Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
-1,Dn'n.9 pcxtrd o �PP��s 5epktm\o,ex 2o6g Ao Oe1 NcQ- " 20\o oNDI CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS +Or C BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �ICv TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 KIMBERLEY DRISGOLL . FAX: 978-740-9846 MAYOR ZU;t O `7 —01 P 21. 311 MEETING NO"1'ICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING December 15, 2010- 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313(3rd Floot) Robin Stein,Chair F CORRECTED AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes - October 20,2010 and November 17,2010 meeting 2. Public hearing:Petition of JOHN `ti HARFF requesting Variutces from nvrtunum lot area,lot widui/frontage,and front yard setbacks,to subdivide the property located at 434 LAFAYETTE STREET into six(6) single-family house lots (R-1 zoning district). Proposed access is from RAYMOND TERRACE, APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TOJANUARYI9 2011 3. Request of NORTH RIVER, LLC for extension of a Variance previously issued for the property located at 28 GOODHUE ST.[NRCC Zoning District]. 4. Continuation of Public hearing:Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES,INC. (lessee),seeking a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE [B-2 Zoning District]. S. Public hearing:Petition of EXPRESS AUTO BODY,INC,seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconformin use to another in order to convert the existing building located at 162-168 BOSTON ST to an auto body shop (I Zoning g District). 6. Public hearing:Petition of JOSH GILLIS,seeking a Variance from rear yard setback,and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,in order to enclose and roof over a 12'x 11'4"porch on the second story of the existing two- familyhome on the property located at 7 UNION ST. (R-2 Zoning District). 7. Public hearing:Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF,seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another, and a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit,in order to convert a three-unit bed and breakfast to three individual dwelling units,on the property located at 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH(R 2 Zoning District). S. Old/New Business 9. Adjournment ThIs flottag GIN Kali l oNDITggd CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS +�d�! BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 �• EDo� FAX: .978-740-98455 11 K _9 A <-1: 31 £l�'d� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING December 15,2010 - 6:30 P.M. City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 313 (3rd Floor) Robin Stem, Chas AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes - October 20, 2010 and November 17,2010 meeting 2. Public hearing: Petition of JOHN WHARFF requesting Variances from minimum lot area,lot width/frontage, and front yard setbacks,to subdivide the propertylocated at 434 LAFAYETTE STREET into six(6) single-family house lots (R-1). Proposed access is from RAYMOND TERRACE. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO TANUARYI9, 2011. • 3. Request of NORTH RIVER, LLC for extension of a Variance previously issued for the propertylocated at 28 GOODHUE ST. [NRCC]. 4. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES, INC. (lessee), seeking a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE [R-2]. 5. Public hearing:Petition of EXPRESS AUTO BODY, INC, seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert the existing building located at 162-168 BOSTON ST to an auto body shop (R 2 Zoning District). 6. Public hearing: Petition of JOSH GILLIS, seeking a Variance from rear yard setback, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,in order to enclose and roof over a 12'x 11'4" porch on the second story of the existing two- family home on the propertylocated at 7 UNION ST. (R-2 Zoning District). 7. Public hearing:Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another, and a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit,in order to convert a three-unit bed and breakfast to three individual dwelling tunits,on the property located at 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH (R 2 Zoning District). S. Old/New Business 9. Adjournment This rloftie poW' r! t'Mv V•B�y r U � t I t ._ • W7IT,j - ��"' ' CITY OIL SALI'.N'I,M:1SSrACIi USIA:ITS DITARTMIN'I'OIT PLANNING AND r " CONIMUNI'IY DINUL0PMENT 51 J Ct 120 W,ASI IIN( t'ON SIRILIi;t' ♦ SrALENI,M.ASSACI IUSCCI'S 01970 rna r:978-619-5685 ♦ F,\x:978 740 0404 KIMHERLEY DRISCOLL 1VL\YOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: December 8,2010 RE: Meeting Agenda—December 15,2010 • Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 11/17/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Minutes We did not review the October 20 minutes at the last meeting, so we will need to review them in addition to November 17. They were sent in last month's packets. Public hearing: Petition of JOHN WHARFF requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot width/frontage, and front yard setbacks, to subdivide the property located at 434 LAFAYETTE STREET into six (6) single-family house lots (R-1). Proposed access is from RAYMOND TERRACE. