Patriwicz, 14 Brown St., the project's engineer, shows the layout plan of the parking, which does not show landscaping. He says the fire road,which is 18 feet wide except for one area, will be flanked with two rows of parking, one on each side. He shows where some of the current parking will be removed and additional green space added. He says there will be a 10 foot wide pedestrian connection to the field. He says they are also adding 2 handicapped spaces, and that some parking spaces don't meet criteria for size for parking spaces —they are striped but won't count as legal spaces. Doug Jones shows his full landscape plan. Arty Atkins passes out copies of the plans to the Board. He then presents the Phase I plan,which shows buffered areas between the site and neighboring properties. He explains his choice of trees and that they would allow for snow removal and would work well with the slope of the site. Atkins says he knows timing is a concern of neighbors;he says if the Board approves the parking, they hope to go forward in the fall and take advantage of the phasing. Dionne says people are concerned about the drainage and asks if grass pavers could be used on the site. Atkins says much of this was discussed with the Planning Board, and the original plan has a lot of drainage capacity in it, and improved the site's drainage. He says they cannot have additional drainage flowing off the site. . Stein asks if they are going back to the Planning Board;Atkins says no, this was not a full site plan review, since it was originally proposed as a subdivision but then with modifications,it did not have to be filed under subdivision control. Harris asks why parking wasn't put on the entrance road;Atkins explains the geography of the site prevented it from being used, and also so parking on Leggs Hill Rd. would be avoided. Stein opens the public comment portion. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks about flooding conditions on Loring Ave. across from the bridge;Atty Atkins says this is far off their site and the site doesn't contribute to it. He explains stormwater capture and removal offsite is required. Councillor O'Keefe,Ward 7, says he met with Marblehead's Town Planner and Town Administrator about the landscaping program and he's happy about it. He says he want the numbers of trees and their caliper to be part of the record, and that this should be the minimum. He also says the YMCA is before the Conservation Commission now for a Notice of Intent, and that he received a letter from David Knowlton about the separation of the pavement. He says any future trails should be for bicycles and not mountain bikes. Stein says the Board cannot decide that. Councillor O'Keefe says this as an opportunity for Salem and Marblehead to collaborate for the best possible outcome. He also says City 8 I _ _ Council woudn't want additional parking on Leggs Hill Rd. He says he is encouraged by the plan and supports it. Ralph Roberto, 8 Riverside Dr., stated his support for the landscaping plan. Brian Murray, 70 Leggs Hill Rd., asks about traffic studies—he wonders if additional parking spaces would attract more traffic. Atty Atkins says Marblehead required a post construction traffic study, and he says the traffic from additional parking would be negligible, according to the engineer. Laura Zunick, 1 Angenica Terrace,is thankful no parking would be on lots across from her house, and hopes this doesn't happen. She says it looks like near Angenica Terr there would be bushes, not trees, and that they were told the neighbors would not be able to see the building. She says they can see it, and it's painted red, and she wants more trees to screen the area. She asks what the timeframe would be for the plantings. She refers to the house lots, and whether parking could go there. Arty Atkins says it is not currently part of any plan they have;it was reject by the Y. She asks about construction vehicles currently on those house lots. Nick Merino says rocks are being cleared away from it currently, and it may be used as a staging area for further construction. Zunick says she wouldn't want that. St. Pierre says those lots are in Salem, he has not granted permission for them to be used in this way, and it must stop. Atty Atkins says he will discuss the construction with St. Pierre and with neighbors. • Tony Sasso,Marblehead Town Administrator, says that if additional parking is granted, the landscape work should be part of the condition, they should go hand in hand. He says the site needs to be cleaned up, and there is currently a basketball hoop on it, as though it were a court. Harris asks if he is talking about the first phase of the landscape plan as a condition; Sasso says yes. Stein closes the public commentportion of the hearing. Stein says she has no problem with the parking proposal and asks if the cleaning of the lots could be conditioned;St. Pierre says he will require this from the YMCA. Debski asks what can control the landscaping plan, since it was usually the purview of the planning board. Atkins says he would be happy to use as a condition for this decision. Stein says a condition should be added to screen spaces. Atkins says this is enforceable through the building inspector. Harris asks St. Pierre if they start planting and the planting season isn't favorable,where does that leaves us—could they still occupy the parking spaces? St. Pierre says it's usually tied to a CO. In this case,it's different. Atkins says if they anticipate a delay, they will come back to . this board and discuss it. Harris asks if they can post a bond? 9 Belair makes a motion to approve the petition with the condition that the Phase I landscaping plan be done, referencing the July 15 2009 Phase I Landscaping Plan, subject to approval by the City Planner. Dionne seconds the motion and it passes 5-0 (Harris, Dionne, Debski, Stein and Belau in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business McKnight says she has received a letter from the City Solicitor regarding 7 English St. — she passes out the letter and explains that the condo owners have been told they must apply for variances to keep their parking spaces. St. Pierre explains the owner sold the two units he didn't get parking approval for. This decision itself hasn't been remanded—but the parking spots need further relief if they are to remain. Adjournment There being no further business before the Board of Appeals this evening, Belair made a motion to adjourn the meeting seconded by Dionne and approved(5-0). Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 8/19/09 • 10 I • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board LcJ g 4 L j � Date 7l )5' l og Name Mailing Address Phone # Email ' Y-f �- ' uI J FOM�rE��e@✓CW 0 , �bYl 7c�.nir� , 1 14N�ea't 7&-(29`.�6�9 w c: q iB-S9�-08 +1 CR xn A,9"dl� ST - 3Y -s"T ca.�cr � s r , fi o rl Zf- NV L zwe lb say �p�s sf fl tF C�UMYviI� q 7� re Sf �} ?� - 7�4 '�S� C "^Mcyst,nGt ✓ S r5 X/f Page I of� CITY OF SALEM� MASSACHUSETTS 7; BOARD OF APPEAL 'Ile AMINE D�` I #S\1 I M.NIAS<,VAKSI FIS01970 I j fi:978-7145-9595 4 1 \N:978-740-0404 NI:hrua21 ti AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING June 17, 2009 - 6:30 P.M. 3 RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 77 Robin Stein, Chair -0 I Approval of Minutes — May 20, 2009 meeting 2. Petition of DEBRA KIRCHHEIMER seeking Variances from Accessory Structure regulations (side and rear yard setbacks) to replace an existing I O'x 16' shed with a new 8'x 12' shed on the property at 14 LEMON STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). 3. Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. 4. Petition of PETER COPELAS seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum number of parking spaces required, and a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another, to allow for the conversion of a warehouse/woodworking business to six (6) residential units on the property at 3 WEBSTER STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. 5. Petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem, MA (R I zoning district). Attorney William A. Quigley, Jr. 6. Petition of ERIC COUTURE, seeking a Variance from required lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the replacement of a single-family home with a two-family home at 43 SCHOOL STREET, Salem., MA (R2 zoning district). 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment This notice Posted on "Otticlsl Bulletin Board" City Hall at P Salem, Mass. )n Tj,,10', 1c, �x,) in accOrd&r" 'Xith Chap. 39 See-23A & 238 of M.G l.. �(,)NDIrq-1 ,T CITY OF SALEM of�,,7, J DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND 9��•'��'IINR UU� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM, MASSACHUSET S 01970 MAYOR TEL: 978-619-5685 ♦ FAX: 978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN, AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Plannerm DATE: June 2, 2009 RE: Meeting Agenda—June 17, 2009 • Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of May 20, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for new Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 1. Petition of DEBRA KIRCHHEIMER seeking Variances from Accessory Structure regulations (side and rear yard setbacks) to replace an existing 10'x16' shed with a new 8'x12' shed on the property at 14 LEMON STREET,Salem, MA (112 zoning district). The petitioner actually needs less relief than what has been requested on the application form, since this is an accessory structure. Relief is needed from one side setback (5 feet is required, I foot is existing, and I foot is proposed) and rear setback (5 feet is required; 1 foot is existing, and 1 foot is proposed). The petitioner also asked for relief from the distance between buildings on a lot, but the property meets the required distance of 10 feet between the house and the shed (and doesn't need the 30 feet required between buildings on a lot). 2. Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARF F seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. Attorney Grover has told me he plans to request a continuance. 3. Petition of PETER COPELAS seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum number of parking spaces required, and a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another, to allow for the conversion of a warehouse/woodworking business to six (6) residential units on the property at 3 WEBSTER STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. The petitioner proposes redeveloping the former Salem Trolley Barn into six residential units. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the R2 zone is 7,500 SF; this project proposes 833 SF per dwelling unit. The current use (a warehousing/woodworking business) is nonconforming in the R2 zone, and the proposed multifamily use would also be nonconforming. The petition does not include expansion of the current building, which already nearly touches all of the lot lines. Exterior changes are proposed, as detailed on the elevation drawings, including porches on the north west sides. I was curious about how the porches could be built without encroaching onto abutting and e p g g properties, considering there are almost no setbacks, and Attorney Grover explained to me that they are recessed into the building so as not to extend over the lot lines. I have received one letter of support for the project from a resident. The letter, which I have enclosed, emphasizes the importance of preserving the former trolley barn for its value as a historic structure and also lauds the developer's efforts to work with the neighborhood in planning the redevelopment. 4. Petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area,lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single-family house lots of the property at 16� SCOTIA STREET,Salem, MA (R1 zoning district). Attorney William A. Quigley,Jr. The petitioner is requesting dimensional relief before applying to the Planning Board under subdivision control. Each of the four proposed lots would be undersized (5005, 5004, 4690 and 4698 SF are proposed; 15,000 SF is required). All four lots also need relief from rear yard depth (16.3, 16.3, 18.1 and 18.5 SF are proposed; 30 feet is required). The previous owner of the property, Daniel Hibbard, applied for variances in 2005 for similar dimensional relief. The petition was denied (the decision letter is enclosed in your packets). The findings of fact state that the applicant had caused asbestos contamination on the property and failed to clean it up, ignoring Board of Health orders. When he applied for a variance, he claimed the cleanup costs as his hardship; the Board rejected this argument. The current owner of the property, Brian Sullivan, purchased the property in 2008, and states that he has cleaned it up. He has met with me, Lynn and Tom St. Pierre a number of times about this proposal, and also came in for a One Stop meeting several months ago. Feedback included concern about adequate turnaround space at the end of Scotia St. The plans show proposed tuming/access easements on the two end lots. 5. Petition of ERIC COUTURE, seeking a Variance from required lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the replacement of a single-family home with a two-family home at 43 SCHOOL STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). the petitioner requests relief from lot area per dwelling unit (3500 is proposed; 7500 is required). 2 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,June 17, 2009 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Beth Debski, Rebecca Curran, Robin Stein (chair), Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Annie Harris. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre (Building Commissioner) and Danielle McKnight (Staff Planner). Stein opens the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Approval of Minutes Minutes —Debski moves to approve minutes of the 5/20/09 meeting; Curran seconds. Motion passes 5-0. Public Hearings • Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARFF seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem, MA (112 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. Attorney Grover requests to continue the matter to the August 19, 2009 meeting. Curran moves to continue the petition, Dionne seconds. Motion passes 5-0. Petition of DEBRA KIRCHHEIMER seeking Variances from Accessory Structure regulations (side and rear yard setbacks) to replace an existing 10'x16' shed with a new 8'x12' shed on the property at 14 LEMON STREET, Salem, MA(R2 zoning district). Mary DeLai, co-owner of the house, presents the petition. She says that once the old shed is demolished, she wants to put the shed on a bed of gravel; it will sit on timbers to prevent animals from coming in. The Board has no questions, and Stein opens the public comment portion of the hearing. Mrs. Kobierski, 16 Lemon St., requested a few years ago that the applicant do something • about the damaged shed because she was getting potholes in the pavement on her property. Asks who will repair damage to her property. 1 Stain says this isn't an issue for the Board, but says she's unaware of sheds causing this • kind of damage and asks St. Pierre if he knows whether shed could damage a neighbor's property. St. Pierre says no. Mary explains that due to a disintegrated water pipe, there are sinkholes on both properties. Stein clarifies that Mrs. Patorsky wants the shed to be fixed; she says she does and want damage on her property fixed. St. Pierre says as a condition the petitioner should have to ask the city to ensure there are no additional leaking pipes causing the pothole problem. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Stein says the petition is not inconsistent with bylaws. Belair moves to approve with 7 conditions; Debski seconds, and the motion passes 5-0. Petition of PETER COPELAS seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum number of parking spaces required, and a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another, to allow for the conversion of a warehouse/woodworking business to six (6) residential units on the property at 3 WEBSTER STREET, Salem, MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott • Grover. Attorney Grover presents the petition, for the potential developer, Lewis Legon. Also present are Peter Pitman, architect, and Peter Copelas, whose family owns the property. Attorney Grover explains the property is on Webster St., a short but wide street. He shows the site plan, pointing out that the building occupies the entire site up to lot lines, and there is no room around the building. He says the building itself is unusual— it was built in the late 1800s as maintenance facility for the Bridge St. trolley. He shows photos of the building and says it is different from the rest of this residential neighborhood. He says has been used in the past as a warehouse. The lot is 5000 SF, and the building is two stories and just under 10,000 SF of space. The plan is to convert it from a commercial to a residential use permanently. The applicant proposes 6 condo units and 3 interior parking spaces. Attorney Grover says there is no room for parking outside, so they designed 3 spaces inside. He says there will be no enlargement of exterior structure of the building. However, it will be changed dramatically in terms of architectural design, but no dimensional zoning relief is needed. Attorney Grover says given this is a residential zone, he doesn't think there's much question that it's in keeping with intent of the zoning. He says it's unrealistic for a 10,000 SF building to be two-family. He says this is a legal nonconforming use (commercial), and if not developed for residential, will be sold for commercial use. The most recent use was woodworking shop. He says making it residential instead of commercial would be a public benefit, and also discusses the potential tax revenue of the condos. For variance requirements, he says this is very • different from the other properties in the neighborhood, and there would be a hardship for 2 • the owner to do only what zoning requires. He says it would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Lewis Legon, of 37 Walter St. and the potential developer, speaks about the plans. He says much of his work is in Salem and shows his other condo developments in historic buildings. He says he and his team have a lot of experience with distressed buildings. He also says when he put property under agreement, he knew he needed neighborhood support, so he got a list of abutters from the City, sent out letters, and spoke to the neighbors. He says that originally, the plan was 8 units with no parking, and the neighbors were unhappy with this. He says they wanted the building renovated, but didn't want that many units. Legon says he got price concession from Copelas because he would not be able to do as many units as he hoped. He then went back to the neighborhood with a new plan. Now there are 6 units planned and 3 parking spaces in the building. Legon says this is the best he can do. He says not everyone liked new plan, but some did. He says the biggest issue has been parking; he has calculated what parking would be available on the street. He shows an aerial photo of the neighborhood and says he counted out linear feet from pleasant to Webb and estimated there was room for 27 spaces for parking on Webster St. He says all other residences on street have their own off street parking, there are two spaces right in front of the building, and its unlikely every resident would have two cars. In order to anticipate how many cars would come, he asked Roland Brophy, a trustee and resident of 254 Lafayette St., another project developed by Legon, to comment on the parking experience at 254 Lafayette St. Legon passes out a letter from Roland Brophy. • Peter Copelas speaks about the property, saying his family has used the first floor for storage of laundry equipment, spare parts, and for a linen delivery business, and rented out parts of the first floor and all of second to a variety of tenants. He says he no longer needs that space for business purposes and intends to sell the building. He says if they can't go forward with this project, his family was unlikely to pursue any other residential options here and would move forward with marketing the building commercially to a buyer. He says he has been asked about commercial use of the building; he tells Board that Peter Laundry is a corporation and has openly used the first floor for over 25 years for commercial uses. He feels a residential use would be a better use going forward. Peter Pitman of Pitman& Wardley Architects presents renderings, discussing historic details. He shows the juliette balconies flush with surface of balconies; he says they will use the existing garage openings. He says there are no dormers being added or any enlargements of the building. Curran asks for parking layout; Pitman says they don't have it yet pending decision. Dionne asks how exhaust will be handled; Pitman says through the HVAC ventilation. Stein opens public comment portion of the hearing. Stein reads aloud the letter Mr. Legon handed out, then summarizes each of the nine • letters McKnight has received in last few days. Five letters were in support of the 3 project, and four letters were in opposition, including one from Ward 2 Councillor • Michael Sosnowski. Stein says the letters are on file if anyone wants to read them in their entirety. Paul Guido, 15 Pleasant St., is concerned about density. He says it's a problem that there won't be any outside space for the property, and thinks with small apartments there will be quick turnover, and this would be negative to the neighborhood. He also has concerns about parking and disposal of trash—he says there is nowhere to put a dumpster on the property, and all trash would have to be within the building. He thinks six units is too much for the space, and it would be nicer if four were built instead. Joe Schork, 16 Pleasant St., says parking is a problem on the street, especially in summer. Stein asks if some parking could be dedicated resident parking with stickers. Paul Guido says the nearby music studio has applied for a permit for a caf6 in music school, and this would bring more parking if granted. Valence Prina, 19 Pleasant St., says parking is a problem on the street. Don Tucker, 5 Webster St. introduces his attorney, William Delaney, who represents Donald and his wife, Tina Tucker, direct abutters. He passes out photos and a diagram showing the houses near the development and notes that all five direct abutters are opposed. He says the neighbors measured the parking area available on street to show that of the 21 spaces near development, 19 are used on a regular basis. He also shows a . photo of the back yard near the development, belonging to the Tuckers. The yard goes to property line of 3 Webster. He notes that on the plan, there are trees shown on either side of building,.but they don't exist now; they are shown on driveways, so they couldn't be planted because they aren't on their property. He encourages the Board to focus on legal zoning issues instead of historic issues; he doesn't wish to disparage the development team, he simply wants the applicant to meet requirements for the Special Permit and variances. He says they fall short of they legal standard, that most of the presentation was about aesthetics. He says the request is more akin to a zoning change request and that this project would require variance approval even if it was in the R3 zone. This lot would not even have enough square footage per unit for one unit. He says R3 is more appropriate for apartment accommodations than R2 and suggests this would be a substantial derogation from the intent and criteria of zoning ordinance. He says the hardship is economic; certainly for any business person it must be worthwhile for anyone to do, but this isn't what zoning is about. The Tuckers had a commercial building near here, and a few years ago were faced with same dilemma—to sell or develop—and they converted their commercial building into their single family home. This building could also be converted into a one or two family home with limited variances required. He says this wouldn't be as profitable, but this isn't what zoning is about. He says because of privacy, density, parking, impact on character of the neighborhood, this would be a detriment. • 4 • Stein asks him if his clients are saying that none of the neighbors have off street parking. He says no, but those spaces are used regularly. Christine Michelini, 8 Pleasant St., is concerned about parking, especially considering the new music school and overflow from Bridge St. Duncan Cox, 1 Webster St. opposes, and says his biggest problem is the idea that a commercial use is bad for the neighborhood—abutters prefer a commercial use. He says the density would be too much, and parking would be a problem. He says he will have serious privacy issues, along with the Tuckers. He says the benefit of a commercial use is that the people who work in the building or have business there leave at the end of the day, and this wouldn't increase density. He opposes resident-only parking because public curbs should be for the public and.doesn't think it's fair for visitors and workers from outside the area. Celia Erwin, 4 Webster St., is afraid this would set a precedent. Stein says the Board evaluates each project it its own merit separately. Gus Sousa, 117 Webb St. opposes because of the density and says the project would take quality of life away from neighborhood. He says he owns another piece of property next to his house, a developable piece that he might develop if the neighborhood is going to be this way. • Sarah Spencer, 7 Spring St., speaks for herself and the other condo owner in her building. She says she respects other neighbors opinions, but her property also abuts the building. At first was she opposed to this but says Lewis has tried to meet them halfway and it's her feeling that this would bring a positive renovation project to neighborhood, so she supports it. Jerry Smith,24 Pickman St., says this comes down to a decision of whether this meets zoning requirements, but also what kind of impact it will have on the neighborhood. He says this will be an improvement to the neighborhood and will clean up blight. He concedes there are privacy issues, but this is already an issue in neighborhood; he says they can all see into each other's houses. He feels the parking issue has been addressed, and also that everyone has off street parking. He doesn't see why resident-only parking would be a problem. He says the parking issue won't be overcome by not improving the neighborhood—he thinks there's adequate parking to support this building. He wants to see these ownership units in neighborhood, which these are, rather than rentals. This is where transience comes from, not from the owners of small condos. He doesn't think anyone would be able to do anything else with this property other than this. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Curran: is the building vacant now? Grover says no. Curran asks if the top floor is vacant. Copelas says for last 6 months, no tenant has been on the 2"d floor. Attorney • Grover says it's used for storage and machinery. 5 Curran says the building presents a problem because it sits on the lot lines. She would be • inclined to approve this, but thinks the parking relief asked for, given the neighborhood, is too great. She says if it's possible to reconfigure some of the ground floor units so they are providing at least one space per unit, given there's some on-street parking, and given their other similar projects, she thinks that would work. She says it's not practical for such a large building to be a I or 2 family house, but at least one parking space per unit is appropriate. Stein says she wouldn't require 6 spaces, but there should be more than 3. Overall, she thinks it's a great project, but a two to one variance request is steep anywhere in Salem. She appreciates they've worked with the neighborhood before coming in, but this is hard to grant. She recognizes it's not practical to do a 2 family house. Belair sympathizes with them about the parking and says everyone who lives downtown struggles with it—it's the nature of city living. But she says the hardship associated with the building is the fact that it sits on the entire lot, and not much can be done with that situation. Having said that, she's also seen Mr. Legon's developments, and they are of a high quality and would only be an improvement to the neighborhood. She is in favor of the project as is. Debski says she has no issue with the parking, and says it was good they were able to provide 3 spaces. She visited the site twice and no cars were on the street; she also • noticed everyone had off street parking. She says this would be a wonderful reuse of this building. She asks if they will go to the Planning Board for site plan review; Attorney Grover says yes. Debski says the neighbor made an important point about trash. Attorney Delaney interjects that the trash photo was staged by the neighborhood to show what it would look like. Attorney Grover says his client agrees to put in a trash compactor as an appliance, and they would need to have common recycling. Attorney Grover says the staging is exaggerated and the trash receptacles could be addressed with condo rules. Debski asks if there is some storage space in parking area. Pitman says there is, as well as storage on both floors, mechanical and trash storage. Dionne says Mr. Lagon has done some wonderful work, and reminds neighbors that if this building is marketed commercially they don't know what they are going to get. In his neighborhood, Salem Glass had a lot of trucks, a lot of employees, and they parked everywhere in neighborhood. He doesn't want people to think that by keeping it commercial, they will know what it will be like or used for. Vehicles could be a huge problem. He says he doesn't know if there's a way to reduce the units—he knows this kind of renovation is expensive. He asks if offsite parking is possible; Attorney Grover says possibly, but they have not yet been successful in finding anything. He says it's a major issue, and agrees they are requesting substantial relief, but one thing that convinced him it was appropriate was the abundance of parking that appears to be on Webster St. He points out that in their random satellite photo, only one car was on the street. He also points out this is within walking distance of the train station. • 6 • Tsitsinos says he likes the project, and that parking is a problem in much of Salem. He says Webster street, most of the time, is half empty. He thinks there's plenty of space. He points out this is right off Bridge St., and he doesn't want to see a body shop or storage unit—those won't be attractive. He asks about the prices of the condos; Legon says the first floor would be starter units, $225,000-$235,000. The 2"d floor condos would be 1200 SF and would be in the$279 range. Grover says they tried to find more parking, and it was just not feasible. He says if sold, the new use could be much more intense, and it required a certain amount of density to make worth developing. Attorney Delaney says the Board is missing the point about the hardship criteria; there is a viable economic use, a commercial one, and all the abutters support it. He suggests the hardship argument fails. Stein asks if the Board is ready to vote and asks which members are voting tonight, since two alternates are present. By seniority, Belair has the vote, not Tsitsinos. Debski moves to approve the petition with eight 8 conditions; Stein seconds. The PP P g ( ) motion passes 4-1 (Debski, Stein, Dionne and Belair in favor; Curran opposed). Stein asks the Board to take a five-minute break. • Petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yatd depth to allow for the subdivision into four single- family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem, MA(R1 zoning district). Attorney William A. Quigley,Jr. Attorney Bill Quigley presents the petition(owner Bill Sullivan is also present) and explains the history of the property: the current owner purchased it in 2008. It was one large vacant lot, where the street ends. He passes out a 1961 plan approved by the Planning Board of the originally proposed subdivision; the lots don't meet today's standards for area. Attorney Quigley says the previous owners applied to subdivide into four lots in 2005 according to the 1961 plan; the ZBA denied this because the applicant failed to appear and failed to do a number of things he promised the city. Attorney Quigley says the current applicant and owner has met with city departments, including Planning, about the proposal. One concern of the departments was the lack of turnaround space. He says that while there will be ample parking, right now, there's no turnaround for safety vehicles on the road. They are proposing to grant an easement to the city at the end of the roadway into a T that would come into the properties and allow for a turnaround. He says the lots will be between 4800 and 5200 SF, and that this won't be a detriment to neighborhood, but will fit in. He says the lots are larger than the majority of those in area. Stein asks if the Board has questions. Tsitsinos asks where the driveways are for last two houses. Curran asks if the fire department has seen the plan. Attorney Quigley says yes, and that it meets code. 7 Stein says if the turnaround easement is to work, they need to keep it clear at all times, • and it doesn't make sense for cars to park there. St. Pierre says he was at the One Stop meeting where Fire Marshall Griffin was present— and that she was not that concerned about the proposal, because vehicles can't turn around now. For their purposes, it's no different - possibly better - but there's still no room for a fire truck to turn around. Chris Sparages from Hayes Engineering says that in calculating the turnaround area, they didn't have the numbers for the largest truck for Salem, so they used Beverly's ladder truck dimensions. Attorney Quigley says when the applicant acquired the land, it was contaminated with asbestos, and this has been cleaned up. Curran asked if there was a use limitation; Attorney Quigley said no. Curran asks if the 1961 lot layout lost its status because the lots merged; Attorney Quigley said yes. Debski asks if garages are proposed. Sullivan says yes, a garage for each house is planned. Debski asks if blasting will be required; Attorney Quigley says they haven't done testing • yet for ledge. Tsitsinos asks how they would maintain the access easement. Attorney Quigley says they will need to address that, and says that on a private road in Salem, the snow removal is the residents' responsibility. Dionne asks where the snow would go; Attorney Quigley says at the backs and sides of the property. Debski asks if they will file a definitive subdivision plan with the Planning Board; Attorney Quigley says they will, but this is the first step. Stein opens the public comment portion of the hearing. Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., states his opposition, saying the project would be way too dense in that area. He says his mother's family lived in that area— much has changed in Gallows Hill—and it is very cramped. He says this proposal was already turned down in 2005, and that when the petitioner bought the property, he knew the site was contaminated. He says he talked with Mr. Sullivan on phone about meeting with the neighbors, but the meeting never happened, and that communication with abutters had been poor, and during the cleanup, the neighbors had a lot of questions/concerns. He says there's no reason four houses should be at end of that street. • 8 • At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., says he was on the Board in 2005 when they came to the decision to deny the proposal. He noted that a lot of relief was needed and questioned where garages could be put on the lots. He notes the lots are very undersized, and says four houses are too many for this under-20,000 square foot lot. He suggests two houses would be better. He asks if the turnaround easement is included in the square footage; if not, these are even smaller lots. In talking with the neighbors, he feels it's too dense. Ward 3 Councillor Arthur Sargeant 8Ma le Ave nue, says a variance shouldn't be given for 5,000 SF lots where 15,000 SF are required, pointing out that that's 33% of the required size, and on four different lots He says this property really consists of one buildable lot and another 5,000 SF. As to the hardship, he says the property was bought after the hardship happened, and the Board can't consider that a real hardship. He notes there is a lot of neighborhood opposition and asks the Board not to put a burden on the neighbors. Bob Cormier, 25 Summit St., says he and wife the own abutting property, behind lot 4. He notes that the plan looks like nearly the same one presented in 2005. He says he and his wife and neighbors are lower down from this property, and they are concerned about the potential height of the new houses. From his house, the property is at eye level. He compares the proposed houses with some of houses in neighborhood, and says he has 13000 SF, as do several neighbors. He says Mr. Sullivan bought the property knowing • about its problems, and trying to put four houses in such a small area is not a good idea. He says the previous owner built up the land, dug a hole, and buried trees, and the proposed lots will have problems with sinkholes. He also says there's ledge five feet down so they won't be able to put garages underneath. Dorothea Cormier, 25 Summit St., said they should do something about the drainage, and that she gets the water now on her property. She says if they start building, she will get more water, and there's now four feet of fill in there. She is concerned that the houses will block her sunlight and asks how high they will be. Dana Duhaime, 11 South St., says she was here in 2005 and this looks like the same project. She is opposed and says the small lots don't fit with the neighborhood. She's also concerned about snow plowing. James Moscoviz, 10 Rollins St., opposes because of concerns about density and traffic. Scott Weisberg, 17 Tanglewood, is concerned about accuracy of the fire truck calculations, since the Salem truck is a hook and ladder, unlike the Beverly truck the applicants based their calculations on. Cathy Von Cory, 23 Summit St. says she and Larry Olcott, also of 23 Summit, oppose because of flooding concerns; she says flooding is already serious. • Debra Conroy, 12 Scotia St., opposes. 9 Tom Walsh, 9 Scotia St., says he always thought they could legally build 2 houses. He • gives a history of previous proposals for 8 and 4 units and says fire dept. felt there should be a cul-de-sac there. He hopes they could build 2 houses —this would be good for the neighborhood. He says during the cleanup, there were disturbances. Kimberly Roberts, 11 Scotia St., is opposed because of flooding, traffic concerns and the safety of the children on the street. She says it's too small a parcel for that many houses. Suzanne Kao, 14 Scotia St., says there are no sidewalks —they have on street parking— and only one car can get through. She is against four lots because of safety and traffic concerns. Ivan Kao, 14 Scotia St , says that in winter, snow removal is a problem and makes the street narrower. Suzanne Kao says she would appreciate being informed if there is any other work/cleanup on the site. Irene Fleming, 4-6 Scotia, says there is not enough room for 4 houses. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Stein says she can't see four houses there, and the gentleman's suggestion for a cul-de- sac might be worth pursuing. She says one or two houses may still require variances, but she would be more willing to entertain that, and these lots are tiny. Curran asks if the Board could we vote, if the applicant was willing, to approve 2 lots. Stein says yes, since that would be less intense than what was asked for, and this would help with fire and other issues. Stein asks Chris Sparages to contact the Salem fire department about the dimensions of Salem trucks.. Dionne says he was on the Board in 2005, when this was denied, and he doesn't think anything's changed at this point; he can't see any real differences. St. Pierre says that this petitioner differs from the previous one in that the prior owner caused the contamination, but this applicant has done the cleanup. The Board had said no to four lots, then he asked to come back with three, but failed to show at the meeting. St. Pierre says this is different group, and they have shown good faith by doing the cleanup. Additionally, they have a professional engineer on board. Curran says two or three lots might work and a better turnaround could be accomplished through that. She asks if they are allowed to use the private way at the end; could they incorporate it into the lot if needed? Attorney Quigley says they can only assume direct • 10 • control of the property they own. Curran asks if that part of the private street could be abandoned. Attorney Quigley says yes. Given the direction of the Board, he asks if he could request a continuance. Debski asks if he could hold a neighborhood meeting as Councillor Ryan suggested. Stein says she knows it's a lot, but could they show the garages, etc.? Attorney Quigley asks if all the Board members need to be present at all the hearings; Stein says any five of the six present. Curran makes a motion to continue the hearing to August 19, 2009, seconded by Dionne and passed 5-0. Petition of ERIC COUTURE, seeking a Variance from required lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the replacement of a single-family home with a two-family home at 43 SCHOOL STREET, Salem, MA (112 zoning district). St. Pierre tells the Board this petition was here 6 months ago, brought by Joe Barbeau, who withdrew without prejudice. Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He says the applicant is under agreement to purchase the property, and that a prior petition was filed a year ago on the same property. He hands out to the Board a more finished plan than that which was filed, and says it is not substantially different. • Attorney Grover shows photos of the existing house. He says it has not been officially condemned, but probably should be, and it is not habitable. He shows how close the house is to abutting houses. He says his clients are proposing to raze the structure and rebuild in a different location on the lot. They want to move the building to a central location on lot so it complies with the zoning setbacks. They are not seeking any dimensional relief. He says one variance required is lot area wouldn't even support a single family residence. His client has researched consistency of this proposal with others in neighborhood; he shows how the proposed dimensions are similar to others on School St. He says he is not proposing something inconsistent with surrounding neighborhood; additionally, this is a slightly bigger lot than most. He says there is plenty of opportunity for new landscaping, green space. He shows how the old driveway came right against the abutters, and now it will be moved to front of building. He says they can screen the parking from the street. Stein asks Board if they have questions. Debski asks if the proposed building is smaller than the house there; Attorney Grover says yes, and that it is modular construction. David Langlois, 43 Barr St., says he is here because no one showed him the plans. He says the lot is too small and he has questions about drainage. He says the land is pitched toward his house and the foundation will push water toward his house. He is concerned about the large number of trees in that yard and their effect on the foundation and • whether they might fall. Attorney Grover says the trees are not very healthy. Stein says 11 it may make sense to take them down. Grover asks if it's the neighbors' preference to • take them down; Langlois says yes; Grover says they can do that. St. Pierre says a drainage plan is required if more than 2 feet of land is altered, though he says that if the land is pitched, it's very slight and the grass area should take care of that. He's more concerned about the parking area—the drain water from the parking lot should be taken care of. Grover says they could submit a drainage alteration plan. Curran says they will need to—this will be more than 2 feet. St. Pierre says the parking area could easily be pitched to School St. Carol Bannister, 41 Barr St. —says she wouldn't oppose as long as there's no pavement going in back. She is bothered by the trees, and says two fences have been broken by them in her yard. She is also concerned about parking. Stein says they will have four spaces on the property. Curran asks if they are fencing the yard; Grover says yes. Jacqueline Langlois, 43 Barr St., is concerned about the distance between the doorway and her yard; Grover says it's 15 feet. Stein says this is more than the city requires. Sheryl Holstead— School St. —opposes because it's too large for the property. She's concerned about parking. She doesn't see how four cars will fit on property. Stein says the plan shows four spaces. Curran explains they are moving the existing house. Ellen Hayes, 44 Barr St. is opposed because she feels there will be trash, too many people, and too much noise. Maria Vasilakis, 45 Barr St., is opposed because she doesn't want a rental property. Stein says their intent is to sell as condos. Councillor Steven Pinto says new condos are appearing all over the city in neglected properties; many of these are run down and foreclosed. He says that statistically, this brings down neighbors' property values 5%. He says they have an eyesore here, and while this project isn't perfect, it will keep their property values up. He says these developers are very approachable and tells the neighbors to just communicate with them. Belair says this is an eyesore, and the proposal is a 100% improvement, and is definitely consistent with the neighborhood; it will only increase property values; you can't control who your property will be sold to, and any house can be sold to anyone. She would think the neighbors would embrace this as a benefit. She says parking is tight—but they've accommodated parking. The neighbors don't like the trees, and they're taking them down. Debski agrees that this is a good project and applauds the applicants for providing parking. • 12 • Stein echoes their comments, and is also glad the developer is taking care of drainage and other problems. She is surprised by the dissent— she says this is a wild improvement over what is there now, especially considering the parking and tree removal; this will be a fresh, new house. Curran says this is an allowed use, and they have eliminated all nonconformities on lot the except those they can't control. She asks why lot width is not part of the variance. Grover says because they are not changing it. Curran says going forward she thinks there is new case law that has changed that. She says this is a good project, and asks if they can require rodent baiting prior to demo. St. Pierre says the demo permit has the Health department on the routing slip, and they will take care of that. Dionne says this is a good project, especially from a safety perspective. Stein says it's good they are getting those two houses away from each other. Tsitsinos says the houses are so close together they are a fire hazard, and this will also clean up that whole area. Tsitsinos moves to approve, the petition with eleven 11 conditions seconded b PP P ( ) Y Dionne. The motion passes 5-0 (Debski, Stein, Curran, Belair, and Dionne in favor, none opposed). Curran moves to adjourn the meeting, Stein seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. Stein closes the meeting at 9:30 p.m. • 13 to �ta CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL s n 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • �`. T+ �F SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 6 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Doi FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2OU9 ,'L!`1 30 A II� 5u MAYOR CITY June 29,2009 Decision Cry of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of DE BRA KIRCHHEIMER seeking a Variance from Accessory Structure regulations (side and rear yard setbacks) to replace an existing 10'x16' shed with a new 8'x12' shed on the property at 14 LEMON STREET, Salem,MA(R2 zoning district). Petitioner seeks a variance pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §7-8: Accessory buildings and structures. Statements of fact: • 1. Mary DeLai,who co-own the property with petitioner Debra Kirschheimer, presented the petition. 2. In a petition dated May 28, 2009,the applicant requested a dimensional variance to accommodate the replacement of an existing 10'x16'shed with a new 8'x12'shed on her properly at 14 Lemon St. 3. Plans submitted with the application show the existing shed does not conform with the required five-foot rear or side line setbacks for accessory structures. The proposed shed would be smaller than the existing one and would be set back one foot from the rear and side property lines. 4. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on June 17, 2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The pubic hearing was closed on June 17,2009, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne,Beth Debski, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 5. No one spoke in opposition to the project. A direct abutter to the property stated that she would like to see the shed fixed, and that the existing shed's deteriorating condition had led to sinkholes on her properly. The applicant concurred that there were sinkholes at both the abutter's properly and her own, and that this was due to a • leaking underground pipe that had disintegrated. 2 6. At its meeting on June 17,2009,the Board of Appeal voted five (5) in favor and • none (0) opposed to grant a variance from the dimensional requirements of§7-8, Accessory buildings and structures,to allow for the replacement of an existing 10'x16'shed with a new 8'x12'shed on the property located at 14 Lemon St. 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. 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 zoning ordinance. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family District to construct the proposed development,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 reconstruction of the shed as proposed,the requested variance from dimensional requirements for accessory buildings and structures is granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran,Belair,Debski 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 complywith all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. • 7. Petitioner is to contact the Salem Water Department to ensure that no pipes on the property are leaking. 3 • Robin m, 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. • • �oswr��d CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE. 978-745-9595• p�FAX, 978-740-9846 2004 JUIN 30 P 2: N KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR CITY CL!_:;,,, June 29, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PETER COPELAS seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum number of parking spaces required, and a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another, to allow for the conversion of a warehouse/woodworking business to six(6) residential units on the property at 3 WEBSTER STREET, Salem,MA(R2 zoning district). Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner,Peter • Copelas,who owns the property. 2. In a petition dated May 27,2009,the petitioner requested Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and required parking, and a Special Pemrit to change from one nonconforming use to another,in order to convert the existing warehouse/woodworking business into six residential units. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on June 17, 2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The hearing was closed on June 17, 2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran,Richard Dionne,Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 4. The Board of Appeals received six letters in support of the project and four letters in opposition to it. At the hearing,several residents voiced concerns about parking, privacy and the density of the proposed project, and expressed a preference for a commercial use for the property, rather than residential, because they felt a commercial use would be less intensive. Other neighbors spoke in support of the project,saying the redevelopment of the building as proposed would remove blight, raise property values and benefit 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: 2 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel and building, which • do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district. The building, constructed in the 1880s,was built to the lot lines, taking up the entire parcel. This makes it difficult to accommodate all of the required parking on site, and difficult or impossible to meet the zoning requirements for lot area per dwelling unit in the R-2 zone for any residential development, without tearing down the structure. 2. 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 zoning ordinance, as the changes proposed would result in significant improvements to the property at 3 Webster Street. Additionally, the residential use proposed is more in keeping with the residential character of the R-2 zone than a commercial use. 3. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. 4. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-FamilyDistrict to construct the proposed development, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 5. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. • 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 redevelopment of the site as proposed, the requested Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum number of parking spaces are granted. 2. To allow for a change in nonconforming use, a Special Permit is granted. In consideration of the above, at its meeting on June 17,2009,the Board of Appeal voted four(4) in favor(Stein,Belair,Dionne,Debski) and one (1) opposed (Curran) to grant Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum number of parking spaces required, and a Special Permit to change from one nonconforming use to another, to allow for redevelopment of the site as shown on the plans titled "Webster Street Condos, 3 Webster Street,Salem,MA," dated May 29, 2009,and prepared by Pitman &Wardley Architects LLC,sheets A-1 through A-4 and B-1 through B-4 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 Conumssioner. 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 shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said numbers so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any Cry 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. ne L, 4k Robin Stem,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 Cary 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. • �ONOIT,1.�d CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 oaf FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR ZCJR ,iLiV j0 A I 1 54" CITY June 29 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ERIC COUTURE, seeking a Variance from required lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the replacement of a single-family home with a two-family home at 43 SCHOOL STREET, Salem,MA(R2 zoning district). Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §64, Table I: Residential Density Regulations. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner, who is . under agreement to purchase the property from Lona Belanger,the current owner. 2. In a petition dated May 26,2009, the applicant requested variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit required by the zoning ordinance in order to replace the existing single-family home on the property with a two-family home. 3. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on June 17,2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, % 11. The hearing was closed on June 17, 2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran,Richard Dionne,Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 4. Several residents opposed the petition,citing concerns about parking,drainage, density and the possibility that renters would move in. Board members pointed out that the plans show four off-street parking spaces to be provided, two for each unit, and asked the petitioner to submit a drainage plan if his petition was approved. 5. Several residents also complained of the trees on the property and stated that a tree had fallen on one neighbor's property,damaging a fence, and another tree had grown through another neighbor's fence. Attorney Grover stated that the petitioner was willing to remove the trees. 6. At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Avenue, spoke in support of the project, stating that given the deteriorated condition of the existing house, the proposed new building would boost abutters'property values. He also encouraged 2 the abutters to speak with the developers,since they appeared to be willing to work • with the neighborhood to address concerns. 7. The existing house on the property does not conform to front or side yard setback requirements; the proposed house,while requiring relief from lot area per dwelling unit,would bring the property into front and side yard setback compliance. 8. Several Board members commented that the proposed two-family house would be a significant improvement over the existing house,which is in poor condition, and that the project would improve 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: 1. Desirable relief maybe granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Districtto construct the proposed development,which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. • 3. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 redevelopment of the site as proposed,the requested Variance from lot area per dwelling unit is granted. In consideration of the above,the Board of Appeal voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the replacement of the existing single-family home with a two-family home, as shown on the plans titled "Plan to Accompany Petition to the Board of Appeals,Located in Salem,Mass.," dated May 28, 2009, and prepared by Christopher R.Mello,PLS 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. 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. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said numbers 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. Petitioner will submit a drainage plan prior to obtaining a building permit. 10. Petitioner will apply for and receive a proper demolition pemut. 11. Petitioner will remove any trees neighbors select, and will replace the fencing g damaged by trees on the site. • Robin Stem, Chair Salem Zoning Boar of f 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, MASSAC HUSEM _ BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHNGTON STREET♦SALEKMASSACHLlSEM01970 '�". 11Nmti 'IELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEYDRiscoLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 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: Peter Copelas Location: 3 Webster St., Salem,MA Request: Special Permit and Variances Description: Special Permit sought to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, and Variances sought from minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum number of parking spaces,to allow for the conversion of a warehouse/woodworking business to six(6)residential units(R-2 zoning district) • Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on June 30, 2009 Petition of: Debra Kirschheimer Location: 14 Lemon St, Salem,MA Request: Variance Description: Variance sought from Accessory Structure regulations(side and rear yard setbacks)to replace an existing 10'x16' shed with a new 8'xl2' shed(R-2 Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on June 30,2009 Petition of: Eric Couture Location: 43 School Street, Salem,MA Request: Variance Description: Variance sought from required lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the replacement of a single-family home with a two-family home (R-2 zoning district) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on June 30, 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. City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Zoti norcQ o� (�I�a(s Date o6 / I / 01 Name Mailing Address Phone # Email r �� y /V,cAo�s s� s9a-� Yy lG7Y J PrryC 'ya� __r�u .5 u11 Q ate. Glis (h�esia- U7WIOM _('7- 97k-754/- asauS,4SIAC 4olCogs 1 lcv� 11-1 tt/ywm 1�7 [)kMDr,// . .W 1, �L Lecpm 110 0,,L/ 11, apo7 ?,' 1'7/u I-C("rLp S St— n/)i Cl114c l/ch Lod C e 2tieC / /�M,5g4T V �79 75LYg196 y IL Plea r� fit . 2E- 740-ON,� Page of At CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEK MASSAMUSJ ; S 01970 4 ` 1NE � 'nLE:978-745-9595 FAX:978-740-049 MNIBERLEYDRiscoLL "L o 0 MAYOR n r T� �- T� I. 7 AGENDA In > BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ' May 20 2009 6:30 P.M. > 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET --r Robin Stein, Chair —YL 1. Approval of Minutes—April 15, 2009 meeting 2. Petition of CARTER VINSON, seeking a Variance from Section 7-3 off-street parking regulations to accommodate a new parking space for a single-family house on the property located at 32 BEACH AVENUE (RI zoning district). 3. Petition of EMAD S. YOUNAN, M.D., seeking a Special Permit in order to change one nonconforming use (adjunct to a dermatological clinic)to another nonconforming use (physician's office), for the property at 111 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. • 4. Continued 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(BI zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. 5. Continued petition of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST, seeking Variances from minimum lot width, minimum lot area;rear yard setback and lot area per unit to accommodate two duplex (two-family) homes at 24 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem,MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. 6. Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9)residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem,MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. 7. Old/New Business: 8. Adjournment This notice posted on "Official Bulletin ®oardW City fall Salem, Mass. on `hey ja dco at 11�7 +� in accordXWO with ChW 30 Oft • < � CITY OF SALEM 9�`sy• ��9 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND � Miroeot??- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 MAYOR TEL: 978-619-5685 FAX: 978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN, AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: May 12, 2009 • RE: . Meeting Agenda—May 20, 2009 Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of April 16, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 1. Petition of CARTER VINSON,seeking a Variance from Section 7-3 off-street parking regulations to accommodate a new parking space for a single-family house on the property located at 32 BEACH AVENUE (R1 zoning district). Mr. Vinson will be requesting a continuance for this item; due to a family emergency he will not be prepared for the hearing. I will ask him for a signed continuation form before the meeting. 2. Petition of EMAD S. YOUNAN,M.D., seeking a Special Permit in order to change one nonconforming use (adjunct to a dermatological clinic) to another nonconforming use (physician's office),for the property at III HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem, MA (R1 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. While the application requests a Special Permit under 5-30) and 9-4(b) of the zoning ordinance in order to change one nonconforming use to another, the accompanying plans indicate exterior changes and expansion of the building. Dimensional requirements are met, but section 8-4 (1) also requires a special permit for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. On the Willson Rd. side of the property, the is buildingextends b 2'10 3/16" into the side setback; the addition to the building is narrower than the Y � g existing portion of the structure and does not encroach on the setback. 