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE ToJANUARY19 2011 I will include the materials for this application in January's packet. Request of NORTH RIVER,LLC for extension of a Variance previously issued for the property located at 28 GOODHUE ST. [NRCC]. Attomey Joseph Corrend requests an extension of a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit for this project through June 30,2011. • A- Continuation of Public hearing; Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. (owner) and • HEALTH CARE RESOURCES, INC. (lessee), seeldng a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE [R-21. I sent copies of the plans and application for this project to Lt. Erin Griffin, Fire Marshall;Dr. William Cameron,Superintendent of Schools;and Chief of Police Paul Tucker,requesting their feedback. Comments from Lt. Griffin and Chief Tucker were included in your packets from November. I have not received feedback from Dr. Cameron. I am including a copy of the AUL and cleanup information, the traffic study the applicant has prepared,and a letter in support of the project submitted by the applicant from a recovering opiate addict. I have also enclosed another letter, supplied by the applicant, from Women's Life Imaging Center,an office located in a building with Merrimack River Medical Offices (a methadone clinic). A third letter, from a resident opposed to the project,is also included. Public hearing: Petition of EXPRESS AUTO BODY, INC,seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert the existing building located at 162-168 BOSTON ST to an auto body shop (I Zoning District). The proposed auto body shop use requires a Special Permit. I am enclosing a letter from a resident opposing the project. Public hearing: Petition of JOSH GILLIS, seeking a Variance from rear yard setback,and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,in order to enclose and roof over a 12'x 11'4"porch on the second story of the existing two-family home on the property located at 7 UNION ST. (R-2 Zoning District). A 5'rear setback is required;a 2'6"setback is proposed. • Public hearing: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF,seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another, and a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit,in order to convert a three-unit bed and breakfast to three individual dwelling units,on the property located at 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH (R-2 Zoning District). The property currently has two condominium units on it. One was converted into a three-unit bed and breakfast in 1999 (the decision is enclosed in your packet). The applicant proposes to convert this bed and breakfast into a three-unit residence. In addition to a special permit to convert one nonconforming use to another,a variance is required from lot area per dwelling unit(7,500 SF per dwelling unit is required in R-2; 1,741 SF per dwelling unit is proposed). • coNorTq�;, City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board. Zoning Board of Appeals Date f 2 / / 16 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail c.s> go up&\ k C L,-j -jq57o05 9a ZP.esl\ s 1,076-- ,0IV& amc�sf, �)e� 5'IJEh TTW /0 cr- , 441 a3S ��� '� /� 1�F�s7s��r•�,�d,� 9��-Sys-�a�9Q2c��eds a��^c�s't-tom IiCR�/dicA Eh(At6 07 /15"f `- 9787 (,,�y--26 —fOW( �oq qakjW,\� b� f FRS yOyu+WLO e d n .40 � �'� M�k IR/R ✓N' 15 f L l e�f- St— AAAJLTY(i rdr,-4571a-C" LIOU ZIa V/ JS &uvvc yv? 71L)1<y 'C, CGs7-,AleT �' l u Ntor' ,� �17 Z� ''�b�' � � n4 Rhtiotr�-✓oh "TI,4t �- $cS�� �(I Svc a Gz f+L/1+yL. 1 Page 1 of �coNptr,� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet y 4�, Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail $°► G( 1Z�vK.vL�a�ko lckA'i�tcaiw�v MF� �suM3L (D(� �J}�dSr oNfi1V1U� '(M+a4�^U1 r`t,.�I 51A a ✓ IQ (Z CA S�- SA-L. V-, On P--)4 s-'S4-114 r\nae�reioa�M�l��w u.emu h 21M1r� 1��Nt � 5rjjvlrjx�;2 S'r Sw t rl Y?J- f%Ci/1-25 ')�.N Page ?., of DI City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet • �� f iro �E�iMweo9 � Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date �,l �� 1. 16 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail �0�� SHER(vC� 6 jla l5A .-V- AVI 7 if- 771 - Irt v TOlJ.cl,.,.lotw. WLj.ae,T , c3Lld NS L&, 97? 7 S/6g�5u('Pa_y . v4r �.QSi S 27��ss 5� 6� N'eA" I „ n r t Q w kci &s 641V E L/0 - W, uo_4i aul'24-Fe.. I%e o r. Ftre,m(-Kk-d. ,lion SCI.t Mc' Cer 6� S /PA- �Ir A- TYd -se." h 0 _ r. 't 1-14 va It c, Y 1�k _La*1 b+U< < 6 I • Page z of 3 r con,Aa CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR r SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • end '� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 1 t ,t�l _� A 0. 