3. Continued 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 (131 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. Attorney Atkins has submitted new plans showing reconstruction of the original two-bedroom unit. 4. Petition of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST, seeking Variances from minimum lot width, minimum lot area; rear yard setback and lot area per unit to accommodate two duplex (two-family) homes at 24 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem, MA (112 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. Attorney Grover has submitted new plans showing two single-family homes rather than two duplexes. Lesser relief is needed: the project now only requires relief from lot width (lot C1 has 90 feet, and 100 feet is required); lot area (lot C2 has 10,143 SF, and 15,000 SF is required); and rear yard setback (lot C2 is 18 feet, and 30 feet is required). 5. Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF,seeking a Variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units,on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET,Salem, MA (R2 zoning • district). Attorney Scott Grover. Attorney Grover has told me he plans to request a continuance for this petition to the June 17 meeting. >�: 2 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,May 20, 2009 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Beth Debski, Rebecca Curran, Robin Stein (chair), Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Annie Harris. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre(Building Commissioner) and Danielle McKnight (Staff Planner). Stein opens the meeting at 6:38 p.m. Approval of Minutes Dionne moves to approve minutes of the 4/15/09 meeting; Stein seconds. Motion passes 5-0 (Tsitsinos, Dionne, Stein, Curran, Debski in favor, none opposed). Public Hearings Stein says the Board has received a request to continue the 32 Beach Ave. petition. • McKnight confirms that written confirmation has been received requesting to continue the matter to the August 19, 2009 meeting. Dionne moves to continue the petition to August 19, 2009; Stein seconds. Motion passes 5-0 (Tsitsinos, Dionne, Stein, Curran, Debski in favor, none opposed). Petition of EMAD S. YOUNAN,M.D.,seeking a Special Permit in order to change one nonconforming use (adjunct to a dermatological clinic) to another nonconforming use (physician's office),for the property at 111 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. Attorney Atkins presents the petition. He says Dr. Younan is the prospective purchaser of property, which is currently owned by Dr. Hans Van Weiss, also in attendance. Atkins gives a brief history of the uses of the building, saying it was previously used as gas station, garage and used car lot. Now, they wants to use it as an adjunct to a dermatological practice that is located next door. Atkins says there will be one physician and two assistants on site at any one time. He says Dr. Younan is affiliated with North Shore Medical center, and his practice is pain management, not physical therapy. He says the number of patient appointments at this facility will be limited, and hours would be 9 a.m. —6 p.m., Monday through Friday. Appointments will be set in 3 hour blocks, and not every day, since he has other sites in addition to this proposed office. Atkins gives the Board Dr. Younan's resume and a brochure explaining his practice. • 1 Atkins says he met at the site with Councillors Steven Pinto (At-Large), Joan Lovely (At- Large) with neighbors and went over a number of issues and concerns with them. The • issues identified at this meeting were expansion of the building, traffic and parking. Atkins says the building is planned to be expanded, but within allowed setbacks; they do not want to increase its nonconformity. He says the addition complies with the R-1 zone dimensional requirements. Atkins also says this complies with the parking ordinances, which deal with professional offices and medical clinics—he says this is not a medical clinic. They are using the professional office standard—three spaces are required, and this plan shows nine. The flow of traffic will be from an entry at the existing curb cut on Highland, one way, around the rear of the building and exiting to Wilson Rd. Atkins says the neighbors were concerned about the exit, since this area is subject to a lot of cut through traffic from cars avoiding Highland Ave., and there are also speeding problems. Atkins says they talked about trying to not add to those issues with this project, and after talking with the neighbors and councillors, they have made improvements. He hands out a summary of proposed changes including contouring the exit to force traffic to the right out of the site so cars couldn't turn left. This would also include "right turn only" signage onto Wilson, and "no entry" signage" from Wilson St. into the exit. Atkins says they are willing to have the Board put in conditions related to these restrictions. Atkins then explains the planned landscaping: hedges along the left and rear between the site and the neighborhood behind. He says he spoke to the neighbors about the height of the vegetation, and they have agreed to put in 6 foot shrubs. There will also be a grass buffer along Wilson and Highland. Atkins says the councillors also agreed to pursue no parking signs along Wilson and they will follow up with City Council with that effort. Atkins also says the grounds will be repaved—they are in poor condition now. He says • no dumpster is associated with this, since the practice has no need for anything but regular trash collection. He also says the building will be improvement over the current building; the siding will be clapboard, and the appearance will be significantly improved. He says this is a limited, non-intense use. Currans asks if any other Board needs to approve this; Atkins says no. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Stan Poirier, 8 Cottage St, lives near the back end of the existing parking lot. He says he is glad to see they're willing to put in 6 foot planted shrubs. He says that years ago the old trees were cut down; now he is more exposed to the property and wants that buffer again. He says if the shrubs are planted, that should satisfy his immediate concerns, and asks the Board to make this a written condition. He says he's happy there won't be dumpster on the property. He also says he's been assured that this change of use doesn't mean the property is not able to have an R1 use again. Stein says the Board doesn't have the authority to change the zoning. Poirier applauds the applicant for trying to control traffic issues and says this is a problem on Highland. He says there has been a lot of cut-through traffic on Wilson when 2 Highland Ave is backed up to the light, and that's the reason the neighbors are asking for a right turn only restriction out of site. John Lunt, 6 Greenway Rd., supports the proposal and thinks the applicant has shown a lot of consideration for the neighborhood. He says the traffic situation is what it is; this project probably won't impact it much. Other than that, the only other concerns he has is the trash; trash is constantly coming off Highland. He's glad there won't be a dumpster. He wants to make sure the landscaping is conditioned. He says that as long as the concerns brought up are addressed, he thinks this is the best possible use for that corner. At-Large Councilor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., thanks Atkins and Younan and says he had a good meeting and that they had addressed the neighborhood's issues. He says he and Councilors Pelletier and Lovely will work to get "no parking" signs along Wilson Rd. He says the plan is a good fit for the neighborhood. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. St. Pierre comments that the required handicapped van spot is missing from the plan, but that this is easy to fix. Also, he says the City is cracking down on snow plowing, and he doesn't see a snow storage spot. He doesn't want to hold things up tonight, but before the applicant starts building, he will want to see a plan showing where he will put snow. Atkins says this is a small lot, but it has more parking than they need, so they may use one parking spot for snow. • Stein says they may have to lose a spot if they make spot 9 into a van spot. Atkins says he doesn't want to pile snow at the intersection, which would block car views. Curran says the landscaping should be done prior to occupancy. Debski says this is a huge improvement over what's there now. Stein says the plan is consistent with City site plan standards, and she is always happy to see applicants and neighbors working together before coming to the Board. Debski moves to approve the petition with five (5) standard conditions, and the following special conditions: parking signs shall be installed that show right turn only out of site ontoWilson, and two signs that say No Entry from Wilson Rd.; curbing on the left side of the exit as shown on the 8.5 x 11 plan; six foot high shrubs shall be installed as per the plan on the rear property line on north and east side of property prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy; a snow storage plan is to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Dionne seconds. McKnight takes a role call vote; the petition passes 5- 0 (Dionne, Stein, Curran, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed). Continued 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 • 3 special permit to reconstruct a nonconforming structure for the property located at 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE, Salem,MA (B1 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. Atkins presents the petition. He says the Board asked them to try again to reconstruct the building on its original footprint. He says he has shared the new plans with the neighbors who appeared at last meeting and Attorney Keck, who represents the condo association. Atkins says the photo of the original structure is their best guide for the reconstruction, along with the floor plan they obtained from the Registry of Deeds. He says the architects made a similar design to what was there, but with a smaller basement level and living space. He notes the height is 23 feet from the peak of the mansard roof to the ground, and that this would seem to qualify as the type of"dollhouse" described by neighbors at the previous meeting. He says the entry porch and deck are similar to the original. He shows the location of the old and new buildings, using the footprint drawn on trace paper over the new plan to show they are in the same place. He shows how the building is set back a foot from the property line on two sides, a little closer in than the original. He says the total square footage is 1277; the original was 1272. Also, the parking is from a parking plan that was provided with Registry plan. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Kevin McGrath, 3 Arthur St., asks what the legal dimensional requirements are for the B 1 zone; St. Pierre reads them from the zoning ordinance. McGrath says there wasn't a second egress in the original; it wasn't added until later. He comments on the location of • the building at one foot off property line and asks if construction will encroach on his property. Atkins responds that legally, they can't go onto Mr. McGrath's land. St. Pierre says the foundation can certainly be poured and the building constructed without going onto neighboring land. However, the fact that it's on a 1 foot setback will restrict the amount of windows/glazing allowed because of fire safety regulations. Atkins shows how windows were eliminated on that side on the first story. The window on the mansard roof is set further back. McGrath asks if they will keep the fence that is up. Atkins responds that they will work with McGrath and discuss his preferences about the fence before construction. Josh Levesque, 268 Jefferson Ave. states his opposition, and says he's concerned about the value of his house. He does not like the project. Attorney Keck, representing the condo association, says this is vastly improved from what it was, but notes the issue of the 1 foot perimeter—by bringing in footprint closer, he says the parking will be more difficult. He notes the side porch is clearly different from the original, and that it comes into parking area a little, making the last space difficult to access. He is also concerned about not having a dumpster in parking lot. He • 4 also says the fence is the condo association's fence, that they've spent money on it and want to keep it in good repair. He says they also don't want their parking blocked by • construction. He says there should be no overnight parking by construction vehicles. He says most other issues have been addressed; the building is similar to what it was. For that reason, the condo association isn't opposed to the building. They are just concerned about effects on the driveway. Stein closes public comment portion. Stein asks Atkins if they can shorten the porch a little. Atkins says they can redesign that and the deck. He also says they don't want to block parking, and suggests they meet with the condo association, contractor and neighbors, to agree how to approach construction. Debski says the plan seems to satisfy the issues that have been raised and that it looks similar to what was there originally. She is glad the condo assoc is not opposed. Stein understands there are people who don't want anything at all, but this does look like what was there before, and she doesn't think it would be appropriate for the Board to require more than what was there. She strongly encourages continuing to work with the neighbors. Tsitsinos says the stairs have to come back a foot and half. Atkins asks what the building code requires. St. Pierre says this won't be a problem. Curran moves to approve petition with nine (9) standard conditions and the following • special conditions: construction vehicles on the site can't be parked there permanently; no dumpster can block any of the parking; and any common area damage sustained during construction is to be restored to its original condition, including the fence. Stein seconds; the motion passes 5-0 (Stein, Curran,Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Continued petition of WILLIAM WHARFF,seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units,on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem,MA (112 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. Attorney Grover requests to continue the petition to August 19, 2009. Debski moves to continue the hearing, Stein seconds; the motion passes 5-0 (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Continued petition of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST, seeking Variances from minimum lot width, minimum lot area; rear yard setback and lot area per unit to accommodate two duplex (two-family) homes at 24 SAUNDERS STREET,Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. • 5 Attorney Grover presents the petition. He briefly revisits the history of site and says it is • important to the hardship element of the case. He shows plan with the portion the state took by eminent domain outlined. He says when his clients purchased the land, they had wanted to file a full subdivision. They did file plans, but withdrew them when it became clear the state would taking some of the land for the bypass. He says two parcels were left, and that they are large, but with dimensional oddities that make development difficult. He explains the differences between the previously proposed plan and the newly revised one. Last time, two duplexes were proposed for a total of four units. He shows the old plans with original configuration. He says the biggest change is that they've reduced the density from four to two units: they are now proposing single family dwelling units. At the last meeting, there was concern about density, the size of the buildings, and interference with views. After that meeting, George Fallon, the developer, who is also present at tonight's hearing, scheduled a meeting with Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski and neighbors. Grover shows a map showing the locations of the residents George spoke to. He says they also brought out their engineer to figure out how to relocate the buildings to preserve site lines of abutters. As a result, the new plan shows the building locations have changed to maximize views from neighbors. Grover says there is a substantial change in elevation from the neighbors to the proposed structures, and as a result, the proposed houses are set much lower than the houses behind them, so views shouldn't be too impacted. He hands out renderings of the proposed houses. Grover says the variances requested are very minor; on lot Cl, 100 feet of lot width is • required, and 91 is requested. In all other respects, this lot complies with zoning. Lot coverage is 9%; 30% is permitted. For Lot C2, two variances required: lot size and rear yard setback— 18 feet is proposed and 30 is required for the rear yard. Grover discusses the other lot sizes around this property; he shows the assessor's plate showing properties he has marked that are smaller than this one. He then asks Fallon to talk about the selections he made to try to meet the neighbors' needs. George Fallon, 36 March St., says that after listening to neighbors' concerns about views at last meeting he brought the engineer out to position houses so they'd have minimum impact; they also we shrunk and lowered them. In response to the concerns that the duplexes were too bulky, he says he tried to find home designs and plans that would accommodate those concerns. He notes the neighborhood has an eclectic mix of architecture, and thought building a small house on C2 presented a good opportunity for a seaside cottage style with a partially exposed foundation. He used a design similar to bungalows popular in the first half of the 20`h century. He says even though they're single family houses and most of neighborhood is 2, 3 and some 4 family houses, these would be compatible with the neighborhood. Dionne says the plans are altered considerably, they are very nice, and the applicant really listened to neighbors; he says the project would be minimally invasive. • 6 • Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Joe DeVincentis, 12 Saunders St., has a concern with the entrance driveway of lot C1 — he says entry will be challenging. He points to the boulder in the road, part of the new state design at roadway extension, and says the driveway entrance doesn't look right by that boulder, and wouldn't this be a fire hazard? He also says the fire hydrant would have to be moved. He shows the Board a picture at the end of the roadway. Tsitsinos looks at photo, says he's looked at the site a lot and doesn't think it will be problem. Stein says Y the Board we always conditions their approvals on fire department. approval. Grover tells the Board he attended a One Stop meeting with the City, and Lt. Griffin says fine to pay to move the fire hydrant. Bob Chilton, 13 Saunders St., says he's not opposed, but was confused about how many stories the houses were. Fallon says one house is one story and the other is 1 '/2 stories. Since the elevation goes down, they would build into the site a little. Chilton apologizes for not being able to meet with Fallon sooner and says he would like the opportunity to meet with him and look at the plans;Fallon agrees. Jamie Donovan, 20 Cross St., says the bike path is being built, and won't it cut across this land? Stein says the bike path easement doesn't go across this property. • Donovan says this is too small a property to put a house on, and he opposes. He also says the City was supposed to put a drainage pond near the site. Stein says that pond is already there. Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl St., says the applicant came back with nice designs and the closest abutters happier. Based on these designs, if he decided to change them after approval, would he have to come back? Stein says the Board normally requires applicants to build according to submitted plans, and that it's St. Pierre's call to decide if a plan is different. St Pierre says it would have to be a very minor change not to have to come back to the Board, and that any footprint, dimensional change, etc. would have to come back—unless they were building less. Goldman says that at the last meeting, there were a lot of people opposed but that didn't seem to have an effect. He says the Board should take the public's interest into account and that a lot of people were in favor of keeping this land as open space. He says that before the applicant bought the land, it was clear it would be taken for the bypass, and as far back as 1996 there were conversations between state, city and neighborhood recommending a park. He says Fallon bought the property and had access to the recommendations that it be a park. As to the hardship argument, Goldman says the previous owner was compensated, then sold part of land, and there was therefore no 7 hardship. However, he says he's more pleased with the designs, that they take into consideration what the neighbors want. Liz McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., says if she had her choice, nothing would be built, but • the second version of the plans is much better than first. Her biggest concern besides views is parking. She says there is a lot of space left on that land, and it would be nice to reserve some of that space for parking. Stein says the new plan has a long turnaround in the driveway and invites McKinnon to come look. McKinnon also says the houses were moved to accommodate only one neighbor. McKinnon says at the first hearing on this project, there were people who spoke in support of the project who worked for Tache Realty. Fallon says that's not true, one of the people who spoke last time had worked for them once but hasn't for years. McKinnon says she is concerned that any illegal building will not be addressed as had happened in the past in this neighborhood. Grover says they can only build what's approved. Leslie Byrne, 16 Saunders St., says that although Mrs. McKinnon thinks the house was moved for her benefit, it was actually built for everyone's view, it's at a lower scale, and is a nicer home. She says Mr. Fallon worked hard to make the plan work with the neighborhood, and that it's better than it was. Valerie Calemese, 12 Saunders St., asks how snow removal will be addressed. Fallon says there is room at the end of the driveway. Tsitsmos says he agrees there's plenty of room. Stein asks if the Board can condition plowing; St. Pierre says we don't typically • for single family homes, but that the City does go out to clear out dead end streets after storms. McKnight says she received documents pertaining to the hearing from Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, who asked her to distribute them. She passes them out to the Board; they consist of: "Renewing the Bridge Street Neighborhood: A Report and Recommendations from the Bridge Street Neighborhood Advisory Committee, October 17, 1996'; a report from a Mass Highway Department public hearing held on 1/21/97; an untitled map showing a park at 24 Saunders St.; and a letter from John Cogliano, Commissioner, Mass Highway dated 12/4/03. McKnight explains these documents contain recommendations that were once made that the property be turned into a.park if the City acquired it, and that the Mass Highway letter explains that not all of the property was taken by the State for the Bypass Road. Debski raises the hardship issue, say that as a contaminated site, it would be costly to clean up. Grover says this hardship is not a stretch—they have a very strong hardship case; the state took what was otherwise developable land and left a difficult parcel; and the applicant has also spent money cleaning it. Stein comments that if left undeveloped, the land would not be a park because it won't be cleaned to that level. Grover confirms this and says it would will be capped and fenced. • 8 • Stein says the architectural styles should be included in the conditions. Debski moves to approve the petition with seven(7) standard conditions and the special condition that the houses are to be built consistent with the drawings and plans submitted to the Board, with the house on lot C1 consistent with the bungalow style and the house on Lot C2 consistent with the cottage style. Stein seconds the motion; a role call vote is taken. The motion passes 5-0 (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Debski moves to adjourn the meeting; Stein seconds. Motion passes 5-0 (Tsitsinos, Curran, Dionne, Debski and Stein in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourns at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner • 9 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 J TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 9 78-740-9846 •IMBERLEY ORISCOLL 1009 ANN -8 P 1: 38 MAYOR June 8, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of EMAD S. YOUNAN, M.D., requesting a Special Permit to change a currently nonconforming use (adjunct to a dermatological clinic) to another nonconforming use (physician's office) for the structure on the property located at 111 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA in the Residential One-Family (R-1) Zoning District. • A public hearing on the above Petition was opened and closed on May 21, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The following Zoning Board of Appeals members were present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, and Beth Debski, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 5-30) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The owner of the property is Hans Von Weiss. The petitioner, Emad S. Younan, M.D., is under agreement to purchase the property. 2. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner, at the hearing. Mr. Von Weiss was also in attendance. 3. The property at I I I Highland Avenue is currently an adjunct to a dermatological clinic, a nonconforming use in the Residential One-Family district. 4. In a petition dated April 24, 2009, the applicant requested a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use (adjunct to a dermatological clinic) to another (physician's office). 2 5. The petitioner stated in his application that improvements to the structure and • landscaping are planned. No proposed exterior alterations were submitted to the Board that required zoning relief. 6. Several members of the public spoke in favor of the petition, stating that they had had concerns relating to traffic and landscaping, but that after meeting with the petitioner, they were satisfied with solutions the petitioner agreed to. The Bo ard 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 special permit does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good, as the changes proposed would result in significant improvements to the property at 1 I I Highland Avenue; 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance; 3. In permitting such change, the Zoning Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 is granted to allow the change from one nonconforming use (adjunct to a dermatological clinic)to another(physician's office). In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Dionne, Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a 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. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 3 6. Petitioner will install "No Left Turn" and"No Entry" signage at the Wilson Street • driveway and curbing as shown on the plans submitted. 7. Petitioner shall plant six (6)-foot shrubbery as per the plan submitted, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Petitioner shall submit plan showing snow removal and storage areas to the Building Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit. 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. • • ONDIT�,Aw CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL e 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 1`.,... . SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2009 JUIIN _8 P 1: 38 MAYOR n CI I (11 ,.,, _ ... June 8, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST, seeking Variances from minimum lot width, minimum lot area, rear yard setback and lot area per dwelling unit to accommodate two duplex (two-family) homes at 24 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem, MA (112 zoning district). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 15, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The meeting was closed on May 20, 2009 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). • Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, §64, Table 1: Residential Density Regulations. Statements of fact: 1. In an application dated March 25, 2009, petitioner requested relief from dimensional requirements of the R-2 zone in order to construct two duplex homes on the property at 24 Saunders Street. 2. The petitioner submitted a statement with the application explaining the hardship associated with development of the property. According to the petitioner's statement, the property is the remainder of a larger parcel subject to a taking by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to accommodate construction of the bypass road. The remaining parcel, which is owned by the petitioner, does not meet dimensional requirements of a building lot under the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner's statement also describes the lead contamination found on the property and the expense associated with the necessary cleanup. 3. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner and owner of the property, Riverside Realty Trust. A public hearing on the Petition was opened on April 15, 2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The hearing was continued to May 20, 2009, when it was closed, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 2 • 4. On April 15, 2009, numerous members of the public expressed opposition to the petition, citing parking problems in the neighborhood, concerns about the new structures blocking other residents' views of the water, insufficient space for snow removal, an already-saturated housing market in the area, and a preference for the property to be converted to green space. The Board of Appeals also received letters from resident Debra Kirchheimer of 14 Lemon Street and Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, opposing the project. 5. Also at the April 15, 2009 meeting, two abutters spoke in support of the project. 6. The petitioner submitted revised plans following the hearing on April 15, 2009, and after meeting with abutters. The new plans showed one single-family home on each proposed lot instead of the originally proposed two duplex homes. Additionally, the house sizes and styles were altered. The new plan would require less relief: the project now only requires relief from lot width on one lot, and lot area and rear yard setback on the other. The applicant stated that these changes were made in order to address neighborhood concerns about density and water views. 7. At the May 20, 2009 meeting, several residents continued to voice concerns about the project; others expressed that while their preference would be for nothing to be built or for a park to be installed, that this proposal was an improvement over • the original. Correspondence and documents submitted to the Board by Councillor Sosnowski indicated that a neighborhood planning study conducted in 1996 had recommended that the property be converted to a park. 8. At its meeting on May 20, 2009, the Board of Appeals voted five(5) in favor and none(0) opposed to grant the Variances required to allow for the construction of one single-family home on each proposed lot, as shown on the revised plans submitted on May 14, 2009. 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant, considering the contamination present; 3. 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 zoning ordinance, and after the petitioner responded to neighbors' concerns, the Board found that the project would be"minimally invasive"; 3 4. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family District to • construct the proposed development, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance; 5. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 two single-family homes as proposed, the requested Variances from dimensional requirements are granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Stein, Tsitsinos, Debski 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. 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 numbers so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. The houses are to be constructed consistent with the drawings and plans submitted to the Board, with the house on lot CI consistent with the bungalow style and the house on Lot C2 consistent with the cottage style. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 4 • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. r • • oemr�.� 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 8 P 1: j8 MAYOR June 8, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of UNITED FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC, seeking Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks; allowance of two dwelling structures on the lot; and allowance of five (5) parking spaces; and a Special Permit to reconstruct a nonconforming structure, in order to reconstruct a detached unit, previously demolished, as part of a five-unit residential condominium, on the property located at 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE, Salem, MA (Bl zoning district). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 19, 2008 pursuant to • Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The meeting was closed on May 20, 2009 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §6-1, Residential Uses, and §6-4, Table II: Business and Industrial Density Regulations. Petitioner also seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Salem Zoning Ordinance, §5-3 0), Special Permit Uses: Extension of Nonconformity. Statements of fact: 1. In a decision dated December 7, 2005, the Board of Appeals granted the relief needed to allow the reconstruction of a detached unit, previously demolished, as part of a five-unit residential condominium. A Special Permit and Variances were granted with eighteen (18) conditions to the petitioner and owner at the time, Dean Borders. 2. Reconstruction of the unit was never completed, and several of the Board of Appeal's conditions were not met. The Building Commissioner ordered the remainder of the unit, which had been only partially demolished, to be torn down completely. The property was foreclosed on by its mortgager, United Financial Consultants LLC, which then acquired the property from itself at auction. • 3. Since the demolition of the detached fifth unit, the owners of the four units in the front building have had difficulty selling and refinancing their units. 2 Additionally, the owners of the four existing units have incurred expenses from • higher insurance, required construction of a fence around the demolition site, costs of demolition, and the nonpayment of condominium association fees from the fifth unit for some of the time the unit remained unoccupied. 4. In a petition dated October 28, 2008, the current owner and petitioner, United Financial Consultants LLC, requested Variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum front,side and rear yard setbacks; and a Special Permit to reconstruct the unit, which was a nonconforming structure. The Building Commissioner determined that the petitioner also required Variances for the allowance of two dwelling structures on the lot and allowance of five (5) parking spaces, in order to complete the reconstruction. 5. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the United Financial Consultants LLC. A public hearing on the Petition was opened on November 19, 2008, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The hearing was continued to January 21, 2009, February 18, 2009, March 18, 2009, April 15, 2009, and May 20, 2009, when it was closed, with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 6. The petitioner submitted revised plans following the hearings on November 19, 2008, March 18, 2009, and April 15, 2009. • 7. The original plans submitted showed a reconstructed unit with a different configuration than the original structure in order to create additional space to bring the parking into conformance with zoning; the original plan had not shown sufficient parking area to meet zoning requirements. 8. Opposition to the petition was voiced at the November 19, 2008 meeting. Attorney Anthony Keck, representing the owners of units 2, 4 and 5 of 272 Jefferson Avenue, objected to a plan that used common space of the condominium without the consent of the association. He also raised objections to the design of the unit and the parking configuration. Several other abutters objected to anything being reconstructed in that space and cited concerns about snow storage and aesthetics. 9. Support for the petition was voiced by Colin Martin, the owner of 272 Jefferson Avenue, unit 3,'who urged the rapid reconstruction of unit 1 because he had been unable to sell his unit due to the demolition. The Board expressed concern that if they approved the plan before them, the petitioner would not have the legal right to construct it because it used common space belonging to the entire condominium association. Since some of the unit owners objected to the plan, permission to use the common space would likely not be granted . and the petitioner would have to come back to the Board with another proposal. The Board asked the petitioner to rethink his proposal. 3 10. Following comment from the public hearing on November 19, 2008, the applicant • submitted a revised plan dated March 13, 2009 showing plans for the reconstruction of unit 1 that approximated the original footprint. The applicant appeared before the Board again on April 15, 2009 and presented the revised application. Attorney Atkins stated that negotiations for a buyout plan of unit 1 by the other unit owners had been unsuccessful. 11. At the April 15, 2009 meeting, owners of units 2, 4 and 5 again expressed opposition to the plan, stating they would not oppose reconstruction if it were done in the same footprint as the original, but they felt the proposed building was too large. The owner of unit 3 was not present, and Attorney Keck stated that this unit was in foreclosure. 12. Board members also expressed concern that while the building design was closer to the original than the prior submittal, the dimensions were not exactly the same. Members of the Board expressed that they preferred a design in exactly the same footprint and with the same dimensions as the original. The applicant conceded that some of the calculations of the building's dimensions were incorrect. 13.Following public comments and Board feedback at the April 15, 2009 meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans showing construction of a reproduction of the original building, on what was estimated to be the exact same footprint as the original, with the exception of a one-foot perimeter setback from the property • line, where none had originally existed. The petitioner again appeared before the Board at its May 20, 2009 meeting and presented the revised plans. 14. At the May 20, 2009 meeting, opposition was voiced by several abutters who wished to see no rebuilding at all. However, residents of units 2, 4 and 5 of 272 Jefferson Avenue, represented by Attorney Keck, did not oppose the reconstruction as proposed, so long as the petitioner altered the plans to shorten the porch and not block parking areas during construction. 15. At its meeting on May 20, 2009, the Board of Appeals voted five(5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant the Variances and Special Permit required to allow the reconstruction of unit 1 as proposed in the revised plan dated May 12, 2009 prepared by Winter Street Architects, Inc. 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. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial • hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant; 4 3. 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 zoning ordinance, since the proposed plan is a reconstruction of a building that existed previously; 4. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family District to construct the proposed development, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance; 5. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 reconstruction of the condominium unit as proposed,the requested Variances from dimensional, density and parking requirements are granted. 2. To allow for the reconstruction of a structure with a nonconforming use, the requested Special Permit is granted. • In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Curran, Stein, Tsitsinos, Debski 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. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • 8. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said numbers so as to be visible from the street. 5 9. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 10. Construction vehicles cannot be parked permanently on the site. 11. No dumpster on the site may block parking at any time. 12. Any common areas of the condominium— including the fence—that sustains any damage shall be restored to its original condition. 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. • ��onorTq�a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS -_ BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALFAI,MASSACI-[USE ITS 01970 G{MINE -_..--. 'l'nt.e.:978-6195685 * bAx.978-740-0404 Kmnu.ai.ry Diuscor.i. MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,May 20, 2009 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: Emad S. Youan,M.D. Location: l 11 Highland Ave, Salem, MA Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit sought to change one nonconforming use (adjunct to a dermatological clinic)to another(physician's office)(R-1 zoning district) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on June 8, 2009 Petition of: United Financial Consultants,LLC Location: 272 Jefferson Avenue, Salem, MA Request: Variances and Special Permit Description: Variances sought from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks; allowance of two dwelling structures on the lot; and allowance of five(5)parking spaces; and a Special Permit sought to reconstruct a nonconforming structure, in order to reconstruct a detached unit, previously demolished, as part of a five-unit residential condominium (B-1 Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on June 8, 2009 Petition of: Riverside Realty Trust Location: 24 Saunders Street, Salem, MA Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from minimum lot width, minimum lot area,rear yard setback and lot area per dwelling unit to accommodate two duplex (two-family homes (R-2 zoning district) Decision: Approved, but dimensional relief necessary to construct two single-family homes (rather than two duplexes) was granted. Filed with the City Clerk on June 8, 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. City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date S_ /Name Mailing Address Phone # Email s 975=7elf-97�fC a aco»ee s� h� 14,(jV S o/Rug /arrc4sA/07L /l1C" te/ 6�"Ilv - �n�S .� fl� .r�p1 Aug �7Fs � o89g � Zvi �;e4 S 30AY, �-tv -)Y, '3�3s &W E /y�l oni��odA/L /J_ /� 9,v rZE�s S.. ? ?p 7 V /_ �d5t -0 .7? Lori �i��2 o GA5�_ L& 4 2199-7-M E2d Yvewc-// l6 Sa.0 n� Pns 6f Sry�� .er o �srt f+/ cod/ Pap-1 of A_ i City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date ame Mailing Address Phone # Email rl s _ (obJ umrl6u.)ntG CAI 4)01 <„ �sca 373 �SSex S�• 211q .�u3e�� ��Vnc��„h3 �Z S.rHr �,,, ��• `l7fj 7y`1 St✓ ��`� 179 7yy sy 9 U �c.i b c11 'j orS t wnc J C17SS 74S 1 ab! J Unliy 141 � - r1f Ge5/1e, Sa4tpi �C �LLI 9' 7 `! S-�G5 J �` T 9 -SaUh! PJ'� 7Y ��1� z�c.Lccw�l�- 4 3 f-�ll,��;,���. �'7&' 7yy- r 9%G�✓ — �o�� ��P�•� St - . �17 So3�Io3� . -7 ` c7 c C .T7�s Yr4 8I I g 6r - LtZC Ida cK�nc lG Sr _ « w r � i Page 2— of City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email �SvbaGQ iM 4�� AflSkALQ�1) AVI;,S�1Er, `>7� -7yy-ti7G� 4�VC131C`1 �1aL A/lt w Og (,6--Tg-tl, Aa fti yr �' .d/q1�:,in `, -_) 7�c1/i , o F4 OVi I cfze,&sT S-0O"K 74' 25_ 4 R �C' a� rs�)A✓��. w�ti II Sr.,l,,�l'P f le `z � iu,�, l„K�,�n l7' S4u �/o•s SY SH1,, -2x 5-,0/ 6 ��POI CA,if.< .� . J iy✓ 7L 2ti � , 47 ( � �_ ���O�P/1Id!✓�L�jjYU2Ml Sf Mi4kAel . P. Ca 1OWtAq`'` � T ctF +► Q� �syi2.0 6� 7 Z! Li�vDb ! s i /7f3 7y� 7f�73 EG nycrE A-/�sUrcvicw3 CICU MI Ok i S' n Y��i�riti -i�r•vl� ,� S OLzSS,: q78•- s3y-oS`3 � P,. _ 7 �� c�, 7�/-3/6 -y50 We44 el L u ►r�l1u i� Z17Z .k ri7cn A,ie (9r7 ) �cq� . 9 -4 W� 33� � 1 (4 )-U C' vZdSS ,I � c ) -/7F.l vw �/YYC l�i. _�c,ge 9- Pkfl/YFl- ,VS -ST. l'i2SO- 75`y- S9V6 l ti t Nc I ( i�L10.V ST Cr �IIY7( 5c172 SSros l�-v rLl!vi.�ttrc.rUN Page j 0ff CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL Z `q !r� fir, 120 WA$HINGTON STREET+SALEM,MASSAc}RJSETTS 01970 _..... - 'F LE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEYDRISGOLL MAYOR n "'I N Q AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING r April 15 2009 - 6.30• P.M. ="�=3AD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stein, Chair t/j67!'{; > V 1. Approval of Minutes—March 18,2009 meeting and amendments to February 18,2009'ifleeting. 2. Old/New Business: o Request of EDWARD AND JUDY BURGE to extend variances granted on May 21, 2008 to June 5, 2010 for the property at 29 LINDEN STREET. 3. Continued 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). Attorney George Atkins. 4. Continued petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently nonconforming use (office space)to another nonconforming use (multifamily residential)to allow conversion of the existing office space on the first floor to five residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. 5. Continued petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO, seeking variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for twelve (12) single-family homes at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem,MA(RI zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. 6. Petition of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST,seeking Variances from minimum lot width, minimum lot area; rear yard setback and lot area per unit to accommodate two duplex(two-family)homes at 24 SAUNDERS STREET, Salem,MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. 7. Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9)residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem, MA(R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. 8. Adjournment 'This ncrtice posted on "®fflcE B "U letin ���rda City Hall Ralem, M,2SS. or �' ��D� at / 3��. lC� � � 1 3 2,fi ('1��1, 30 8 23A & 23B Of M GJ� , • �� . CITY OF SALEM DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND rme4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM, MASSACHUSE'rTs 01970 MAYOR TEL: 978-619-5685 FAX: 978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN, AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: April 7, 2009 . RE: Meeting Agenda—April 15, 2009 Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of March 18, 2009 and February 18, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: I. Approval of Minutes March 18, 2009 meeting and amendments to February 18,2009 meeting (pages 9-11 only). I know the minutes from 2/18 have already been approved, but I discovered a member of errors in the final 3 pages (9 through 11) and thought I ought to correct them before final approved minutes are posted. The corrections are very minor—I just wanted to clarify a few points and fix some typos. 2. Old/New Business Because there are five possibly lengthy hearings on this agenda, I moved this item up to the beginning. • Edward and Judy Burge are requesting to extend variances granted on May 21, 2008 to June 5, 2010 for their property at 29 LINDEN STREET. They have submitted a letter (a copy is in your packet) explaining that due to Mrs. Burge's illness and economic hardship, they have not yet been able to finance the project. 3. Continued 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 foe the property located at 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE,Salem, MA (Bl zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. Attorney Atkins has submitted new plans for the reconstruction of the unit. He tells me the plans are based on the original structure, though this will not be an exact replica. No plans are available that show the original building before demolition. Attorney Atkins has discussed the new plans with the other condominium residents, and tells me there are still concerns among them about the building height and the parking. 4. Continued petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use(multifamily residential) to allow conversion of the existing office space on the first floor to five residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET,Salem, MA (112 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. Revised plans, included in your packet, show four residential units (instead of five, as in the previously submitted plans). Revised external elevations also show alterations to the windows, done in response to Board comments that the previously proposed windows were more appropriate to an office use than residential. 5. Continued petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO, seeking variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for twelve (12) single-family homes at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA(Rl zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. Revised plans, included in your packet, show eleven lots (instead of twelve, as in the previous plans). 010 of the lots originally shown adjacent to Highland Ave. has been removed, and several of the remaining lots are now larger. In response to Board concerns about the proximity of the proposed new roadway to the abutter at 403 Highland Ave., the proposed roadway from Highland into the site has been angled away from the property at 403. The plans show a landscaping easement in the area between 403 and the road. This change has also altered the size of lots 1 and 2 and changes the placement of their driveways. 6. Petition of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST, seeking Variances from minimum lot width, minimum lot area; rear yard setback and lot area per unit to accommodate two duplex (two-family) homes at 24 SAUNDERS STREET,Salem, MA (112 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. The proposed project is on land that remains from a taking by the Commonwealth for the bypass road. In 2003, before the taking occurred, the owner filed a Form A Approval Not Required plan, subdividing 24 Saunders St. into three lots, A, B and C. The plan was approved, with the following notation: "Lot B is not in compliance with zoning, no building permit shall issue prior to further action by the Salem Planning Board or the Salem Board of Appeals." Lot A was developed and sold. Lot C remained and was later reconfigured by the taking. While the City Assessor's records show that Lot C is owned by the state, the applicant has submitted plans from the taking showing the portion of the lot that remains in his possession. I will have these on hand at the meeting. What remains of 24 Saunders is the two lots shown on the plans in your packet. The lots lack sufficient 1lo width/frontage (100 feet is required in the R2 zone, and lots C1 and C2 have 5 and 78 feet of frontage, respectively). Therefore, a waiver from frontage will also be required from the Planning Board. Only lot C2 lacks sufficient area (10,143 SF where 15,000 SF is required). Lot C2 also lacks sufficient lot area per 2 unit (5,072 SF where 7500 SF is required). In addition, Lot C2's rear yard is 13 feet, where a 30 foot rear yard is required. 07. Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking a Variance from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET,Salem, MA (112 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. The only exterior change proposed is a new side entry to the building. While the applicant has requested relief from side yard setback requirements, this relief is not necessary if the entryway is uncovered. The minimum lot area per dwelling in the R2 zone is 7,500 SF; the proposed lot area per dwelling for this project is 1,666 SF. • • �, 3 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, April 15, 2009 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 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, Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Annie Harris, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Bonnie Belair(alternate) was absent. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre (Building Commissioner) and Danielle McKnight (Staff Planner). Stein opens the meeting at 6:35 PM. Approval of Minutes Dionne moves to approve minutes of the 3/18/09 meeting; Stein seconds. Motion passes 3-0 (Dionne, Stein, Tsitsinos). Harris moves to approve corrections to the 2/18/09 minutes; Dionne seconds. Motion passes 4-0 (Curran, Dionne, Harris, Tsitsinos). Old/New Business • Request of EDWARD AND JUDY BURGE to extend variances granted on May 21, 2008 to June 5, 2010 for the property at 29 LINDEN STREET. Edward Burge presents his request, explains that his wife has suffered from an illness, and that this and financial difficulties have prevented them from going forward with the work. However, they still wish to complete the work and request an extension for the variances through June 5, 2010. Stein notes that this seems like a reasonable amount of time to request. Curran moves to approve the request; Stein seconds, and the motion passes 6-0 (Curran, Stein, Dionne, Tsitsinos, Debski, Harris). Public Hearings Continued 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). Attorney George Atkins. Attorney Atkins presents the petition, noting it had been continued previously because of negotiations with the other condo owners and because time was needed to complete a • new plan in response to Board and neighbor comments. Atkins reviews the history of the 1 project, explaining the financing issues the project has had. He says his client wishes to • replace the old building with a new one on the same footprint. He explains the previous plan had allowed more parking, but in response to the Board's comments that the building should be on the original footprint, some parking would be lost from the previous plan. Atkins distributes the floor layout plan from the original plan, which didn't show elevations, height, correct parking space size, or setbacks correctly. He then distributes a photo showing the original building. He explains the new design is 925 SF of floor area for the building, compared with the original footprint of 1272 SF. He shows the new elevation drawings and says the new building is shorter than the original. He also says they tried to get as close as possible to the original plan. He then shows the new parking plan. He notes that the plans have been shown to the other residents, and that they are not happy with them. Curran asks if each owner has a deeded parking space; Atkins responds that no, the condo owns each space. Stein asks if the Board is being asked to approve something that takes parking rights away from anyone; Atkins says no. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Bob Levesque, 373 Essex St., and his son, Joshua Levesque, owner of 268 Jefferson Ave., say they bought their house to restore but didn't know the history of this property. Bob Levesque shows pictures of their house when it was purchased and the work subsequently done on it to the Board. • Harris asks if the Levesque's issue with the proposal is the design. Bob Levesque says yes, the property is better without the rebuilt condo, since it would block views. He says their property is already devalued because of the market. Kevin McGrath, 3 Arthur St., said the applicant had said he would keep neighbors informed, but this has not happened. He states his opposition to the rebuilding of the original structure, since it's been three years since it was there. He also says the original structure was not as tall as the proposed one. Attorney Anthony Keck, who represents 272 Jefferson Ave. units 2, 4 and 5 (unit 3 is in foreclosure), shows a picture of the old building from unit 5's perspective. He says the original plan is probably not accurate, but that this photo shows there were at least 4 parking spaces. The photo shows how people got in and out of the property to park; he says the space was tight. He then says that on the original site plan, there is a plan for a porch that is not in the new plans. He says that the condo master deed allows for the porch construction by unit 2. Stein says that the site plan before the Board is not a condominium site plan; Keck says he will get to why the plan of this space is important. Keck says the original footprint of the building can be seen in the photo, since it was never repaved, and that the new proposal is larger than the original footprint. He says the • 2 • old building was 27' by 19', without a porch, and the proposed structure is 30' by 20'11". He says the proposal would make it difficult to enter and exit the driveway. He also questions how the original height was calculated by the applicant, since the original building had a mansard roof. He says the proposed plan would involve building on common areas, which the applicant doesn't have the right to do. He also says the applicant doesn't have the right to redraw the parking spaces. Additionally, he says they would need the lenders' approval from all units to have the right to do either of these. He says the owners have the exclusive right to the parking, and two spaces would be gone with the new plan. He asks who would lose a parking space. Stein asks what would happen to the title if nothing was built. Keck responds that there could be various solutions; a court could divide it up. He also says the residents were not opposed to something rebuilt of a similar size square footage of the original, but that counting the old porch area had added square footage to the proposed building. Mike Goderre, 272 Jefferson Ave. unit 5, shows the dimensions in his photos of the driveway, and points out how tight it was, with room for four cars. Harris says she has trouble seeing that the proposal is much larger than the original. Goderre shows on the photo where the porch came to. Tom St. Pierre says the new house elevation would be 277' to the ridge in height. Goderre says the new plan is better than the old one, but not good, and the loss of parking was a problem. • Harris asks if the main issue is the size. Goderre says it's the intrusion on the common area, the loss of parking, and mistrust of the owner since he doesn't like the way this has been handled. Stein asks what unit 1 was when Goderre purchased unit 5; he responds that he thought they were simply going to renovate unit 1. Debski asks if the building was exactly the same as the original, would the condo association object to it; Goderre says the applicant had already had a chance to do that. Paul Trellopoulos, 272 Jefferson Ave. unit 4, asked why the applicant wanted to reconstruct the unit, since he says there is no longer a sewer or gas connection, and the foundation is gone. Laura Trellopoulos, also of 272 Jefferson Ave. unit 4, says the other condo owners had paid for the demolition of that building, which was $6,000 that won't be recouped; she says they needed to do it to keep their insurance. She says they also paid for a fence, which cost about$1500. She says they now need a roof and don't have it, and expresses frustration at this long process and the fact that no conclusion has been reached yet. Silvia Updegrave, 272 Jefferson Ave., unit 2, agrees with the other two condo owners, saying she does not want to give up parking spaces or common areas. Brandy McGrath, 3 Arthur St., says the proposed 27' height is taller than what was there previously. She says the excess parking will end up on her street, and that the former house was right on the property line. She opposes the project. • 3 Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, 17 Lawrence Street, says the previous owner created • the problem. He asks if the applicant will separate from the condo association. Stein says she doesn't know, but the applicant has not asked for that relief. Pelletier points out the applicant was the mortager and resold to himself at auction. He says the building was demolished at the residents' cost, and he has heard some of the unit owners say that if the building was rebuilt as it was then that would be fine. He also says he feels for the condo owners, who are out a lot of money and aren't getting condo fees from the applicant. He knows the applicant wants to make his money back, which he has no problem with, but not at the expense of the other owners, who have already lost money and risked their insurance. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Stein asks St. Pierre if the new plan is scaled and if he could check the dimensions. St. Pierre says according to the scaled plan, the building footprint is 17' by 31', and the proposed structure is 20'11" by 35'. Stein asks if the 31' dimension includes the porch; St. Pierre says no, they would need to add another 6.5' to account for the porch, meaning the old footprint was 17' by 37.5' and the proposed building would be 20' 11" by 35'. Stein says she doesn't see the point in the Board giving relief for this project if the applicant doesn't have the authority to build it. She says in order to rebuild it must be in the exact footprint of the original, otherwise it will encroach on condominium common space. Also, she says the new building cannot take away exclusive use parking—this • would require a change in the condo master plan. Atkins says the last plan he submitted had more parking in order to comply with zoning; that was objected to,so they revised the plans trying to replicate the original footprint— a plan which does not leave enough room for parking. Atkins says the condo documents for units 1 through 5 show easements for the exclusive use for the use of spaces in the open parking area shown in the condominium plans, so the obvious design was to arrange something for the open area, whatever it is. Stein disagrees, saying that as shown on the plan, there are five spaces and five units with easements for exclusive use for the parking as shown in the open area on the plan. Atkins says if the building still existed as shown on the plan, cars would not actually be able to access those spaces. Stein says it is the residents' problem to deal with whether they can get in there, but they have a right to that space. Atkins says he agrees. Atkins says as to the height issue, they made the best judgment they could based on what they knew about the original. He asks Paul Durand, the architect who prepared the new submittal, to explain how they arrived at the dimensions, and says they were not trying to be deceitful. Durand says he tried to approximate the footprint based on what they had; the first pan submitted was "parking centric." When they heard the residents didn't like that and were clear that parking was not the priority, they came up with this plan, using estimates for • 4 • the new building dimensions based on the original plan available. He says the mass is different, but they tried to make the best estimate for the original dimensions. Curran asks why they went outside the original footprint. Durand responds that their calculations were slightly off. Curran asked if their intention was to stay within the footprint. Durand says yes. Stein tells Durand he should get the full-sized original plan at the Registry of Deeds; Durand says they tried to find it, but what they found was just a small one they had to enlarge. Durand says they could scale the building back. Atkins says he wants to respond to a number of comments made about his client and clarifies that he has been paying his condo fees, contrary to other residents' comments. Atkins invites his client to speak. DJ Scholl, the owner, says that for 50 years, the building was there, and abutters saw the . building. Later on, he says those people bought a condo with a building there. He says his condo fees are current. He says all he wants to do is rebuild. Curran asks if he considered building the original again. Atkins says it could be a choice, but he doesn't think it's attractive. He also says perhaps it's his fault for not involving the neighbors more and apologizes for that; he thought he had a relationship through the condo association. That wasn't so, and he says it's his • error. He says there have been constant efforts to resolve this, and that it will probably go to some form of litigation, though he would rather this not happen. He says they are not trying to take away land from anyone; they simply want to rebuild. Stein says the sentiment of the Board last time was that they had no problem with building something comparable to the original structure, but this plan looks bigger. Also, she says a lot of logistics needed to be worked out regarding the relationship between the applicant and the condo association, and this is a private matter. Scholl says he wants a resolution—he wants to rebuild. Stein says she understands, but according to zoning, the Board can't approve something bigger than the original. Curran says they can't take any common area, and both the massing and the footprint can't be bigger than the original. She also says the fact that the parking never worked with the original isn't the applicant's problem, but they can't infringe on any area outside the original building. Harris also says she's uncomfortable allowing the building to go outside the original footprint, and says it's hard to resolve this fairly because how does the Board know what the footprint really was? Stein says there could be some give and take with the exact design of the second floor structure., but the total space this building takes up on the ground cannot be different, and • that she would not be inclined to approve a second floor that was substantially larger than 5 the previous second floor. She says she has no problem putting things back to the way • they were before, not just in utility but in function. Atkins asks if they should continue the hearing and redesign again, trying again to get the original footprint correct? And would the Board take a plan that ignores parking? Stein says that is a quagmire; either the Board needs to approve a plan that conforms with zoning, or they need to issue variances. She says the Board's responsibility is respecting the zoning ordinance, and if the applicant comes in with a plan that doesn't show enough legal parking, he must request a variance. She says to get the most legal parking they can. Curran says the condo association would have to be a co-applicant for a plan that took away parking; Stein says no, because just because the Board approves something doesn't change it in the condo association's master deed. Dionne asks, once the building was demolished, what dictates the proximity of the buildings? St. Pierre explains the building code takes care of that through required materials. Stein asks how much time the applicant needs to resubmit. Durand says they can do it quickly and could have it by the next meeting. Debski says space 3 has the correct dimensions, but is a setback required? St. Pierre says • it needs a 2-foot buffer to the property line, which they have. Dionne notes that there are differences in how mansard roofs were once counted as stories; St. Pierre says today it's considered 2 stories. Stein says the original did not have a full second floor, and the Board did not want to see one. Dionne moves to continue the hearing to May 20, 2009; Stein seconds. The motion passes 6-0 (Dionne, Stein, Tsitsinos, Curran, Harris, Debski in favor, none opposed). Petition of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST, seeking Variances from minimum lot width, minimum lot area; rear yard setback and lot area per unit to accommodate two duplex (two-family) homes at 24 SAUNDERS STREET,Salem, MA (112 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. Attorney Grover presents the petition. He gives a brief history of the property, explaining it was once a baby shoe factory. He says a form A subdivision plan was filed but withdrawn because a taking for the bypass road was imminent. He shows on the plan the land that remains of 24 Saunders St. and shows the dimensions, explaining the relief requested. He explains Saunders St. was extended as a result of the bypass construction, and there is now access to one of the proposed lots that had previously not been accessible. Grover explains the hardship associated with the property: the lots were created as a result of the taking—the are large but don't comply with zoning because of how they are now configured. He says the soil has been tested, and lead contamination • 6 • was found in the middle of a state mandated cleanup. He says cleaning up the lead will be costly, and that if the property could be used as a residential use, it would be cleaned to a higher standard; if it could not be developed for residential use, it would simply be capped, fenced, left undeveloped, and cleaned to a lower standard. Grover shows the lots around the neighborhood, pointing out that many are undersized. He says he attended a One Stop meeting with City departments the previous week and no major objections were voiced. However, he says the City Planner commented on the ability of cars to back out of the driveway of Lot C, and that St. Pierre had suggested a hammerhead to turn around. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Sean Mahoney, 1 Lemon Street Court, speaks in opposition to the project, citing concerns about loss of property value and blocking of his view of the water. Curran asks if he has a view easement. Mahoney asks what a view easement is. Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., says he met with George Fallon, the developer, who gave him the plans, which he took to neighbors. He says he spoke to all direct abutters except for two properties. Frank Brown, 16 Pearl St., spoke in favor of the project, saying what's there now is an • eyesore. Tom McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., opposes the project. He says the land is contaminated, and also, the owners knew the bypass, and therefore the land taking, was coming. He says the view from their house will be lost, and also that snow removal on the street is a problem—it's a dead end. Elizabeth McKinnon, 14 Saunders St., complains about an illegally built house at 14 Pearl St. She says the neighborhood was originally promised extra parking spaces. She says she doesn't want more illegally built homes. She says the property is neglected and she doesn't trust the owner. She said they'd always been told the lot across from them was unbuildable. She is also concerned about decreasing property values. Joe DeVincentis, 12 Saunders St., is also concerned about the view. Andy Goldman, 11 Pearl St., reads a letter from resident Debra Kirschheimer of 14 Lemon St., who opposes the project: when the taking occurred, she says the owner received compensation from the taking because the lot was "unbuildable." She says the neighborhood is overcrowded with houses and the housing market is saturated. She also says there is a history with the neighborhood with the building of the Pearl St. houses, and that the residents were promised green space. Goldman also says he opposes issuing variances for this project; he says one lot is too • small and zoning should be strictly adhered to. He points out that a fire hydrant would 7 have to be rerouted to accommodate construction. He says there has been recent flooding . on the street and the neighborhood is too dense anyway. He says the property was bought on speculation, and the owner knew about the taking for the bypass, so he could not claim hardship. He says the owner sold part of the original land, which landlocked the other part. He also says state had negotiated with the Bridge St. neighborhood and residents were told the park would be built during the bypass negotiations. He also has concerns about views, lowered property values and snow removal. David Brickner, 12 Pearl St., opposes, citing concerns about snow removal. Dan Dugery, 11 Saunders St., opposes, citing concerns about views and the lead contamination on the property—he fears risks from airborne particulates, and says capping would be much safer. Marlys Vaughan, 14 Cross St., says there is not enough room on the property for what they propose. Valerie Calamese., 12 Saunders St., opposes, saying the view will be lost and the project will "box in" the neighborhood. Leslie Byrne, 16 Saunders St., mentions the selection of the area as a neighborhood preservation district. She also says the property had once been considered unbuildable. She opposes the proposal, saying the dimensions are not right for the neighborhood. She • is also concerned about property values. She says the project doesn't fit with neighborhood character or historic preservation goals. She also says the neighborhood was once promised a park there. Carol Chilton, 13 Saunders St., opposes, agreeing with her neighbors. Councillor Sosnowski says a series of meetings took place when the bypass was proposed, and Mass Highway and previous City Planner Joe Walsh had promised pocket parks at the ends of the side streets, and that there was a lot discussed that never happened. He supports the neighbors' position in opposing the project. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Curran asks if there is a DEP order on the property to clean it up; Grover says yes. Harris asks if the lots on most surrounding properties were mostly one or two family homes; Leslie Byrne says they are mostly two family, with some single family and some three family homes. Harris asks if the same relief would be needed for one family homes. Grover says it's an interesting question; they would still need lot area, but not lot area per dwelling unit, still a lot width variance, and it would probably fix the setback problem. • 8 • Curran asks if an AUL will be needed, and would it be allowed for single family homes; Grover says only if the property isn't used as a residence because of the level of cleanup required. Because of the contamination, he says it can't be a park— it would be capped and fenced. Grover reads a letter from the 14 Pearl St. owners, who support the project since the lots are currently unkempt. George Fallon explains why the houses are positioned as they are toward cross St. Court, saying they had spoken to neighbors and agreed to give Leslie Byrne a sight easement and position houses so they didn't block her view. He says the site is flexible and no one behind#16 would be affected. Stein proposes a site visit—not a scheduled one as a Board, but suggests members visit the site individually. She also suggests submitting revised plans and speaking to abutters first about different possibilities for building locations. Harris asks why one of the homes doesn't have a garage; Fallon says to keep the building small. Stein encourages soliciting more neighborhood input and suggests continuing to the next meeting. Dionne asks for further explanation of the site cleanup plans; Curran asks if there is an • LSP assigned, and if so, who is it? Grover says George Fallon is responsible and is conducting air quality monitoring. Fallon also paid for the city to relocate the water line that was misplaced and for the engineer to design the new location. Curran moves to continue the matter to the May 20, 2009 hearing; Dionne seconds. The motion passes 6-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Debski, Harris, Tsitsinos in favor; none opposed). Stein says the Board will take a jive-minute break. Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking Variances from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and Special Permits to change one nonconforming use to another and to increase existing side yard setback nonconformity, to accommodate conversion of an office building to nine (9) residential condominium units, on the property located at 162 FEDERAL STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney Scott Grover. Attorney Grover presents the petition on behalf of the applicant and shows the Board a letter from the owner giving permission to go forward with this application. Grover shows photos of the building, explaining it was once used as a convent and then as a nonprofit counseling service. It's now a mental health clinic, which wants to relocate. Wharff has the property under agreement subject to his ability to convert it to a . residential use. He is proposing a conversion into 9 units. Grover explains the relief 9 needed and says the exterior is to remain the same except for a new entryway. He . discusses access, which would be from Federal St., with traffic now diverted to Bridge St. He says there is an access easement over the Archdiocese property, a logical place for a curb cut. He says this proposal would turn a heavy commercial use into a residential one, also rerouting traffic away from Federal St. As to the matter of hardship, Grover says there is 16,000 SF of space and a leaking oil tank. He says the cleanup would be expensive, and the property is being remediated now. Grover says this is different from other properties on the street because of the size and contamination. He says the proposal is consistent with zoning— it would change an intense commercial use to a residential use more appropriate to the R2 zone. Dionne asks if this was originally a one family property. Grover says no, it was built as a convent. Curran asks what size the units would be; Grover responds by inviting Wharff to speak about the proposed layout. He says each unit would be 1500 to 2000 SF. There would be 8 flats and one townhouse. Each would be a 2 or 3 bedroom unit with a minimum of 2 to 2 1/2 baths. He says finishings would be well done. He says he could contractually do 12 units, but felt that was too many. Harris asks for clarification about the square footage, saying there is a discrepancy between the assessor's records and the plan, and wants to know if the fourth floor and basement are included in the calculations. Curran notes that the Board must determine whether the proposed use would be less • detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use and asks the applicant to explain more about the current use. Grover says the property has constant regular traffic with people getting counseling and medication, and employees coming and going. Stein opens up the issue for public comment. John Carr, 7 River St., representing the Federal St. Neighborhood Association, says he opposes the density. He says this would be a substantial increase in use, and that the mental health clinic hours were just 9-4— this use would be 24/7. He passes out an analysis of the buildings on Federal St. based on assessor records. He says he wants to strike a balance between the number of units, parking and yard space. Harris asks if his numbers were from the assessor; Carr says yes. Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., says the neighborhood association has met twice about this proposal and feels the number if units is too high. Shelby Hypes, 157 Federal St., expresses concerns about the neighborhood character considering the location in the McIntyre District. She says there are mostly one and two family homes here and opposes the construction of a basement apartment. She says she has confidence in Wharff to do a beautiful job, she just opposes the number of units. She gives the Board a petition with 53 signatures opposing the project. . 10 • Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., says Carr's records on the size of the property are more accurate than the applicant's. She says the current use generates mostly clients on foot and traffic is not currently a problem. She also says the building's size is not unique and that many of the houses on the street are very large. She says the proposal has too many units. Ken Wallace, 172 Federal St., says the broker gave out information on area sale history and that bigger units sell better than small ones. Erica Udoff, 155 Federal St., opposes the project, saying it was too many people for the neighborhood. Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St., says most homes in the neighborhood are 2000 to 3000 SF, and he wants larger homes in the neighborhood to attract less transient residents. He also says there are too many units proposed. Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., says the current use is not intense, and that the clients are quiet. He says there are occasional pickups. He wants fewer units. Councillor Sosnowski notes the character of the homes on the streets and says the interiors are important as well as the exteriors, and that a building needed to have large . units to keep the indoor detail that gives character to the homes on this street. He would support 4 units, maybe 5, but not 9, and opposes the current plan. Stein closes the public portion of the hearing. Stein notes that it may be helpful to the applicant to know that 95 Federal St. is averaging 1888 SF per unit, and another nearby building is averaging 2492 SF per unit. William Wharff introduces himself and says he has a history of working with this neighborhood, and he is not the type of developer to force too many units on a neighborhood for a greater return on his investment. Wharff says, however, that with 4 or 5 units in the building, with each floor being 3000 to 4000 SF, the units wouldn't sell in the current market. He says he welcomes the Board and neighborhood's input, but he does have to be able to sell what he builds. Harris says the density is too high. She is also concerned about the discrepancies in the size on the plan and the assessors' numbers. She also doesn't think the current use is detrimental to the neighborhood. She says people want large condos. Stein says the applicant has the right to measure the building to develop livable space. Harris says she wants to see revised plans, and Grover says they will have them for the next meeting. • 11 Debski says she would like to see more open space. They could keep the parking layout • and reduce the units. She says two spaces per unit and some visitor parking would be good, since this is an issue in the neighborhood. She also requests to see plans showing the footprints of each floor. Curran asks applicant to look at the unit sizes and make sure they are in keeping with the neighborhood, and also to compare the lot area per dwelling unit with the rest of the neighborhood. She says she is stuck on the issue of whether this would be less detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use; she wants the plan quantified in terms of the current use's number of people, hours of operation, trips per day, etc., and provide a comparison with this proposal. Curran moves to continue the hearing to May 20, 2009; Stein seconds. The motion passes 6-0 (Debski, Tsitsmos, Dionne, Curran, Stein, Harris in favor, none opposed). Stein and Debski leave at 10:20 p.m. Dionne assumes the chair role. Continued petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use (multifamily residential) to allow conversion of the existing structure to five residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem,MA (112 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. ' Attorney Atkins presents the petition, showing updated illustrations in response to Board i requests from the last hearing for front elevations and fenestration. He reviews the recent history of uses of this space, including a garage, photography studio and hair salon. He says they are changing their proposal from five to four units on the first floor since the last hearing. He explains these units are not additional Single Resident Occupancy units, as on the upper floors. He says the change from an office use to a residential one would not make the use more intense. He also notes the Historical Commission approved the change earlier that evening. Dionne opens the issue up for public comment. McKnight reads four letters received by the Board into the record. Two were in opposition (Mary Whitney and Nicholas Nowak, 356 Essex St. No. 2, and Jim Kearney, lA Cambridge St.) and two were in support of the project (Jon T. Skerry, 348 Essex St. and Jim McAllister, 86 Federal St). Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge St., speaks against the petition. He says there have been problems with obscenity and disturbances from the SRO units at that property, citing police records that show 136 complaint calls in 3 years. He says that while the first-floor units wouldn't be an extension of the SRO use, he still opposes the project because it would increase density. He also says a residential use is not necessarily better for the neighborhood. He thinks the proposed use would be more detrimental. 12 • Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., spoke in opposition to the project, echoing Morris Schopf's concerns. Russ Felt, 31 Flint St., spoke in support of the project, saying it would enhance the neighborhood by getting rid of commercial uses. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., asks what size units these would be. David Jaquith, the project architect, says they would be 500 to 800 square feet. Shelby Hypes, 157 Federal St., says she has no problem with the exterior changes proposed, but she opposes it project because it will cause an increase of residential density. She also feels the apartments will be too small for a neighborhood of larger homes. Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St., speaks in opposition to the project. He says he is concerned that 500 to 800 square foot apartments aren't going to be attracting the same kind of people that R2 districts are there to attract. He also says there's a difference between upgrading the exterior and downgrading the average density and character of the neighborhood. He says Mr. Morris should fix the exterior d6cor of the building first and then come in with a better proposal. • Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., speaks in opposition. He says he doesn't believe there aren't prospective commercial available for the currently allowed use as office space. He also says the Federal St. neighborhood cares about and takes care of their homes, and has a stake in the neighborhood,but that you won't find those kinds of people living in 500 square foot apartments. He says this project would denigrate meaning of the R2 district and the character of the McIntyre district. At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., speaks in support of the project, saying it will add to the neighborhood. He wants to see the owner investing in and fixing up the building, which this project would help accomplish. Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, 7 Lawrence St., says those who have spoken in opposition and who live on Federal St. are not direct abutters. He says the remarks made about socioeconomic class are insulting. Jerry Schuerger, 319 Essex St., speaks in opposition, citing issues with noise, fire engines and police cars. He says he doesn't care who the people are who rent the apartments, he just has an issue with the noise. Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins St., says he knows Mr. Morris and is familiar with his other rooming houses, and that he has responded well to problems there. However, this is an entrance corridor, and he says that a visionary statement for an entrance corridor doesn't include 600 square foot apartments, and therefore he cannot • support the project. 13 Dionne closes the public comment portion of the hearing. • Curran comments that the SRO units are an existing use which will not be changing. She says this project was discussed for a long time at the last meeting, and that the proposal had included five residential units and commercial space in front. She says the Board asked the applicant to reduce the density and redo the fagade, and both have been done. She also says the 500-600 square foot apartments are appropriate for this building, since it would make no sense for high end apartments to be located under SRO units. She says the SRO units are needed, since they are occupied. She also says that for a Special Permit application, the applicant does not need to show hardship. Harris comments that the units are small. She says she'd be more comfortable with three units. She agrees there is not much demand for office space, but she does have concerns about the size of the proposed units. Dionne asks Atkins to respond to this concern; he says the units are small, but there is a demand for this size unit. He says they have made the requested changes, and that the parking is onsite, which had been brought up as a concern at the last meeting. Harris moves to approve the plan with three units, seconded by Curran. McKnight takes a role call vote; the Board votes 4-0 in favor (Harris, Curran, Dionne, Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed), with nine (9) standard conditions. Continued petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO,seeking variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for twelve (12) single-family homes at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (Rl zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. Attorney Atkins presents the petition, explaining revisions to the plans which were made in response to Board comments. He explains that one fewer house lot is being proposed, and the remaining lots are larger. He also explains that while the Board had suggested moving the entryway to align with Olde Village Drive, this was not possible because of the location of the traffic light control box. However, they were able to landscape a buffer area between the proposed subdivision and the abutter at 403 Highland Ave. Dionne opens the issue up for public comment. Wayne Silva, 20 Barnes Circle, opposes the project, saying zoning should be strictly adhered to and only the number of lots allowed by right should be built. Dennis Colbert, 37 Clark St., speaks in opposition, saying 11 houses is too many. He also says that the ledge is not unique to this property, and that everyone in the neighborhood has it. He also has concerns about traffic congestion and feels the density would be too high. • 14 • Kevin Doherty, 24 Barnes Circle, asks if the ledge counts as buildable square footage. Curran says that it does. He expresses concerns about water pressure in the neighborhood. Josephine D'Amato, 16 Barnes Circle, opposes, saying 7 houses would be fine, but not 11. Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier also says there are concerns about water pressure, but that the plans involving the new Wal-Mart design would improve it. He also says the city is working on the drainage issues on Clark Ave. and the Chapel Hill developer is also supposed to be doing something with drainage. He also notes that many lots in the area are undersized, and that many of those that are oversized abut and contain wetlands. He also asks for clarification on how many houses can actually be built there by right. Patrowicz says seven. Christopher Lane, 403 Highland Ave, says he has met with the applicant and most of his concerns have been addressed. An easement has been proposed for the landscaped buffer area between his property and the proposed subdivision. Attorney Atkins notes that this will have to go before the Planning Board also, and that through the subdivision application process, issues such as drainage, etc. would be addressed. Atkins also notes that if seven homes are built by right, rather than getting • relief for a larger development containing a new street, all the homes would front onto Highland Ave. Dionne closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Harris says the applicant has made the changes the Board requested. She says the topography is difficult, but that this is a nice design, and they have proposed a good solution. She says smaller lots make sense here, and it would be dangerous to have the homes fronting onto Highland. She says she disagrees that this would devalue surrounding properties. Curran says the entrances onto Highland wouldn't serve the city well, and that the additional cost of putting in a road is four additional units. She says this is a nice project. Tsitsinos also says he likes the project. Dionne says the project is well thought out and the design is good. Curran moves to approve the application (plan revised 3/2/09), with eight(8) standard conditions. Dionne seconds, McKnight takes a role call vote, and the motion passes 4-0 (Curran, Harris, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Curran moves to adjourn the meeting; Tsitsinos seconds; all in favor. Meeting adjourns . at 11:20 pm. 15 Respectfully submitted, . Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner • 16 it goND1i .4 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ., , �c, BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �`. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 V FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2M HO -b A 10: 39 MAYOR + I, May 4, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO, seeking variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for twelve (12) single-family homes at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (Rl zoning district). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on February 18, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The meeting was closed on April 15, 2009 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Annie Hams, Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). • Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, §64, Table I: Residential Density Regulations. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins presented the petition on behalf of the petitioner, who owns the property. 2. In a petition dated January 26, 2009, the applicant requested variances from minimum area and minimum front yard depth required by the zoning ordinance; seven of the lots had less than the minimum lot width required. Relief is requested as a prerequisite to a petition to the Planning Board to subdivide the property into twelve single-family house lots. 3. The property, the site of a single-family home, currently has the address of 419 Highland Avenue. 405-427 Highland Avenue is the applicant's proposed street numbering after subdivision. 4. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on February 18, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. Following the hearing on February 18, 2009, an amended petition was submitted. The public hearing was • continued to March 18, 2009 and April 15, 2009. The public hearing was closed on April 15, 2009 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran, Annie Hams, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Richard Dionne. 2 5. Opposition to the project and the relief sought was voiced b several members of • PP P J g Y the public; concerns included density, traffic congestion, property values and drainage. Members of the Board also expressed concern about density and about the proximity of one of the proposed houses to the abutter's property at 403 Highland Ave. 6. Following comment from the public hearing on February 18, 2009, the applicant submitted a revised plan on March 10, 2009 showing eleven (11) houses instead of the originally proposed twelve (12), and with a landscaped buffer area between 403 Highland Avenue and the proposed house closest to that property. The applicant appeared before the Board again on April 15, 2009 and presented the revised application. 7. At its meeting on April 15, 2009, the Board of Appeal voted four (4) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant Variances to allow from dimensional requirements to allow for the redevelopment of the site as proposed in the revised plan titled "Site Plan Layout Geometry at#405-427 Highland Ave., Salem, Massachusetts," dated January 14, 2009 and revised March 2, 2009, by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering. 8. At the hearing, Board members noted that the applicant had made the changes the Board requested. Board members also commented that the design, which allowed • the new driveways to front onto a new street rather than onto Highland Avenue, was better solution for the City in terms of safety and traffic management, and also noted that such a design would be more costly than building a smaller number of homes on lots that did not require dimensional relief because of the expense of building a street. Difficulties in the developing the property given the amount of ledge present were also noted. 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. 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 zoning ordinance. 2. The applicant may vary the terns of the Residential One-Family District to construct the proposed development, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. • 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 for the redevelopment of the site as proposed, the requested Variances from dimensional requirements are granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor (Curran, 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. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a buildingit prior permit p to beginning construction. g g any 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said numbers 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. Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL - 3; �F�• �j 120WASHINGTON STREET 4SALEM,MASSACHlJSETIS01970 ?M7N TRr.R:978-619-5685♦FAx:978-740-0404 KINm�scou MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 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: Stephen Morris Location: 315-317 Essex St, Salem, MA Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit sought to convert a currently nonconforming use (office space) to a residential use (5 units) in the R-2 zoning district . Decision: Approved with conditions—3 residential units permitted. Filed with the City Clerk on April 22, 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 . vW�i° q' CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL GF a. 1 120 WASHNGTON STREET♦SALEK MASSAaiLSEM 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 *FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 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: Paul Ferragamo Location: 405-427 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for • twelve (12) single-family homes in the R-1 zoning district Decision: Approved with conditions—relief granted for eleven(11) house lots. Filed with the City Clerk on May 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 Lacs © F Date =(—/ g ,--Name Mailing Address Phone # Email I 's I I ,00(a V u ti I, %t cvc4Lkw CSS-ex S-1`, -211ot ;lC'4va I-ev�sl�J� Co S j C'��`a1^cv�, AJe -.'qqq ``�L M(),e.� N-h3 12 S). //''�� �^ �v� y rC� 7 yy �lY q 1/( l C -eric' ee14—esf 12- JU unjers 54, 1 q70 3 S l wwt C1 ` S_I bb'v J nr1 U L �J � file—, 9� 745= 9 � ��s�: tb_sal� nQlwrw (. a,,L (/j 807AO & 19CWif zST �TnvoLkAl , :d9 Q3 97S- 7(14- 04/( 07 803, 1030 #V74-1 I �6CLO C 55 k & enrlt s5f97195% 8118 . ud C LtZC(�. I� ccf�tic�b ST f� —ai 7 -3I � Page Z of_ City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email � �SwbaG� LME 4o'7 AVG,(SN-L-, `t7e -794-1j76� CLpr1�t316`l c�r��ksi. � *AVl C/zp.tf� SV Otc 910 2Sg4 fFgC r�i3� rs ✓� .� +n Y Sou w/n5 Sf SH/Q, 7Y 5-67/ Saaa.),c c- Ps o2 t1c ya Y7 ,e 3 8az ( �«d�aa( �?Cd)Pmar✓ ry�t ruw� Sf" M;c Aet . P. Ca 10AV A ,L, FD Zg (-wo w 5 S'7- ?707y7073 ELwrc cr cevu�cu , p �� <Vi 6 UnJORp �7� i� !Sew A2 L 71 S- J I�Nu 1 r�l1u A Zg2 .&a-m- A,9 (gr7o ?%_ ja5 z 9 -�kWY33S3 ylr5 M. .`)nivevdN 16- PtA/✓rG'RS ST. 6,loqlv;� jl wo 2-) 13A2�_5 C-k 9�)? Y'ry 9 ;Y LJAy a 66 i6 U.4 SYIdCeW (1Wrv,,cz- �Zc� ors S'rL /V,5 2LL i�ArJ u� J Lenipi SSIO'SHRN/Jt—hFMAIL.t?041 Page ) of:— CITY OF SALEM MASSACHLTSE7TS BOARD OF APPEAL r x t • "n �' � 120 WASFUNGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �7! 1fVE4Sd '"• TELE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-74Q0404n KIMBERLEYDRiSCOLL y MAYOR o t- -v rt AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING I> March 18, 2009 - 6:30 P.M. - iv 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET cri cn Robin Stein, Chair /r-o&L , 'j %t9 m 1. Approval of Minutes—February 18, 2009 2. Petition of FRANK SWASEY seeking variances from minimum front and side yard setbacks, and from maximum distance of an accessory structure (carport)to the principal structure, to accommodate construction of a covered carport on the property located at 16 BURNSIDE STREET, Salem, MA (R-2 zoning district). 3. Petition of MICHAEL R. MCLAUGHLIN requesting to modify a Special Permit granted in 2005, to allow additional nonconforming uses (small tradesman, handyman and contractor) to a currently nonconforming use (plumbing business) at the property located at 62 JEFFERSON • AVENUE, Salem, MA (R-1 zoning district). 4. Continued 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(131 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. 5. Continued petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use (multifamily residential) to allow conversion of the existing office space on the first floor to five residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. 6. Continued petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO, seeking variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for twelve (12) single-family homes at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (RI zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. 7. Old/New Business • o Request for extension of Variances granted to North River Canal LLC for the property at 28 Goodhue Street, Salem, MA. This notice posted on "Official Bunetin Board* 8. Adjournment fg` C //lty Delllern r\A =.,s. on ++rP. 11 �aoj4 at /R' �JO �� 4 3✓w!'w' � `Yv at1� V�Ya.�i6 W/�{\q�bY 1�O 23A �$. , Y�GOAAG v �s> • 9 9 CITY OF SAL.EM !rq ti�P DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND /'MfNF J> COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE'ITS 01970 MAYOR TEL: 978-619-5685 ♦ FAX: 978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN, AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: March 13, 2009 • RE: Meeting Agenda—March 18, 2009 Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of February 18, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for New Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: Petition of FRANK SWASEY seeking variances from minimum front and side yard setbacks,and from maximum distance of an accessory structure (carport) to the principal structure, to accommodate construction of a covered carport on the property located at 16 BURNSIDE STREET, Salem, MA (R-2 zoning district). In order to construct the proposed carport, the petitioner is proposing a F side setback (5' is required) and 1' front yard setback(15' is required). The carport would be located I' from the house (a 10' distance is required). • Petition of MICHAEL R. MCLAUGHLIN requesting to modify a Special Permit granted in 2005, to allow additional nonconforming uses (small tradesman, handyman and contractor ) to a currently nonconforming use (plumbing business) at the property located at 62 JEFFERSON AVENUE, . Salem, MA (R-1 zoning district). The previous decision, dated 9/21/05 and included in your packets, granted the petitioner a Special Permit to allow a plumbing business to replace a previously existing automotive shop on the property. Mr. McLaughlin is now requesting an amendment to the decision to allow the additional uses listed above. 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE was continued from November 19, 2008. All Board members and alternates were present at the first hearing, so everyone is still eligible to vote on this matter. However, only four members will be present on 3/5, so Attorney Atkins will be requesting a continuance to the next meeting. Because only three members who were present at the first hearing will be present on 3/18, Attorney Atkins will request to continue the following petitions: 315-317 ESSEX STREET (Stephen Morris), and 405- 427 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Paul Ferragamo). Request for extension of Variances granted to North River Canal LLC for the property at 28 Goodhue Street, Salem, MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti submitted a written request for an allowance to extend the Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit granted in April 2006 and extended to April 2009, an additional six months to December 31, 2009, to give the petitioner additional time to put in place necessary contracts and obtain funding. • a . City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, March 18, 2009 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (chair), Bonnie Belair (alternate), Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were Annie Harris, Rebecca Curran and Beth Debski. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre (Building Commissioner) and Danielle McKnight (Staff Planner). Stein opens the meeting at 6:35 PM. Approval of Minutes Dionne moves to approve minutes of the 2/18/09 meeting; Stein seconds. Motion passes 3-0 (Dionne, Belair, Tsitsinos). Public Hearings • 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 (BI zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. Continued from November 19, 2008 and January 21, 2009. Attorney Atkins requests a continuance for 272 Jefferson Ave. to April 15, 2009, since only four members are present at this meeting and a unanimous vote would be required for the petition to pass. Stein says she doesn't have a problem with continuing this petition because of the number of Board members absent, which is not the fault of the applicant,but that it the petition does need to go ahead soon. Belair says she feels the same way and will be opposed to continuing the petition again in the future. Dionne moves to continue the petition to the April 15, 2009 meeting; Stein seconds. The motion passes 4-0 (Belair, Stein, Tsitsinos and Dionne in favor, none opposed). Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use (multifamily residential) to allow conversion of the existing structure to five residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA(112 zoning district). • Attorney George Atkins. 1 Attorney Atkins requests to continue this petition to April 15, 2009, since only three members (Dionne, Belair and Tsitsinos) are present at this meeting who were also present when the hearing was opened at the February 18, 2009 meeting. Atkins also notes that revised plans have been submitted to the Board. Belair moves to continue the hearing to April 15, 2009; Stein seconds. The motion passes 4-0 (Dionne, Stein, Belair and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO, seeking variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for twelve (12) single-family homes at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA(Rl zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. Attorney Atkins requests to continue this petition to April 15, 2009, since, as with the previous petition, only three members (Dionne, Belair and Tsitsinos) are present at this meeting who were also present when the hearing was opened at the February 18, 2009 meeting. Like the previous petition, new plans have been submitted to the Board. Belair moves to continue the hearing to April 15; Stein seconds. The motion passes 4-0 (Dionne, Stein, Belair and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Petition of FRANK SWASEY seeking variances from minimum front and side yard setbacks, and from maximum distance of an accessory structure (carport) to the principal structure, to accommodate construction of a covered carport on the • property located at 16 BURNSIDE STREET, Salem, MA (R-2 zoning district). Swasey presents his petition, explaining that due to a heart condition, he should not shovel snow. The solution would be a covered carport to reduce snow clearing. Swasey presents photos of his property and explains where the structure would be. St. Pierre asks if the carport will be the width of two cars, and Swasey confirms that it is. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. No one comments; Stein closes the public comment portion. Stein comments that the petition is not inconsistent with City ordinances and that it is not a large imposition on the property. Dionne says there would still be enough of a buffer between the structure and the neighboring structure. Tsitsinos moves to approve the petition subject to six (6) standard conditions. Stein seconds. The motion passes 4-0 (Stein, Tsitsinos, Dionne and Belair in favor, none opposed). Petition of MICHAEL R. MCLAUGHLIN requesting to modify a Special Permit granted in 2005, to allow additional nonconforming uses (small tradesman, handyman and contractor) to a currently nonconforming use (plumbing business) at the property located at 62 JEFFERSON AVENUE, Salem, MA (R-1 zoning • district). 2 McLaughlin presents his petition and talks about recent improvements he has made to his building, passing out copies of a report summarizing these improvements to the Board. He explains that he was previously granted a Special Permit for a plumbing use by the Board in 2005,but at the time didn't understand that the wording of the decision strictly limited the use only to plumbing. He is requesting clarification of the language because he would like to add new uses. McKnight passes out copies of a letter submitted by an abutter, Robert Dunham of 60 Jefferson Ave., stating that auto repairs, a use not permitted, are taking place on the premises and requesting the Board consider this before issuing a permit for additional uses. Stein reads the letter into the record. McLaughlin responds that he is not running an auto repair business, but that he does rent the space out to a tenant. However,he is not aware of any repairs being done. He is aware of cars being parked there, which is permitted. St. Pierre says there is no longer a licensed used car dealer there. Stein asks if oil changes and similar activities would be allowed; St. Pierre says that is not permitted outdoors—it must be done inside on floors. St. Pierre tells McLaughlin to stop the person he's renting to from doing repairs. McLaughlin agrees. Belair says she has no problem granting the request with certain restrictions on uses—for • example, no retail, and specified hours of operation. Stein asks how much space is dedicated to the separate businesses of contractor/handyman. McLaughlin says about 1,000 SF, or one garage bay. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. No one comments; Stein closes the public comment portion. St. Pierre suggests a condition that says storage must be indoors, and the contractor stays within his business. Stein asks what the hours of operation are. McLaughlin says he does plumbing 24/7 and his business is part of a franchise. Stein says the Board doesn't have to specify hours for this type of business; these are emergency services done offsite. However, she doesn't want someone working onsite in the middle of the night. St. Pierre points out that the City noise ordinance kicks in during late night hours. Stein says the Board needs clarification of exactly how McLaughlin plans to use the space; they can't just issue a blanket Special Permit for all commercial uses. The number of uses must be limited. Belair asks how much parking is on the site; McLaughlin says between 8 and 12 spaces. Stein suggests a condition that late night uses be limited to emergencies, and that the existing plumbing business would be allowed to continue, with the additional use of • contractor/handyman. Indoor storage would be permitted; outdoor storage not permitted. Car storage would be allowed outside, so the repo/towing/short term parking business 3 would continue. Tow/repo hours would be allowed only until 11 p.m., and could not exceed 5 cars at any time. No outdoor auto repairs will be allowed. Four appropriate uses at a time would be permitted, one for each unit. McLaughlin says he will resolve the problems with outdoor oil changes, etc. Belair moves to approve the petition with three (3) standard conditions and five (5) special conditions, with the terms of the previously granted decision incorporated. Dionne seconds the petition; it passes 4-0 (Tsitsinos, Belair, Dionne and Stein in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business: Request for extension of Variances granted to North River Canal LLC for the property at 28 Goodhue Street, Salem, MA. McKnight says the Planning Board granted an extension of its Special Permits to December 31, 2009 at its last meeting on March 5, 2009. Anthony Roberto, one of the property owners,presents his request. Belair asks Roberto if he intends to go ahead with the project; Roberto says yes. Dionne moves to grant the request to extend the Variances granted; Stein seconds. The motion passes 4-0 (Stein, Belair, Tsitsinos and Dionne in favor, none opposed). Dionne moves to adjourn the meeting; Stein seconds; all in favor. Meeting adjourns at • 9:20 pm. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner • 4 0M 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 -=� N MAYOR y i- _ :O = IV W We the undersigned do hereby waive all rights with regard to time requirements for'Oe Zoning Board of Appeal relative to hearing the following application: 1W 0 Property Location Original Meeting Date New Meeting Date Signature of Petitioner and/or his eprese ive • Gtl �h i' • on r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL j 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR if SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 } ?" TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY ORISCOLL MAYOR 7 � N U7 We the undersigned do hereby waive all rights with regard to time requirements fore Zoning Board of Appeal relative to hearing the following application: ��]- w Property Location ;��� 7'-�ey�ew � 6s>` f(,�,�,,• 4 o Original Meeting Date id l a I0(� New Meeting Date — / > —y 9 Signature of Petitioner and/or his/her 4sentat', • �l 6V 011- • r on r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR II ' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 .; KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR K I W We the undersigned do hereby waive all rights with regard to time requirements foiidhe Zoning Board of Appeal relative to hearing the following application: . w 0 Property Location RL 30 Esnek E7�x Original Meeting Date A - IF -O New Meeting Date 27L -IL - U y Signature of Petitioner and/or his Represent tive a Gv ih I �k'NUJT4. CITY OF SALEM w . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND • '` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 Wnsru-nrouS'ixcE'r♦ S,V1.m,NL�ssno-iuseris 01970 Te[,978-619-5685 R�e:978-740-0404 Lti NN C(x)`I N DuNc V�,AICP DIRECT OR March 19, 2009 0 a _-i Joseph C. Correnti, Esq. Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 cn Re: Request for extension 28 Goodhue Street w Dear Mr. Correnti: On March 19, 2008 the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals extended the variances granted • October 18, 2006 for 28 Goodhue Street for six (6) months to September 18, 2008. On September 17, 2008, the Board again met to discuss a request by North River Canal, LLC, to extend the variances, and voted unanimously on another six (6) month extension, until March 18, 2009. On March 18, 2009, Board again met to discuss a request by North River Canal, LLC, to extend the variances, and voted unanimously on an extension until December 31, 2009, due to the time the petitioner needs to put in place the necessary contracts and funding to be able to begin construction. Sincerely, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner • Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WAMUNGTONSiREET♦ SALEM,MA.SSAQ{LSI rISVYM941i�ltl P 3 04 -•pk"JhlNEDo`az 'IELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 CITY KI-MBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR March 31, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of FRANK B. SWASEY, seeking Variances from minimum front and side yard setbacks, and from maximum distance of an accessory structure (carport) to the principal structure, to accommodate construction of a covered carport on the property located at 16 BURNSIDE STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential Two- Family (R-2) Zoning District. • A public hearing on the above petition was opened and closed on March 18, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Bonnie Belair(alternate), Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 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. Frank Swasey presented the petition for the property he owns at 16 Burnside Street in the R-2 Zoning District. 2. Petitioner proposes to construct a 19'x 21' covered carport on his property. 3. The following plans were submitted with the petition: "Exhibit Plan of Land in Salem, MA prepared for Frank Swasey,"by Bartram Land Survey, Inc. 4. David Nunez,14 Burnside Street, submitted a letter to the Board of Appeals dated November 1, 2008, stating his support for the project. 5. In a Statement of Hardship submitted to the Board of Appeals with his petition, Mr. Swasey stated his need to build the carport in order to keep his vehicles covered and avoid snow shoveling for health reasons. Mario E. 1 u Motta, M.D., FACC, the petitioner's physician, submitted a letter to the Board • of Appeals dated January 20, 2009 stating the petitioner had a heart condition and should avoid heavy shoveling. 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 the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to construct the proposed carport. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor (Belair, Stein, 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 the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. Robin Stein, Chair ' Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 2 i • 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. • • 3 d CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �h1111�' ` BOARD OF APPEAL q m b 1 , ° 1 � 120WNSEUNGTONSiREET SAIEKMASSACTIUSET50M MAR 31 P 3: 0U �" •�•�`•o ' �`� TEfF:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 CIIYCLEitR. :-: L KIM6ERIEY Dwscof,i MAYOR March 31, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN requesting to modify a Special Permit granted in 2005, to allow additional nonconforming uses (small tradesman, handyman and contractor) to a currently nonconforming use (plumbing business) at the property located at 62 JEFFERSON AVENUE (R-1 Zoning District) • A public hearing on the above petition was opened and closed on March 18, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The following Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein (Chair), Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 8-5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Michael McLaughlin, represented himself at the hearing. 2. Petitioner had previously applied for a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals to change the use of the structure from an automotive shop to a plumbing business; said Special Permit was granted on September 21, 2005. The decision letter, filed with the City Clerk on September 23, 2005, included seven (7) conditions. 3. The property at 62 Jefferson Avenue is currently plumbing business, a nonconforming use in the Residential One-Family(R-1) Zoning District. 4. In a petition dated February 23, 2009, the applicant requested a Special Permit for the expansion of a currently nonconforming use (plumbing business) to allow additional • nonconforming uses (small tradesman, handyman and contractor). 5. The petitioner did not propose any exterior alterations to the structure. 1 • 6. Robert Dunham, 60 Jefferson Avenue, submitted a letter dated March 18, 2009 to the Board of Appeals stating he is not opposed to changes in use for the structure as long as business is conducted during daytime hours inside the building, and equipment is stored inside. However, he objects to auto repairs he says are taking place illegally on the premises, and wants the Board to consider the current situation before issuing an additional Special Permit. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petition submitted, makes the following findings: I. The petitioner's request for a special permit does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. In permitting such change, the Zoning Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the submitted documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of • Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit is granted to allow the expansion of a currently nonconforming use (plumbing business) to allow additional nonconforming uses (small tradesman, handyman and contractor). In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor (Stein, Dionne, Tsitsmos and Belair) 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 statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. No outdoor storage, except storage of cars, is permitted. No more than five (5) cars may be stored on site at a time. 4. Towing/repossession of cars continues to be permitted, but not after 11 p.m. • 5. Late night hours (after I 1 p.m.) are permitted only in cases of emergency, except towing, which is not permitted after 11 p.m. in any case. 2 6. No outdoor auto repairs are permitted. 7. No more than four(4) allowed uses, one for each unit, may operate from the premises at a time. 8. The terms of this Board's previous special permit decision relative to this property are incorporated herein by reference unless specifically altered by this decision. 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 Fled 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. • 3 CDNDITq CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL . �' 120 WAS[-IINC:I'ON S'IRI:ET ti\l FbI iNdSSAfI IL'SC'PI'S 01970 �atrxE a4,. "l ul.13.978-619-5685 * I;,\s:978-740-0404 KI!`m M,i. Y Dalscol.l. t4IAY02 Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 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: Frank B. Swasey Location: 16 Burnside Street, Salem, MA Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from minimum front and side yard setbacks, and from maximum distance of an accessory structure (carport) to the principal structure (R-2 Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on March 31, 2009 Petition of: Michael McLaughlin- Location: 62 Jefferson Avenue, Salem, MA Request: Special Permit Description: Modification to a previously granted Special Permit, to allow additional nonconforming uses (small tradesman, handyman and contractor) to a currently nonconforming use (plumbing business) (R-1 Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on March 31, 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 &OIJ o P s Date Nam Mailing Address Phone # Email Nw C-sT.4 � L ff W to Page I of_j_ CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS t asF BOARD OF APPEAL 5 3 120 WAsHNNG70N S rRBB'r♦S.ALEM,MASSAQ-1USEM 01970 ntF:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 KIMBERIEY DRis(x)L MAYOR 0 ` o ..o _ T r� AGENDA N BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING February 18, 2009 - 6:30 P.M. > 3`t" FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET 6s Robin Stein, Chair 1. Approval of Minutes—December 17, 2008 (continued from January 21, 2009) and January 21, 2009. 2. Petition of SCOTT CHARLTON, seeking a variance from maximum fence height to replace a 6' stockade fence with an 8' stockade fence for the property located at 11 ORLEANS AVENUE, Salem, MA(132 zoning district). 3. Petition of KERRY MURPHY and DANIEL CEDERHOLM, seeking variances from minimum rear and side yard setbacks, and from maximum lot coverage, for the property located at 10 %: MALL STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). 4. Petition of ROBERT CLARK, seeking a variance from minimum side yard setback for the property located at 16 PATTON ROAD, Salem, MA (RI zoning district). 5. Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use (multifamily residential) to allow conversion of the existing structure to five residential units on the property located at 315- 317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. 6. Continued from November 19, 2008 and January 21, 2009: 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). Attorney George Atkins. 7. Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO, seeking variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for twelve (12) single-family homes at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (R1 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. 8. Old/New Business This notice posted on "Off11 iai Bulletin Board" City Hall �7 j!it } �CL', /.d Qw L'l'�/ tilt /C: 7:� val � 39 �stin 9. Adjournment 23A & 233 of r r ,i v��coNnrr9�� CITY OF SALEM DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 MAYOR TEL: 978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN, AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner AM DATE: February 10, 2009 RE: Meeting Agenda—February 18, 2009 • Board Members Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of December 17, 2008 and January 21, 2009 ➢ Petitions and Materials for New Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: Approval of Minutes I've included minutes from the last two months. At the January meeting, not enough members were present (who had been present at the December meeting) to vote on December's minutes. Petition of SCOTT CHARLTON, seeking a variance from maximum fence height to replace a 6' stockade fence with an 8' stockade fence for the property located at 11 ORLEANS AVENUE,Salem, MA (132 zoning district). The City is proposing a new 12" drain at the rear of Orleans Avenue. The proposed easement along which the drain will run crosses the south side of the Charlton property, as you can see from the plot plan included. The Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions allowing construction of the pipe. on 2/10/09. If this petition is approved, it might be prudent to add a condition to delay construction of the new fence until after the City's pipe is installed. y , Petition of KERRY MURPHY and DANIEL CEDERHOLM, seeking variances from minimum rear and side yard setbacks,and from maximum lot coverage,for the property located at 101/2 MALL STREET,Salem,MA (R2 zoning district). The applicant is proposing the construction of a 20' x 15' addition and the removal of an existing deck. The minimum rear yard depth allowed is 30% the existing rear yard is 32% with removal of the deck and proposed addition, the rear yard would be 25'. The maximum lot coverage allowed is 35%; currently the lot coverage is 30.7%; with the proposed exterior alterations, the lot coverage would be 36%. Petition of ROBERT CLARK, seeking a variance from minimum side yard setback for the property located at 16 PATTON ROAD,Salem, MA (R1 zoning district). The applicant is proposing a 15'x 26' two-story addition (one-level great room over a two-car garage) on the existing single-family home. The required front yard setback is 10% with the proposed addition, the front yard setback would be 8'6" at one corner of the house. Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use (multifamily residential) to allow conversion of the existing structure to five residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. The Board of Appeals granted Mr. Morris a Special Permit for a change in nonconforming use to allow the photography studio on the first floor to be converted to five professional offices in a decision dated April 2, 2008. However, Mr. Morris has decided to request another Special Permit to convert the space to five residential units instead because of the poor market for office space. Exterior alterations are proposed and are illustrated on the accompanying elevations, but no dimensional relief is sought. Continued from November 19, 2008 and January 21, 2009:Petition of UNITED FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC seeking variances for lot area; lot width; front,side, and rear yard setback 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 (BI zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. As of today, Attorney Atkins expects to be able to proceed with this hearing on 2/18. He was not able to give me any details about the negotiations between the petitioner and the other residents of the building. Should he request a continuance between now and 2/18, I will let you know as soon as possible, and I'll have any abutters who signed in at the first meeting contacted. As you may remember from our last meeting, several residents of 272 Jefferson were upset when they were told the meeting would be continued —they are hoping for a resolution soon. Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO,seeking variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for twelve (12) single-family homes at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (R1 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. The petitioner previously submitted an application to build 27 townhomes on this property. Mr. Ferragamo requested variances from use (multifamily in the R1 zone), more than one dwelling on lot, minimum lot area per dwelling, minimum distance between buildings on lot and parking requirements. On November 22, 2004, the Board of Appeals issued a decision denying the variances. The Board found that while the topography of the site was rocky, sloped and sharply hilly, these characteristics were also shared by surrounding properties. Other findings included abutter concerns about traffic and the reduction of property values in a neighborhood of single- family homes. According to the decision, the petition was "universally opposed" by neighbors. The 11/22/04 decision is included in your packet for reference. That decision was appealed, but the ' s .. 