28 Decision to Extend City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of North River, LLC requesting Variance to Allow 1,800 SF per Dwelling Unit for property located at 28 Goodhue Street, NRCC District January 3, 2011 North River Canal, LLC c/o Joseph C. Correnti, Esquire Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: 28 Goodhue Street Extension of Variance On Wednesday, September 27, 2006, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of North River Canal, LLC, 282 Bennington Street, Boston, MA for a Variance to allow 1,800 square feet per dwelling unit in the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. A Decision dated October 17, 2006 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office on October 18, 2006, and such Decision is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 27106, Page 44 (the "Decision"). The Decision is valid for one year from the date of the Decision unless extended by the Board. On September 19, 2007, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals extended the variances granted on October 18, 2006 for six (6) months to April 18, 2008, On March 19, 2008 the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to extend the variances for another six (6) months to October 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 9xtension 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, and voted unanimously on an extension through June 30, 2010. On May 19, 2010, the Board met to discuss a further request by North River Canal, LLC to extend the variances, and voted unanimously.on an extension through December 31, 2010. On December 15, 2010, the Board met to discuss a further request by North River Canal, LLC to extend the variances, and voted unanimously on an extension through June 30, 2011. The Board understands North River Canal, LLC intends to go forward with the project, though additional time is needed to put in place the necessary funding to begin construction. A COPY OF THIS DECISION TO EXTEND HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Elizabeth Debski, Vice-Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been tiled with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds. • 2 CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL s <+ 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 • Tfn` '� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2011 CH 2n A I1: 43 MAYOR December 28, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Public hearing: Petition of JOSH GILLIS, seeking a Variance from rear yard setback, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming stricture, in order to enclose and roof over a 12' x 11'4" porch on the second story of the existing two-family home on the property located at 7 UNION ST. (R-2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 15, 2010, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on December 15, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsmos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.2.1.2 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Marcus Springer, architect for the project, presented the petition. Petitioner and owner Josh Gillis was also present at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped November 19, 2010, petitioner requested a Variance from rear yard setback in order to enclose and roof over an existing porch on the two- family house at 7 Union Street. 3. No one at the hearing spoke in support of or against 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. 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 allow for the proposed enclosure of the existing porch. 3. 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. A Variance from rear yard setback is granted to allow for the proposed porch enclosure on the two-family house at 7 Union Street. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance and subject to the following terns, 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 of the building is to comply with the submitted plan. 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. letE tza e s Salem 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 Qa BOARD OF APPEAL tO 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • `-- -- �� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX. 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZT9 r7'^ n A MAYOR December 28, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another, and a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert a three-unit bed and breakfast to three individual dwelling units, on the property located at 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH (R-2 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 15, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on December 15, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein,.Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski, James Tsitsinos (alternate), and Bonnie Belair (alternate). • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2, and a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1.I, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: I. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped October 27, 2010, petitioner requested a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use (Bed and Breakfast) to another nonconforming use (multifamily use). 3. The building at 51-53 Washington Square North currently consists of two condominium units —one is a single-family residence, and the other is a three-unit Bed and Breakfast. 4. Petitioner seeks to convert the Bed and Breakfast to a three-unit residence. 5. At the hearing on December 15, 2010, two residents spoke in support of the proposal, saying the change in use would be positive for the neighborhood. No one spoke in opposition. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public • hearing, and alter 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; and literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant; as the building is very large for the lot on which it is situated. 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 residential use would be less intense than the current commercial use, and sufficient parking is provided. 3. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to convert the Bed and Breakfast to a three-unit residence, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 4. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals g als requires pP q s certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: • 1. A Variance from lot area per dwelling unit is granted to allow the conversion of a Bed and Breakfast to a three-unit residence. 2. A Special Permit is granted to convert one nonconforming use to another. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Special Permit and a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any Construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 3 • 6. A Certi ficate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. S. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission havingjurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. r�D ,y Q4 I ofLd I I,�7t'VX Elizabeth Debski Salem Board of Appeals A COPY 017"PHIS DECISION HAS BEEN PILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to file 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 oft lie City Clerk has been tiled with the Essex South 2egisny of Deeds. • ONDIP4�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n 7 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RO FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • _ Pn E�� 3' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEV DRISCOLL In, ^ „• MAYOR r�,'LSD.! LO,. ;-i !,• 1�3 December 28, 2010 Decision City Of Salem Zoning Board ofAppeals Petition Of CONItI'IUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES, INC. (lessee), seeking a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE 113- 2Z_oning Districts. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on September 15, 2010 pursuant to Klass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. 'file hearing was continued to November 17, 2010 and December 15, 2010. The hearing was closed on December 15, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Elizabeth Debski, James Tsitsinos (alternate), and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section II 3.0 (B) of the City of Salem Zoning, .Ordinances. Statements of fact: - I. Attorney John R. Keilty represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped August 26, 2010, petitioner Community Health Care, Inc. (Operator) and Health Care Resources, Inc. (Lessee) requested a Special Permit under Section II 3.0 (B) of the Salem Zoning Ordinances_ to allow a medical clinic within the Business Highway Zoning District. 3. The petition states that the property is owned by Hillcrest Realty Trust 11 (Ralph C,erUnd010, I I'ustee), who submitted a letter with the petition authorizing Attorney Keilty to execute the Special Permit on behalf of the petitioner. 4. 'file proposed medical clinic, a methadone center, is proposed to be located in a portion of the vacant building that formerly housed an auto dealership at 207 Highland Avenue. No exterior construction is proposed. 5. At the hearing on September 15, 2010, numerous members of the public spoke in Opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about crime and traffic negatively Impacting the nearby residential neighborhoods. Other concerns expressed by members of the public were the proximity of the facility to the nearby schools, potential dangers ofclients driving after having received methadone closes, and I � • negative effects on the area's economy if the center's presence discouraged puu'onage of local businesses. 6. Also at the September 15, 2010 hearing, one member of the public spoke in support of the petition, citing the need to provide treatment for drug addicts. 7. In response to resident comments, Board members requested additional information of the petitioner, including a traffic study, the Activity and Use Limitation and cleanup documentation for the property, and information demonstrating the need for a methadone clinic in Salem. Board members also said they wished to hear feedback from the Salem Police, Fire and School Departments. S. The hearing was continued to November 17, 2010 and then to December 15, 2010. 9. Fifteen individuals and/or households submitted letters to the Board in opposition to the project. 10. The Board received four letters in support of the project. 11. The Board received feedback on the plans from Lieutenant Erin Griffin, Fire Marshall, and Chief of Police Paul Tucker. The Board also received a traffic . study completed by the applicant. 