2 I Court upheld it and clarified that use variances could not be granted because they are not permitted by the Salem zoning ordinance. The current proposed project would not require a use variance, but would need dimensional relief to allow single-family homes on lots that range in lot area from 5,280 to 8,687 square feet in the RI zone, which has a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. Six of the proposed lots would need relief from minimum lot width; they range from 65.43 feet to 85.10 feet (100 is required), All the lots would require relief from minimum front yard depth; 7.5 feet of depth is proposed, and 15 is required. If the petition is approved, the project will need to appear before the Planning under subdivision control before the lots can be subdivided or the proposed roadway (Parcel A on the plan) constructed. While the proposed roadway is labeled "Parcel A: Private Way," the road would need to be constructed to City standards as specified in the subdivision regulations, unless specific requirements were waived by the Planning Board. Abutters Wayne and Katie Silva, 20 Barnes Circle, who will not be able to attend the hearing, submitted a letter expressing their opposition to the project and stating their preference that the area zoning be strictly adhered to and no more than five homes be built. Councillor Pelletier had also contacted the PlanningDepartment asking how man houses could be built b right. I asked Scott P g Y Y g Patrowicz, the engineer who will be presenting the petition, to be prepared to discuss this. The Silvas also raised questions about why new traffic lights were installed at the intersection of Highland Ave. and Olde Village Drive. Mass Highway is responsible for those lights, since Highland Ave. is a state highway; I checked with Mass Highway and confirmed that the lights were originally installed in 1985 and are currently being replaced with new equipment. The proposed development is unrelated to the traffic lights in this location. 3 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,February 18,2009 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Richard Dionne (chaired meeting), Rebecca Curran, Bonnie Belair (alternate), Annie Harris, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were Robin Stein (Chair) and Beth Debski. Also present were Thomas St. Pierre (Building Commissioner) and Danielle McKnight (Staff Planner). Dionne opens the meeting at 6:38 PM. Approval of Minutes Dionne moves to approve December's minutes; Harris seconds. Motion passes 3-0 (Dionne, Harris, Tsitsinos). Curran moves to approve the January minutes; Belair seconds. Motion passes 3-0 (Curran, Belair, Dionne). • Public Hearings 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). Attorney George Atkins. Continued from November 19, 2008 and January 21, 2009. Attorney Atkins requests a continuance for 272 Jefferson Ave. to March 18, 2009, explaining that no agreement could be reached for the purchase of the unit between the petitioner and the owners of the other units in the building. The petitioner intends to develop plans to rebuild the structure in its original footprint, but the architect was unable to finish them for this meeting. Belair says she is opposed to allowing a continuance since the issue has been ongoing for a long time and she is sympathetic to the situation of the other condo owners. Dionne moves to continue the petition; Harris seconds. The motion passes 4-1 (Harris, Curran, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor; Belair opposed). Petition of SCOTT CHARLTON, seeking a variance from maximum fence height to replace a 6' stockade fence with an 8' stockade fence for the property located at 11 • ORLEANS AVENUE, Salem, MA (B2 zoning district). 1 Scott Charlton presents his petition and explains that since trees were removed from a • neighbor's property, Charlton's property is now exposed to increased noise and light from the street. Curran asks for clarification of where the fence will be located and how long it is; Charlton explains it will be located at the rear of the property and that it is about 50-51 feet long. Dionne opens the item up for public comment. Thomas Potorski, 9 Orleans Avenue comments that some would consider this height a "spite fence." He says the variance should not be granted because he felt the zoning ordinance should be strictly enforced and apply to all properties. He did not oppose an 8' fence on the portion of the property which abuts a commercial use, where the zoning allows it, but he did oppose the fence on the portion of the property abutting a residence. Charlton shows photos of what the property looked like before the trees were removed from 9 Orleans Ave. Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., spoke in support of the petition, stating that this was a quality of life issue, and the City should be supportive of a resident who wished to maintain his property value by reducing the noise and light to which his home is exposed. McKnight shows the Board a plan of a drain repair proposed by the City and the location • of an easement the City owns across the rear of the property. St. Pierre says the City plans to install the drain in the spring, but he does not know the date. Belair: motion to approve the petition with two standard conditions, plus a condition to wait until the City has completed its drain pipe repairs to begin construction of the fence. Petitioner confirms he is willing to wait. Curran seconds the motion, which passes 5-0 (Harris, Belair, Dionne, Curran, and Tsitsinos; none opposed). Petition of KERRY MURPHY and DANIEL CEDERHOLM, seeking variances from minimum rear and side yard setbacks, and from maximum lot coverage,for the property located at 101/2 MALL STREET,Salem, MA (112 zoning district). Dan Cederholm presents the petition, explaining it will consist of a family room and master bedroom, with no egress stairs from the second floor to the outside. Dionne opens the item up for public comment. No one comments; Dionne closes the public comment portion. Harris moves to approve the petition with 8 standard conditions. Seconded by Belair; motion passes 5-0 (Harris, Belair, Dionne, Curran, and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). • 2 • Petition of ROBERT CLARK, seeking a variance from minimum side yard setback for the property located at 16 PATTON ROAD, Salem, MA (RI zoning district). Robert Clark presents the petition, stating he wants to add living space, have by adding a one-level great room with a two-car garage underneath. The existing garage space would remain. Dionne opens the item up for public comment. No comments are made. Curran: motion to approve with 8 standard conditions; seconded by Harris. Motion passes 5-0 (Curran, Harris, Dionne, Tsitsmos, Be lair in favor; none opposed). Petition of STEPHEN MORRIS, seeking a Special Permit to modify the currently nonconforming use (office space) to another nonconforming use (multifamily residential) to allow conversion of the existing structure to five residential units on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET,Salem, MA (R2 zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. Attorney George Atkins presents the petition on behalf of Stephen Morris, stating that his client was previously before Board of Appeals for a Special Permit to allow a change in use. Last year, he wanted to convert the commercial uses on first floor to professional office building use. The Board granted the petition, finding there would not be a • substantial detriment to the surrounding neighborhood, and imposed conditions involving the use of the 10 space parking lot at the rear of the building and placed limitations on the first-floor uses. Atkins states that Morris went through real estate brokers and couldn't find anyone interested in office space; he is therefore requesting a Special Permit to convert the office space to 5 residential units on the first floor. Atkins says this is a shift in use that is more compatible with the R 2 nature of neighborhood. He says the SRO's (Single Room Occupant) on the 2°d and 3`d floors don't use the parking and generally use public transit. He says Morris can control the need for parking for the upstairs tenants somewhat in his selection process for residents. Atkins says there is sufficient parking for the current use. Atkins presents the floor plan showing 5 residential units to the Board. He says the exterior of the building has improvements planned and approved by the Historical Commission but not yet completed. He says all exterior work will be complete by June 15 of this year, and at that time would begin working on the interior space if the petition were approved. Atkins says the building historically had commercial uses on the first floor, with employees and customers coming and going, and that this proposal would eliminate most of that activity. He says the economy would not allow the petitioner to pursue office space, but that this would produce a building that's usable but is closer to residential character of the neighborhood and will generate tax revenue. • 3 Belair asks for clarification of the total number of units the building would contain. • Atkins clarifies that the proposed project just includes adding units to the 1"floor. There are also 13 single rooms (SRO units) on floors 2 and 3, so this would result in 18 total units. St. Pierre comments on the architectural drawing shown and says it was submitted as a result of a conversation with the petitioner; he was concerned about whether the petition referred the conversion of the entire first floor, or whether the commercial units on that floor would be left out of the plan. St. Pierre had asked David Jaquith, the architect, to present a plan clarifying this. The space currently containing a commercial use would not be included in the conversion. Dionne asks St. Pierre if the rooming house portion requires parking; St. Pierre says it's grandfathered. Dionne comments that this proposal would make it one of the largest residential buildings in that area. Curran asks if all the parking was dedicated to the commercial space; Atkins says yes since the residents did not have cars. Curran asks about the approximate size of the proposed units. Atkins says they are about 500 square feet. Belair asks if they are intended as rental units or condos; Atkins says the intent is rental. St. Pierre notes the city cannot regulate that. Belair says she was simply curious because of the market. Dionne opens the item up for public comment. • Jerry Schuerger, 319 Essex St., says he has reservations about the petition because there have been previous problems with residents in that building, and he says the police and fire departments are over there quite a bit. He supported a commercial use. While he understands there is a financial crisis, he felt 5 additional residential units would mean more traffic. He says if those units are like those upstairs, they will create problems. McKnight reads a letter from Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge St., stating Schopf's opposition to the project because he is displeased with the traffic associated with the current use, and is bothered by the dumpster and unfinished repairs on the property. He states he does not believe the petitioner can prove hardship and thinks the law requires this for Special Permits. Harris says she received an email from a resident with concerns about parking from 1 '/2 Cambridge St. but does not have it with her. She says it does not express strong opposition. Bill Henning, 15 Lafayette Place, represents the church across the street. He says he is not here to speak against the project but says the abutter notice was not clear that there would be 5 units in addition to the existing 13 rooms. Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., says the City has had numerous properties not go as planned due to the economy, and that he doesn't think 5 units,would generate 4 • much traffic or disruption. He noted that an empty building doesn't help the neighborhood and that he hadn't received any calls on it. Atkins responds to three points that were made: he says the that applicant didn't draft legal notices for the paper. He also says plans were filed—exterior elevations and a plot plan; the only thing not filed is the floor plan which isn't a requirement. He also says Mr. Schopf is wrong about standard he's applying: There's no question of hardship to apply— the standard for Special Permits is if the new use isn't more detrimental to the neighborhood. He addresses the question of what kind of impact the residential use rather than commercial use would have on the neighborhood and asks how it could result in more traffic. He says a residential use conforms more with the neighborhood than a commercial use, and that the petitioner has a right to continue his nonconforming use, which is grandfathered. He says the worst case would be an empty portion of building, as Councillor Pinto pointed out. He says the project would pose no substantial detriment to the neighborhood. Belair says she sees no problem changing the use from commercial to residential, but that she thinks adding 5 units is excessive and is too intense a use. Curran notes that the current exterior looks commercial. Atkins says if they were granted the petition, they would change the exterior windows; this would need to go before the Historical Commission again. • Dionne says he has a problem with the density and parking situation. Atkins requests the Board allow the petitioner to continue to the next meeting and says they will come in with treatment of windows in front and would look again at allocation of space and the number of units. Harris says it would be helpful if there weren't 5 units. Dionne says adding 5 units would be a parking problem. Atkins says these are 1 bedroom units and don't need a lot of parking; the SRO tenants don't need parking. Dionne says the rooming house tenants are going to put cars somewhere, and this will add to that. Atkins refers to the Board's previous decision with parking conditions. Harris notes that with commercial space, there's swing parking at night. With residential, you don't have that. Atkins says they could control that. Harris says that the assumption was at least there would be parking at night for these people. Harris makes a motion to continue the matter, to March 18, Curran seconds; motion passes 5-0 (Harris, Curran, Dionne, Tsitsinos, Belair in favor, none opposed). Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO, seeking variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for a proposed subdivision for twelve (12) single-family homes at 405-427 HIGHLAND AVENUE, • Salem, MA (Rl zoning district). Attorney George Atkins. 5 Attorney George Atkins presents the petition, stating the matter was before the Board • previously. He gave a brief 4-5 year history of the property. He says a 27 unit townhouse development was proposed in 2004. This was denied, litigated in land court, which supported Board. The principle issue was use variance (Salem does not permit them, so the Board could not grant one to allow a multifamily use). For the current petition, use is not an issue. The petitioner is requesting dimensional relief for lot area, lot width for some lots, and front yard setback. Atkins notes the visible ledge on the plan and the steepness of the property; he says this makes development difficult and also notes that Highland Ave. is a state highway. Atkins presents an analysis that shows 7 by right lots. One would front on Clark St., the other 6 on Highland Ave. Atkins explains the difficulties building on these sites would entail, especially concerning elevations, the and amount of rock to be removed, and required blasting to create for privacy into each lot. He says this also be economically difficult, and the lots are almost unusable under current zoning; the costs for utilities, roadway construction were high and the economics of developing would require at least 12 sites. He says the proposed homes these homes could be sold from 250-275K. Atkins introduces Harry Gunderson, architect, and Scott Patrowicz, engineer, who are here to present. Patrowicz, site engineer, shows grading on plans in detail. The plans show a huge grade difference. The grade going up the proposed street is 10% with two leveling areas at • either end.. He explains the plains with the houses being "stepped" uphill in a terraced fashion. He says one goal with this plan, besides fitting in houses, was minimizing blasting. There would be some rock walls in back, but they tried to leave a buffer, and there are some trees behind the houses closer to Barnes Circle. He shows how the plans show 20-foot backyards. Patrowicz reviews the infrastructure: there's a 16 inch water main on Highland Ave, they would tie in, and he shows where it will be looped on the plan. This would be independent of other properties in area. Dionne asks if the plan requires a pumping station. Patrowicz says that has to be checked out. He shows the sewers on the plan and says that drainage is an issue. He explains they will attempt to attenuate the difference between pre- and post- development flows with the use of basins, swales and infiltrator devices wherever soil is available for these. He shows the snow storage area on the plan. He explains that no more flow would be going off site than does currently. Atkins says that these are mainly issues to be brought before the Planning Board in the course of subdivision and site plan review. All engineering will have to be done and presented to the Planning Board; should the Board of Appeals give a favorable decision, that would be next step. Harry Gunderson, site architect, presents. He discusses the physical challenges of Highland Ave. and says a 10% grade is allowable grade under the subdivision regulations and says this plan includes required planting strips, etc. He says they want to keep these 6 I landscaping features to make the side pedestrian friendly. He says they were generous in • creating parking areas with 2 cars per dwelling plus a turnaround that could also be used for additional parking. He says that each house could potentially fit even 3 cars per P g Y P Y driveway. Atkins passes out photos of the site and discusses the two access points, one on Highland and one on Clark. Atkins then discusses the legal standards for this type of project. No use variance is required,just dimensional variances. He explains an applicant needs to show minor hardship for dimensional variances; he says the proposed use is not inconsistent with abutting neighborhoods, and that there are immense hardships associated with using this property in accordance with the requirements of the R1 zone. Dionne opens the issue up for public comment, but suggests taking a five-minute break first so the public could view the plans. Ed Moscowsky, 12 Clark St. remarks on the 10% slope in and out of the site and said he finds it hard to believe that's the grade—he lived in that house before Ferragamo and says the driveway is steeper than that. Patrowicz says the driveway is 15 to 16%, but the street would be 10%. He says the driveway would be leveled out to bring down slope. Moscowsky says there's no existing drainage on Highland Ave. because state drains on • that highway don't exist, and the road floods. He says there's no way to put in development that ties into state provided drainage which will function, and that there's no communication between the state and the city with drainage. Atkins says this is question the Planning Board will require them to address for site plan review and at that time they will provide calculations to show runoff changes. Moscowsky says the neighborhood has had a lot of experience dealing with the planning board with drainage issues, and those issues were not dealt with competently. He says there is an ice sheet on Clark St. every winter. Paulina Alexander, 12 Clark St., said there used to be an open brook that ran from Barnes to Highland and flooded every year, which is now worse because of building on Clark Ave. She says now they have an ice sheet on Clark that never melts. She says this plan won't work— after it's built and developer gone the neighborhood will be left with a flood. Atkins says he recognizes there are problems on Barnes and Clark which they'd be required to address with the Planning Board. He says the development would be on the downslope of Highland, not draining toward Clark. Tom St. Pierre says that stormwater runoff laws have changed, and asked Patrowicz to explain the process he now has to go through with the City engineer. Patrowicz says he will spend a lot of time doing hydrologic profiles, and he must file under the DEP 7 stormwater guidelines, address groundwater recharge, and can't increase runoff. He says • the City engineer is extremely astute in drainage considerations and analysis. Patrowicz says they recognize the flooding issues on Highland, and they are very sensitive to those issues. Phil Kinder, 7 Barnes Rd., has concerns about emergency responders' access to the property. Patrowicz responds that the road is 24 feet wide because they are pulling parking off the road and not anticipating much visitor parking on it considering the adequate driveway space. He says there are also 3 foot grass strips and 5 foot sidewalks, and that given the space, he is not that concerned about access of emergency vehicles. Atkins says the road will have to comply with subdivision rules of the Planning Board. Richard Bingham, 22 Barnes Circle, asks who will own the new road? Atkins says the Planning Board has taken the position they City won't own any more streets, but that City Council has ultimate authority to accept or not accept the street. He says they could enter into an agreement with the homeowners, and there were various possibilities that could be explored for ownership. Bingham says he has several objections: some properties in the neighborhood are small, but his is on a 15,000 square foot lot, as is his neighbor's, Robert Ridge of 6 Clark St. He • says the projected cost of the new homes is lower than others in neighborhood and he doesn't want to see home values compromised with an adjacent development of average value less than half what other houses are worth. He says this development is too dense for the current neighborhood. He is also concerned about additional cars and children in the neighborhood, and that the current traffic signals are the sites of frequent accidents. He is also concerned about the impact of blasting on the neighborhood. Atkins refers to the plan for 7 lots by right; this could be done by ANR. He says this plan would be a worse traffic problem than the proposal because of all the frontage on Highland, and that blasting is unavoidable. Moscowsky questions the assumption that 7 entries onto Highland (by-right plan) would be more problematic than the 12 lot proposal Harris clarifies that it's the number of curb cuts that make the 7 entries more dangerous. Christopher Lane, 403 Highland Ave., says he's an architect and appreciates what Ferragamo's doing. However, he has concerns: he notes that lack of"no-touch" space bordering his property. He's also concerned about the proximity of the new driveway to his property for vehicular safety reasons; flooding; and the height of the building next to his house because it may block the sun. He says that the lot line as shown on the plan isn't accurate, says there is a piece of land between his property and the street, and wonders what his rights are with regard to that piece. He has maintained it for 6 years, since he bought the house. 8 • Atkins says the rendered plan doesn't show well enough what landscaping could be done along the abutter's line, and there's room to provide buffering. He also says it's possible to adjust the road, and they could redesign the location of the driveway. Jeff Bachmann, 3 Clark St., says he's concerned about snow storage near his property, the proximity of a newly proposed house to his house, and about blasting next to his property. �atrgwtGz says tkt��tslatic�r �weett ese otts�s rs eef,Ltd Ihac-Clark ifs f'�air�� fla ,xe day: araott� ltows arat Ott € tarx u Jz�s hcitse, laz there's a' �t�eF�v?� Kevin Daugherty, 24 Barnes Circle, concurs with what Bingham said about blasting concerns and said he's concerned about the steepness because kids might cut through to Dunkin Donuts. SP: 10 foot grade change now, but proposing a flat area behind house, wall and slope into wooded area. Could put fence along back lot line so kids can't cut through. Wall is 3-5 feet. GA: legal question—each homeowner would have liabiloity policy. But trespassing • complicates and there's no clear answer. PB prefers to resolve these issues. SP: could also do terraced gardens for safety, or decorative fence. Paul Ferragamo, owner: Scott to explain heights of terraced walls. SP: around 20 feet. Much like some of other Highland Ave. Kathy kindler, 7 Barnes Rd. Is proposed driveway connected to light that's there (check)? SP: no, not set up for that. Concerned about property value issue and traffic problems, and blasting— are neighbors protected from blasting? GA explains legal procedure imposed by city. Tom corrects that it's the state fire marshal's office. Explains pre-blast survey requirement. Patricia labertie, 3 Lyons Lane. Asks about light at intersection, there will be lights facing new road? SP says no, it's just for Olde Village Rd. and Highland. SP: need to balance the need to not have a light in Rob err ridge, 6 cark st. commends engineer and architect, have addressed a lot of issues. Didn';t like previous plan. Not having 6 properties onto Highland is a good idea. But agrees with Mr. Bingham about property value. Sandwich in 12 properties into the area, selling for what they're projecting, substantially smaller than other lots in neigh., will bring down property values. Wants to not see approve before drainage issues are • engineered. 9 GA: 1800 to 2200 SF houses, suggests that it won't hurt property values and could enhance. Property is 2.51 acres. E: Use of land—conforming with existing zoning regs —doesn't believe hardship arguments, still need plans through PB. Tom: not correct. Explains what applicant needs to do to build by right, doesn't require PB review. E: blasting, 11 cark st., new house built, blasting. We complained—blasting can be done correctly. Once fractured rock, drainage problems started. In accordance with dEP drainage issues, etc. Blasting problem isn't shaking, but drainage. Counc. Pelletier: drainage, heights go to PB. This board only looks at variances applied for. Discusses D and D. Considering past proposal, this is much better. Doesn't like density, however. Possibility of transferring exit up highland. Opposes other exit because of the DD traffic, etc. Thinks people will cut through Barnes Cir. Proposes cds, everyone in and out one way. Asked board to take area, divide and take sampling of area, see what entire area comes down to, and base variance on that. Do average of lot areas in neighborhood. Says to do before taking a vote. Possibly would mean taking one or two hsoues out. GA shows plot plan showing lot sizes. Does not want Clark St. used for development, fine with fire gate. Talk to state about resignaling the intersection and moving highland • entrance. Also states his awareness of flooding. GA: petitioner thinks the 7 house as of right subdivision would be dangerous, no one would be happy with. GA: don't know what requirements will be of PB, mass highway, etc., to change plans to accommodate. Danielle reads letter into record from silvas. Annie Harris: is it possible to align the intersection? GA: much more difficult to place street at that angle, to get correct slope. We'd lose a lot in that process. AH: might solve traffic issues. GA: can examine. SP: problem: shortens length of road, road would either be steeper or more blasting. GA: mass highway might ask to pay for redesigning interestection, if that happens we can't do it. Belair: nice project, possibly too odense. Beautiful. But drainage will be addressed by PB. Concerned about 403 highland; for him to have that road up against him not right, needs to be reworked. Could we condition changing that? Don't like the way it is. Diminishes his property. • 10 AH: thinks less of a big deal. Have buffers. Thinks it's a nice plan. Sees site lots adjacent that are smaller than required. Very positive design. Becky: by right scenario is a good exercise, illustrates intention of zoning, but carried out not good for neighborhood or city. Think it's too dense, lot sizes generally are in keeping but because of rock, it limits size of usable area. Should be less dense, more than 7 because you have to invest to do this. It would enhance area. Likes pulling houses forward, no problem with front yard variance, likes porches. Area for lots is small, however. Problem with very steep slope by lot in corner, but will be addressed in PB. BC: PB to deal with fence, could they require you to tie in with lights? GA: they could, but candidly I'd tell them the same thing, it would kill project. Jimmy: like it. Rick: like it. Too dense, however. Willing to diminish? GA: can be discussed? Continue to March 18 and we'll rework area? RD: motion to continue to 3/18, Becky seconds. All in favor. RD motion to adjourn: JT: seconds, all in favor. Meeting adjourns at 9:25 pm. . Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner • 11 �O��NUI7g7 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET TS BOARD OF APPEAL 1 ' � 7 3 P f�— 2: 08 120WASFONGTONSFRI:ET♦ SALEM,MASSAC]-RSETTS01970 ANI>MlNEt���y1 TE LE:978-745-9595 ♦FAx:978-740-9846 '� CITY C' MNMERLEY DRISWLL MAYOR February 23, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of SCOTT CHARLTON, seeking a variance from maximum fence height to replace an existing 6' stockade fence at 11 ORLEANS AVENUE, Salem, MA, in the Business Highway (B-2) Zoning District. A public hearing on the above petition was opened and closed on February 18, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, See. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Bonnie Belair, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, 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. Scott Charlton presented the petition for the property he owns at 11 Orleans Avenue in the B-2 Zoning District. 2. Petitioner proposes to replace the existing 6' stockade fence with an 8' stockade fence, which would exceed the maximum height allowed by the Salem Zoning Ordinance for fences abutting residential property. 3. The existing fence abuts a business located at 280 Highland Avenue and a residence at 282 Highland Avenue. A longer portion of the fence abuts the residence. 4. The City of Salem has an easement at the back of 11 Orleans Avenue which contains a 12-inch drain line that conveys stormwater and groundwater through the neighborhood. The existing fence is located on the City's easement, as the proposed fence would be. 1 5. Due to capacity problems resulting in neighborhood flooding, the City plans to rehabilitate the drain behind 11 Orleans Avenue. A Conservation • Commission Order of Conditions has been obtained for this project. 6. Petitioner states that the property suffers from increased exposure to traffic noise and vehicle headlights on Highland Avenue since the recent removal of tree branches from the properties at 280 Highland Avenue and 282 Highland Avenue. Photographs were presented at the hearing showing views from the property before the removal of the trees. 7. A resident spoke in opposition to the petition. Mr. Thomas Potorski, 9 Orleans Avenue, stated his opinion that the variance should not be granted because he felt the zoning ordinance should be strictly enforced and apply to all properties. He did not oppose an 8' fence on the portion of the property which abuts a commercial use, where the zoning allows it, but he did oppose the fence on the portion of the property abutting a residence. 