12. At the December 15, 2010 hearing, numerous members of the public again spoke in opposition to the proposal, including City Councillors Steven Pinto, Thomas Furey, Arthur Sargent, Robert McCarthy, ,lean Pelletier, ,terry Ryan, John Ronan, and Paul Prevey. 13. At the December 15, 2010 hearing, the Board also reviewed information submitted by the petitioner documenting the number of people in Salem currently served by clinics on neighboring communities. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following- findings: I. The Special Permit cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the surrounding neighborhood; while the need for a methadone clinic exists for a small number of residents, this benefit does not outweigh the negative impacts that would be imposed on the adjacent residential area. Such negative impacts include greatly increased traffic on First Street and other local roadways. The Board specifically cited, as an example, the applicant's projection that 26% of the 300 expected clients would arrive during a morning peak hour of 7:30 to 8:30, and during this time the projected number of right-hand turns from Highland Avenue to First Street would go from 20 to 77 turns during weekday peak morning hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 a.m.). This represents more than triple the projected number of turns in the no-build scenario. The Board noted that this specific increase, in addition to other increases in traffic on local roads, would pose a danger to pedestrian children walking to school, since the facility's peak hours would coincide with the opening hours of three schools in close proximity to the site. In addition to the increased traffic during peak hours, the Board was concerned that the remaining 74% ofthe facility's expected business, which was expected to occur by 1 1 :00 a.m., would also pose nalfic problems on local roads. The Board also noted that parking would be problematic since such a large proportion of clients would be arriving around the same time. 2. The Board finds that the use would not be hartnoniOLIS with the residential character of the adjacent neighborhood. 3. The Board also noted that the location on Highland Avenue would be better suited for retail and other business uses that would enhance the adjacent neighborhood and serve a greater number of residents. On the basis of the above findings and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: I. A Special Permit to allow a medical clinic in the Business Highway Zoning District is not granted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted 5-0 (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos) opposed to the petition. The petition is denied. Elizabeth Debski Salem Board of Appeals A C'OI'1 01'1'1-I IS UIiCIS10N IMs BEEN FILLD Wl I II TlI F PLANNING BOARD AND"II[E C'ItY 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 tile City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON SnU7ET♦ SALEM,MASSAG-USEM01970 ant' {N# tlX� Tra-e:978-619-5685 * FAX:978-740-0404 KIS7BIlRIry DKISGOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the Cry of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the 120 Washington St.,, Salem,MA, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of JOSH GILLIS, seeking a Variance from rear yard setback, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to enclose and roof over a 12'x 11'4" porch on the second story of the existing two-family home on the property located at 7 UNION ST, Salem,MA(R-2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on December 28, 2010 Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another, and a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert a three-unit bed and breakfast to three individual dwelling units, on the property located at 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH, Salem,MA • (R-2 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on December 28, 2010 Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES, INC. (lessee) requesting a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) pursuant to section 2.3, Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, on the property at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE (former Hillcrest automobile dealership) [B2]. Decision: Denied Filed with the City Clerk on December 28, 2010 This nonce is(zing sea in cenphame with the Massachusetts Gereral Lazes, Chapter 40A,Sections 9& 15 and dw not require action by the mipiem Appeals, if any,shall IT made pursuant to Chapter 40A,Sion 17,and shall Ee fikel wthin 20&ty firm the date ubid7 the decision vas fkd with the C y Clerk. • • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals APPROVED Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, December 15, 2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 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,Becky Gun-an, Rick Dionne,Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Annie Hams. Also present were: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre,Director