8. Councillor Steven Pinto (Councillor at Large), 55 Columbus Avenue, spoke in support of the petition, stating that this was a quality of life issue, and the City should be supportive of a resident who wished to maintain his property value by reducing the noise and light to which his home is exposed. 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 the public good, as the proposed fence would take the place of tree branch coverage on the abutting property, which had previously provided buffering from light and noise, as well as privacy to 11 Orleans Avenue. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, as the proposed fence would be located in a neighborhood characterized by both commercial and residential uses; an eight-foot fence would be permitted in numerous other locations in the surrounding area. 3. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Business Highway Zoning District to enable the proposed fence replacement, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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 (Belair, Curran, Dionne, Harris, and Tsitsinos) none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's . requests for a variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 2 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. Construction of the fence shall not begin until the City of Salem has finished replacing the drainage pipe at the rear of the property. Richard Dionne ' Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take • effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • 3 v���ON�17q�G! CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL e ea 1309 FE8 21 :4 9: 02 120 WAsHNG7'ON STREET♦ SALEK MAs5A4-RJSET.'I'$Q1970 ;- �� MINI iriT`, ii- 'nL.E: ♦ FAx:978-740-0404' I i Kis,mR[EY DRisoou MAYOR February 26, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ROBERT CLAW seeking a Variance from minimum side yard dimensions to accommodate construction of a 15' by 26' two-story addition (one- level great room over a two-car garage) on the existing single-family home on the property located at 16 PATTON ROAD, Salem, MA, in the Residential One-Family (R-1) Zoning District. • A public hearing on the above petition was opened and closed on February 18, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Bonnie Belair, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams, 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. Robert Clark presented the petition for the property he owns at 16 Patton Road in the R-1 Zoning District. 2. Petitioner proposes to construct a 15' x 26' addition along the entire east side of his house. The addition would consist of a one-level great room with a two-car garage underneath. 3. The R-1 Zoning District requires a minimum side yard of 10 feet; the northeast corner of the proposed addition would encroach on the side yard, leaving an eight-foot, nine-inch side setback in that corner of the property. • 4. The following plans were submitted with the petition: "Plot Plan in Salem, MA, Prepared for Robert Clark, 16 Patton Road," by LeBlanc Survey 1 Associates, Inc.; and "15' x 26' Family Room/Garage Addition," elevation is drawings and floor plans by Alan Carroll. 5. No members of the public spoke in opposition or support of the petition. Petitioner noted in a written statement that he had spoken to his neighbors about his proposal, and that they were supportive of the petition. 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 the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family Zoning District to construct the proposed addition, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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 (Belair, Curran, Dionne, Harris, and Tsitsinos) 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 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. 2 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted doe • not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of • this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. 3 m�x; ,mu�lq�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS {- �6 BOARD OF APPEAL Mgt ' 2009 FEB 21 A 10: 114 wfi,R 120 WASFRNG"fON STREET 0 $ALEM,MASSA(7il,SE'rIS 01970. 7^17NE;��N TEu::978-745-9595 ♦FAx:978-74 0i1�4041,, Ki NBERLEY DRIscoLL MAYOR February 26, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of KERRY MURPHY and DANIEL CEDERHOLM, seeking Variances from minimum rear yard and minimum side yard dimensional requirements, and maximum lot coverage, to accommodate construction of a 20' by 15' two-story addition on the existing nonconforming single-family home on the property located at 10 %: MALL STREET, Salem, MA, in the Residential.Two-Family (R-2) Zoning District. • A public hearing on the above petition was opened and closed on February 18, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, with the following Zoning Board members present: Bonnie Belair, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, 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. Daniel Cederholm presented the petition for the property he owns at 10 Mall Street in the R-2 Zoning District. 2. Petitioner proposes to construct a 20' x 15' two-story addition to his single- family house. 3. The R-2 Zoning District requires a minimum side yard of 10 feet; a minimum rear yard of 30 feet, and maximum lot coverage of 35%. The existing house is nonconforming and the property has a side yard of only 6 feet on the south side; the addition would extend the portion of the side yard that is only 6 feet • by an additional 15 feet. The lot currently has a rear yard of 25 feet and lot coverage of 36%. 1 4. The following plans were submitted with the petition: "Plot Plan of Land, 10 • %z Mall Street, Salem, Property of Daniel Cederholm, Kerry Murphy," prepared by Gail L. Smith, Registered Professional Land Surveyor; and "Dan Cederholm, Kerry Murphy, 10 %a Mall Street, Salem, MA,"prepared by Salalayko Contracting, consisting of Page 1, "Elevations," Page 2, "Foundation & First Floor Plans," Page 3, "2nd Floor Plans," and Page 4, "Plan, Section & Detail." 5. No members of the public spoke in opposition or support of the petition. 6. Board members asked for clarification about what the addition would contain; petitioner stated it would contain a family room and master bedroom, with no egress stairs from the second floor to the outside. 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 the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. • 3. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to construct the proposed addition, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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 (Belair, Curran, Dionne, Hams, and Tsitsinos) 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 the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 2 • 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 doe not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • 3 • 200q FEB 19 P I. 2U r!LE rr CITY CLERK, Sr,LEr , We the undersigned do hereby waive all rights with regard to time requirements for the Zoning Board of Appeal relative to hearing the following application: Property Location V g a -7gtFn_6t('00 /a1t'M q P Original Meeting Date // - 2U- Od' New Meeting Date 3-dt-09 Signature of Petitioner and/or his er Representa rvt inf • onrwr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL R" 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • �. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 +D� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ION FEB 19 P (= 2Q MAYOR 1 ILE CITY CLER*t, SALE"rt. t'ir"saS. We the undersigned do hereby waive all rights with regard to time requirements for the Zoning Board of Appeal relative to hearing the following application: Property Location ZS - 2r2 2 N61 Original Meeting Date l F O New Meeting Date -3 --�dr - o Signature of Petitioner and/or er Represent ive • • onrywr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 _10Da FEB p 1. 2�1 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR H U r, We the undersigned do hereby waive all rights with regard to time requirements for the Zoning Board of Appeal relative to hearing the following application: Property Location Original Meeting Date -IF- 0 New Meeting Date d Signature of Petitioner and/or his/h eprese tative • CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ? �,�rt 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �l tlNL TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 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: Scott Charlton Location: 11 Orleans Avenue, Salem, MA Request: Variance Description: Variance sought from maximum fence height to replace an existing 6' stockade fence with an 8' stockade fence (B-2 Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on February 23, 2009 Petition of: Robert Clark Location: 16 Patton Road, Salem, MA Request: Variance Description: Variance requested from minimum side yard dimensions to accommodate construction of a 15' by 26' two story addition on an existing single- family home (R-1 Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on February 27, 2009 Petition of: Kerry Murphy and Daniel Cederholm Location: 10 y2 Mall Street, Salem, MA Request: Variance Description: Variances requested from minimum rear yard and minimum side yard dimensional requirements, and maximum lot coverage, to accommodate construction of a 20' by 15' two-story addition on the existing nonconforming single-family home (R-2 Zoning District). Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on February 27, 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 f led within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. 1 • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Zrm -aar�Q d� (��r�s Date Name Mailing Address Phone # 1— Email Nd � go4l. lo !v Maw ST 97,5� sqy saat 9., i�f12�4_ 508 C/ Z6 N TV 7a�- i9obc/,?vl(L9Lo,�,,rysc-,,, S=c = * w� ( It Or- 1-cawf ire 9a'� y�' q90 6 c�— as�( �SS�j( ST. S�+-e77-N 7A W.S 3353 Gjca di-(§ sti1 °CEo1,can C*YV\. Ct��c�l�2 C; �{03 r114��L/snlfl AVLrS�L C/-r �( Jfi' 7Ny -y7Ff( CL4dG 31G�i�'C�9�cEs i,�(Ef Sce v�a ��ih,ule �.00 � h 7�1, Flo-(�Jer 5�Sr,�I46 N rG+C,.i.Se> �77-534! • puts xat{6l,E�n i lie re as �� Gr �Slrl ,,-- - -- Jevvv Qc+Jv��v�✓ ��F��AAcNw�aN 3 C1..A,<- < l- Page Of ��.��0ND1TAa4� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS " = BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WAS1 I,N(;ION S,a,. ,I # SAI PA, MA,Sd(1 I LSICr,S 01970"7NINE 10' 978 745 9595 fat.978-1 P 5' 21 h,NutI%IZLev Desco,.,. MAeOK AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING January 21, 2009 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET Robin Stein, Chair fl ; 1. Approval of Minutes — December 17, 2008 2. Petition of STEVEN SPUNGIN, seeking a Special Permit in order to modify the currently nonconforming use (retail, service, storage and office for a rug company) to another nonconforming use (music school) for the structure on the property located at 1, 3 and 5 PLEASANT STREET in the Residential Two Family zoning district. 3. Petition of PAUL SUDENFELD, seeking a Special Permit to allow an additional use (retail sale) at an existing repair shop located at 462 HIGHLAND AVENUE, in the Business Highway zoning district. 4. Continued 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 (B 1 zoning district). REQUESTED CONTINUANCE TO FEBRUARY 18, 2009. 5. Old/New Business o Request of Paul Carro to withdraw petition for 7 ENGLISH STREET. 6. Adjournment This notice postsd on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall G ! ,, 1 , �,, JAN 1 at 7 Up- 23A 8 23*B of M.G.L. ���Nnrr9� CITY OF SALEM • 5av` �. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND + COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 RT'M�ue°°�P TEL: 978-619-5685 FAX: 978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN, AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: January 15, 2009 RE: Meeting Agenda—January 21, 2009 Board Members, Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of December 17, 2008 ➢ Petitions and Materials for New Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: Petition of STEVEN SPUNGIN, seeking a Special Permit in order to modify the currently nonconforming use (retail, service, storage and office for a rug company) to another nonconforming use (music school)for the structure on the property located at 1, 3 and 5 PLEASANT STREET(R-2). I have received a letter from Jerry Arcari (of Landry & Arcari), the current owner of the property, authorizing Mr. Spungin to act as the petitioner. Mr. Spungin is under agreement to purchase the property and has given me a signed Purchase & Sales agreement. No construction is proposed. Petition of PAUL SUDENFELD, seeking a Special Permit to allow an additional use (retail sale) at an existing repair shop located at 462 HIGHLAND AVENUE (B-2). Paul Sudenfeld wishes to add the sale of motor scooters to his business, currently a repair shop. No construction is proposed. Continued 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 structur for the property located at 272 JEFFERSON AVENUE, Salem, MA(Bi). Attorney George Atkins contacted me to let me know he will be requesting a continuance for 272 Jefferson Avenue, which was continued from the November 19, 2008 Board of Appeals meeting to be heard at the January 21, 2009 meeting. I expect a written request from Attorney Atkins to arrive in the next few days. Other business: William Heney, representing Paul Carro, the petitioner for 7 English St., has sent a letter to Beth Rennard, City Solicitor, requesting to withdraw his petition for a variance for a second curb cut and a variance from minimum parking stall dimensions and minimum setback to allow parking spaces to remain. The matter is currently under review by the City's legal department. • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,January 21, 2009 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, January 21, 2009 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, and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Also present was Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Those absent were: Beth Debski, Annie Harris and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Chair Stein opens the meeting at 6:32 PM. Approval of Minutes Stein noted that the Board should not vote on approving the minutes of December 17, 2008 because too many members were absent; to vote on the minutes, at least four members who were present at the December meeting would need to be present at the current meeting. Stein made a motion to continue approval of the December 17, 2008 meeting minutes until February 18, 2009. The motion was seconded by Dionne and approved (4-0) (Stein, Dionne, Curran and Belair). • Public Hearings Stein stated that with only four members in attendance, petitioners would require a unanimous vote; anyone who wished to continue his petition could do so. Petition of STEVEN SPUNGIN, seeking a Special Permit n order to modify the currently nonconforming use (retail,service, storage and office for a rug company ) to another nonconforming use (music school) for the structure on the property located at 1,3 and 5 PLEASANT STREET [R-2]. Atty Jacob Seigel represented the petitioner. The seller, Jerry Arcari of Landry & Arcari, was also present. Atty Seigel explained that for many years, Mr. Acari has operated his rug business from the premises. He has moved to Bridge St. now, but still uses premises for storage and bringing people over for sale of rugs as a workroom. The petitioner, Steve Spungin, wishes to purchase the property and replicate a business he has in Marblehead called the Marblehead School of Music. Atty Seigel explained that the Marblehead location, while in a largely commercial area, does abut a residential neighborhood,just as 1, 3 and 5 Pleasant St. does. He noted that a school would be successful and would enhance the area, and that most students the school would serve would be 5-14 years, a good age to get kids doing something constructive. Stein said the application was comprehensive and asked if the Board had questions. • 1 Curran asked about the hours of operation. Atty Seigel confirmed that they would be • 2:30 to 8 PM, Monday through Friday, with a parent-child enrichment class 10 AM to 1 PM during the week as well. No weekend hours are currently planned. Spungin added that if he did want to open on weekends in the future it would be on a Saturday morning. Stein opens the issue for public comment. Don Tucker, 5 Webster St., asked how many students would be served. Spungin replied they would teach 4 to 5 at most. Lessons are 30 minutes, and parents usually just drop off and pick up their children. They would typically only park once every 10 weeks to pay tuition. Rosemary Hart, 7 '/2 Pleasant St, had concerns about the hours and noted that 8 PM seemed late; she would rather see the school open only until 6 or 7 PM. She also noted that parking is a concern, and there is rarely a space on the street. She said it's very difficult for residents, and she does not have a driveway. She asked how many people the school would have in it in addition to the students. Spungin said there would be one manager, 3-4 teachers, and about 4 students most of the time. The teachers would use public parking. Hart asked if there would be new students, or the same ones currently in Marblehead. Spungin replied that they would be new students from the local area. Paul Guido, 15 Pleasant St., asked what type of music would be taught. Spungin responded it that it was mostly acoustic music, and some electic guitar, and that the volume would never be louder than the typical household television. He said the school didn't offer any kind of ensemble or public rehearsal space. Guido noted that as far as parking was concerned, the neighborhood had dealt with Mr. Arcari, and he had been wonderful, very courteous. Guido hoped that kind of relationship would continue with the new property owners. Spungin asked Arcari how many employees he had at once. Arcari said usually 10-12. Spungin noted that he would have about a third of that. Guido said as long as the neighborhood could maintain the same relationship they had with Arcari, he would have no problem. David Pelletier, 12 Crombie St., said there really aren't a lot of music schools in Salem, and with budget cuts we don't have a lot of it in the schools. He thinks this is something that's needed in the city and gives students a positive outlet. Concerning parking on Crombie St., he noted that he has 54 new neighbors in a new nearby development; they all have cars; and he never even notices them. He hopes the ZBA will support Spungin so he can give the building a proper new use. Pamela Schmidt, 121 Bridge St., said she has enjoyed the Bridge St bypass, which has decreased traffic and noise around her house. She likes the idea of a music school— she hasn't liked the idea of a vacant building. However, she is sensitive to noise levels — she 2 • has appreciated the change since the bypass was constructed. She asked what measures the school would take to decrease sound levels, and if drums would be played at the school. Spungin stated that he wouldn't have drums in this location. He has a drum location in Marblehead, and it's insulated. If he did decide to do drum lessons at this location, he would restrict them to a professionally soundproofed basement. As to other instruments, their sound decibel levels are typically the same as a television. Brian Fraley, 4 Pleasant St, said he wanted to welcome Spungin to the neighborhood. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Belair commented that this a lesser use than the last use and that it's a great addition to the City. As for hours, kids don't get out of day programs until 5 or so, so she didn't think 8 was unreasonable. She noted that Salem does have a noise ordinance, if people are finding they are bothered. She said the applicants appear to be nice people who will work with the City. Stein agreed and noted that with kids in out of school time programs, that schedule was needed. She also stated that under the bylaw, this is a lesser intense use. She commented that it was a good project, and it was nice to see something go in there without needing to • make exterior changes that would change the existing nonconformity of the building. Curran agreed about the use. She asked if the curb cut was on Pleasant or Webb. Arcari responded that it was on Pleasant St. Stein suggested putting in the decision a condition that it would be permissible to extend hours to Saturday if the petitioner wishes so he won't have to come back if he decides to do that. Belair makes a motion to approve the petition of Steven Spungin seeking a special permit in order to modify the currently nonconforming use retail service, storage and office for a rug company, to another nonconforming use, a music school, for the structure on the property located at 1, 3 and 5 Pleasant St. in the Residential Two-Family Zoning district subject to four (4) standard conditions, and with permission to extend hours to Saturday. Dionne seconds the motion, and it passes 4-0 (Belair, Curran, Stein, Dionne). Petition of PAUL SUDENFIELD, seeking a Special Permit to allow an additional use (retail sale) at an existing repair shop located at 462 HIGHLAND AVENUE [B- 21. Paul Sudenfield presents his petition. He explained that he had started selling mopeds and would now like to get into selling larger bikes. Those under 49CC are not considered a motorcycle. Larger than that, he would need a license from town, approved by registry. 3 He is now requesting a Special Permit to sell bikes over 49CC. Nothing about the • business would change except for that. Curran clarified that Sudenfield's business would be staying a muffler shop and selling motor scooters— nothing bigger than 150, 250CC. Stein asked if he would be adding anything physical, such as a showroom. Sudenfield said no. Sudenfield notes that retail is not his primary business, so he doesn't mind if the ZBA restricts the how much he's able to sell. Stein says she doesn't think it's inconsistent with the bylaw to sell a few scooters on the side, but they don't want a full-scale retail operation. Sudenfield said that was not his plan, and that he still has a contract with Mieneke for the next several years to run his repair business. Curran said the repair shop should stay the primary use, and Stein said she thought they could craft some language to ensure that. Stein checks the bylaw to make sure the ZBA was granting Sudenfield the right relief. Belair thinks it would be an additional use. Sudenfield showed the ZBA examples of the products he'll be selling. • Belair suggests limiting not the size of the scooters Sudenfield can sell, but the percentage of business that could be comprised of retail sales. Stein told Sudenfield the ZBA is basically allowing him to expand the nonconforming use to allow a small number of sales of motorscooters/motorcycles, not to exceed the primary use of auto repair. Curran makes a motion to approve a Special Permit for the property at 462 Highland Avenue to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use to include the retail sale of motorcycles and motorscooters, not to exceed the primary use of the property as an auto repair shop, subject to three (3) standard conditions. Dionne seconds the motion and it passes 4-0 (Stein, Belair, Dionne, Curran). Request for continuance for the 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 [B11. McKnight refers to a letter submitted by Atty George Atkins requesting the continuance • to February 18, 2009. Stein asks McKnight how the negotiations with the other residents 4 • of 272 Jefferson Ave. are going, and whether she has heard any objections to continuing the hearing. McKnight responds that she has heard from two residents who were upset about the hearing being continued and who feared the issue could drag on indefinitely. Stein says it is important to keep in mind that this issue is not simply about the petitioner, but that it also affects the other condo owners. Curran makes a motion to continue the petition to February 18, 2009; Stein seconds the motion and it passes 4-0 (Stein, Dionne, Belair Curran). Old/New Business: Request for withdrawal of petition for 7 ENGLISH STREET. McKnight explains the City Solicitor, Beth Rennard, has received a letter from the petitioner's attorney requesting the withdrawal of the petition; however, the decision had already been filed. Stein makes a motion to ask the petitioner to come in to give the ZBA an update on the property. Dionne seconds the motion, and it passes 4-0 (Stein, Curran, Belair, Dionne). Stein: motion to close hearing, seconded by Dionne. The motion passes 4-0 (Stein, Dionne, Curran, Belair). Meeting adjourns at 7:15 PM. • Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner • 5 RONAN, SEGAL & HARRINGTON JAN 2 0 2009 ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET DE { Ui f AS40"NIG 6 JAMES T.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3470 Air`I �,'F1 h _.' JACOB S.SEGAL - MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON GEORGE W.ATKINS. III TEL(978)744-0350 FAX(978)744-7493 FILE NO.U-27 OF COUNSEL JOHN H.RONAN MICHAEL J.ESCHELBACHER January 15, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Salem a 120 Washington St. Salem, MA 01970 Re: 272 Jefferson Avenue "Ir Dear Members of the Board; , -s: • On behalf of the applicant on the above pending matter, and with the cori ent of Attorney Anthony Keck, I hereby request that the above matter be continued to your next scheduled meeting on February 18, 2009. Nam,,......-._ V truly yours, 3 eorge W. Atkins III wsd cc: Anthony G. Keck, Esq. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APRXpNL2 P J: 33 o' INE�� 120 WAS[IING I ON$IRE 1 I' SAI.IiM,i 4N fA,! USL't't$01970 '17t1.t_978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-9846 hIMM%Kl G% Di sIA11t. MAYOR February 2, 2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PAUL SUDENFIELD requesting a Special Permit to allow the expansion of a currently nonconforming use (auto repair shop) to allow an additional nonconforming use (retail sale of motor scooters) for • the structure on the property located at 462 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA in the Business Park Development Zoning District. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened and closed on January 21, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The following Zoning Board of Appeals members were present: Robin Stein(Chair), Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 8-5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner, Paul Sudenfield, represented himself at the hearing. 2. The property at 462 Highland Avenue is currently a motor scooter repair shop, a nonconforming use in the Business Park Development district. 3. In a petition dated December 11, 2008, the applicant requested a Special Permit for the expansion of a currently nonconforming use (auto repair shop) to allow an additional nonconforming use (retail sale of motor scooters). 4. The petitioner did not propose any exterior alterations to the structure. 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 petitioner's request for a special permit does not constitute substantial detriment to the public good as the property at 462 Highland Avenue has a history of non-conforming business and commercial use. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. In permitting such change, the Zoning Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 is granted to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use to include the retail sale of motorcycles and motor scooters, not to exceed the primary use of the property as an auto repair shop. • In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor(Stein, Curran, Dionne and Belair) and none(0)opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions,and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 5. The retail business is not to exceed the primary use of the property as an auto repair shop. Robin Stein, Chair c . Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 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. • • .gONU1TA,AO CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �. BOARD OF APPEAL e 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 y� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 •IMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX: 978-740-9846 ION FIB —2 MAYOR February 2, 2009 I r Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of STEVEN SPUNGIN requesting a Special Permit in order to modify the currently nonconforming use (retail, service, storage and office for a rug company) to another nonconforming use (music school) for the structure on the property located at 1, 3 and 5 PLEASANT STREET, Salem, MA in the Residential Two-Family zoning district. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened and closed on January 21, 2009 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The following Zoning Board of Appeals members were present: Robin Stein (Chair), Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, and Bonnie Belair (alternate). • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 8-5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Jacob Segal represented the petitioner, Steven Spungin, at the hearing. 2. The property at 1, 3 and 5 Pleasant Street is a retail/office/service/storage building in the Residential Two Family(R-2) district. 3. In a petition dated December 16, 2008, the applicant requested a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use of the structure (retail, service, storage and office for a rug company) to another nonconforming use (music school). 4. The petitioner did not propose any exterior alterations to the structure. 5. Several residents (Don Tucker, 5 Webster Street; Rosemary Hart, 7 %z Pleasant Street; Paul Guido, 15 Pleasant Street; and Pamela Schmidt, 121 Bridge Street) asked questions regarding the numbers of employees and students, noise levels, and parking. 6. Brian Fraley, 4 Pleasant Street, and David Pelletier, 12 Crombie Street, spoke in favor of the petition. 2 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the • intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. In permitting such change, the Zoning Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 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 is granted to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use to include the retail sale of motorcycles and motor scooters, not to exceed the primary use of the property as an auto repair shop. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor(Stein, Curran, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 3. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 4. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 5. The retail business is not to exceed the primary use of the property as an auto repair shop. Robin Stein��T� 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. 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 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. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ' ?m, BOARD OF APPEAL J ° � 120 Wr\JHI NG'CON S I REL"C+ S.\IJ.IAI,blr\SSACH US F;ITS OI 970 rel.e978-6195685 * I'nx:978-740-0404 KIAIRIzRIJ:Y DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, January 21,2009 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: Paul Sudenfield Location: 462 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit requested to allow the expansion of a currently nonconforming use (auto repair shop) to allow an additional • nonconforming use(retail sale of motor scooters) (BPD Zoning District) Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on February 2, 2009 Petition of: Steven Spungin Location: 1, 3 and 5 Pleasant Street, Salem, MA Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit requested to modify the currently nonconforming use (retail, service, storage and office for a rug company) to another nonconforming use (music school) (R-2 Zoning District). Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk on February 2, 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 19, 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 Date Name Mailing Address Phone # -�--. Email S ��o., . ;f" '312 �P�r.�yT�r —A� 63°I y�-13 S),nS 10 )`D 'q \ el) A Z 7 N 0 (L x , , ';S� �8 ' 3 " -21617 100 t7 1 _ Se-r✓/ 4-A-` ll� !"t L,-h rAd-r / P'i�37 i�S�/7 , rA) ,/ n,aj I •/�.` vC�af 4�-<-srCs Lfn.��z.e«aw.� �f �l �-6' � �fo 3os�, n `e9n� ✓ - r7 l' 5� 1� qV— 5�v Y Page of