of Inspectional Services. Stein opens the m3eti7g at 6:38 p.m Review of October 20, 2010 minutes: Dionne moves to approve, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Dionne,Debski, Curran,Belair and Stein in favor,none opposed). Review of November 17, 2010 minutes: Dionne moves to approve, seconded by Curran and approved 4-0 (Dionne, Curran,Debski and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of JOHN WHARFF requesting Variances from minimum lot area, lot width/frontage, and front yard setbacks, to subdivide the property located at 434 LAFAYETTE STREET into six(6) single-family house lots (R-1 zoning district). Proposed access is from RAYMOND TERRACE. Attorney Scott Grover requests to continue the petition to the January meeting. Debski moves to continue the petition to January 19, 2011,seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Curran,Dionne, Stein,Debski,Belair in favor, none opposed). Request of NORTH RIVER, LLC for extension of a Variance previously issued for the property located at 28 GOODHUE ST. [NRCC]. Goodhue St. - Correnti requests to extend the previously issued variances, explaining the financing for the project has been difficult, but they wish to go ahead with the project. Stein says she has no problem with approving, but asks when the Board first approved. Correnti says 2006. Stein says she thinks the law has changed recently and thinks they may not need approval to extend the Variance. Correnti says he thinks it's still needed. Dionne moves to approve extending the Variance for six months; seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Curran,Dionne, Stein,Debski, Belair in favor, none opposed) Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE,INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES,INC. (lessee),seeking a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE [B-2 Zoning District]. . Attomey John Keilty, 40 Lowell St. Peabody presents the petition. He explains they are seeking a Special Permit to operate a medical clinic,specifically a methadone clinic. He says 1 • they have provided information about the clinic and how it operates, identified how many operations are run by his clients, and given testament to how the dosage takes place. Since the fast hearing,they have submitted the AUL,soil tests,stats from state dept. of public health showing the need for addiction services in Salem, a traffic study, and information about the clinic. He refers to a tenant neighboring another center run by his client; he says this letter attests to the fact that there have been no incidents or threats to the neighbors. He also refers to the memo submitted by Chief Paul Tucker of the Salem Police attesting to the need for such a clinic and that there was no undue burden on the police departments of other communities where his client's clinics are operated, nor was there an increase in crime. He stated that Chief Tucker noted that if the facility were cited, the police would work to keep the area safe. AttyKeiltyreferred to the traffic study done by Ken Cram, which reports that the traffic in the area- studied during the clinic's peak period and the current peak period on Highland Ave. - also covered crash data. He said Highland Ave. seems to be becoming safer, exhibiting fewer crashes than in previous years. He said the study also examines similar facilities in neighboring cities. They applied these data using worst case scenarios - and came to the conclusion that there would be minimal impact. He said they have elected not to limit access to the parking lot. In response to concerns that clients may arrive very early and might queue up early, a crash gate was proposed- but now they are proposing its elimination,to enable anyone coming at early hours to have complete access to the parking lot. Queueing then should not be an issue on Highland Ave. He says their co- tenant, a church, has no problem with sharing the parking lot since their peak hours are different. He says this is a facility of 7300 SF,with 300 clients expected. There would be 110 additional spaces - a total 144 parking spaces available at all hours during the day. He • says this would have previously been allowed by right before a zoning amendment in Sept., which was passed in response to his client's previous attempt to locate on Canal St. He believes this was passed in good faith, and the council intended to give the city the chance to review such projects, and not discriminate against methadone facilities. He says he believes they have shown the community need for the services, and its lack of negative impact on the project. He says if not granted the Special Permit,they will appeal the denial. He says this has happened in other communities, costing cities and towns money, and says the Board must weigh the evidence presented. Debski asks if the church would take the remainder of the space in the building? AttyKeilty says they probably would not use the entire rest of the space, but the broker is close to landing the church as tenant. Curran: traffic study talks about 300 patients per day;you expect this? Can it be capped? Keilty says it could be capped if the Board wanted to pursue that, and it would take about a year to get to 300 clients. He says if things go as planned,they could ask for an amendment. Curran: would there be a policy about no sleeping in parking lot? Keilty says yes,though there have been no reports of people sleeping in parking lots in other communities. Stein opens the issue up far public mnm,& Miguel Andreattola, 9 Red Jacket Lane, says his children go to the nearby schools, and he is • concerned about this location, since the children walk by the site on their way. He believes this is a public safety issue. 2 f • Maria Andreattola, 9 Red Jacket Lane,says the location is not appropriate because of proximity to schools. Sandra McMahon, 2 Madeline Ave., says that capping the clients sounds unrealistic and a housing complex is nearby. If clients are waiting to be counseled,they are waiting around in Dunkin Donuts and other local places;they will be lingering,especially if they arrive on the bus and need to wait around to be seen. She does think this will be a public safety issue. Dorothy Hayes, Essex St., opposes because she feels it will be a public safety issue. She says they won't serve people who have fallen off the wagon, so where will those people go? She knows people who have these facilities near them and says discarded needles are a problem. She is also concerned about traffic during peak commuting hours. Also, she says clients will be drowsy and then will drive away. Marty Miseranduno, 13 First St.,said it was reported in paper that 17 or 18 people from Salem would be using clinic - where would the rest come fromi) Stein: currently, Salem people are using the Peabody facility. She does expect people would come from other communities. Keiltysays the focus is serving Salem citizens, but they will not be exclusive. His statistics show there are as many as over a thousand who are being treated in opiate facilities from zip code 01970. Miseranduno says the applicant has had two incidents, one resulting in a death, from getting methadone and then driving. He says in Peabody on Rt. 1, a costumer drove away after getting treatment; he is concerned that the people running the business are not doing a good job controlling this situation. He says this places an undue . burden on police. Keitly says the clients are allowed to drive away. Miseranduno says he is concerned about traffic. Hedy Thibaut, 15 First St. is concerned about noise and drowsiness about methadone. She asks what the business incentive is to get these people off methadone, given that the business is for profit? She says she is concerned about the neighborhood, including children. Veronica Ehrlich,29 First ST., opposes the project,saying it will lower property values and will be a detriment to the neighborhood. She says she and other taxpayers will move if this is approved. She also asks about trash and dirt that will be generated bythe clinic. Todd Siegel, 28 Brittania Circle, says he is a criminal defense attorney. He says at the fast meeting, he handed the Board call for service logs from Chelsea and Lynn Police depts.. - he says police were called over 100 times in each city He says Keilty's assertion that there will be no strain on community services is incorrect. He says there was recently a death in Revere; the driver was on his way to a methadone clinic and killed a woman. He cites another accident caused by a methadone clinic client in Peabody. He also opposes the project on the grounds that a for-profit business has no incentive to get people off • methadone. 3 • Tom Furey, Councillor at Large, 77 Linden St., says the process of bringing in a clinic has not been open. He says no one knew about the original proposal on Canal St. He says the ZBA has to now put up with the residual effect of not having a committee and public involvement in siting the facility. He says if there is such a need for this clinic,this should not have been dealt with in this fashion. He refers to the schools and residential neighborhoods nearby. Says he hopes the board denies. Amy Alpert, 8 Lightning Lane - president of her condo association- 108 units - representing group says they are opposed. She says the Chelsea location Keilty referred to is in a remote area, not a residential neighborhood. She also opposes the project on the grounds that the clinic is for-profit. Judy Cohen - 15 Flying Cloud Lane - president of the Sanctuary Association, says her organization and their neighbors are opposed on the grounds of safety concerns. Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, says it is a dangerous area, especially for school children. She says the clinic's operation hours are the same as school hours. She says leaving the site is very difficult, and it goes straight into a residential area.-She's a nurse and thinks methadone treatment does not reallytreat addiction. She opposes the site proposed. Lou Zikowski- opposes because of location of schools. Rick Johnson, 13 River St., opposes because of public safety hazards. He says theyre being • asked to put a great deal of trust in clinic's operators and clients. He says if this is a fee for service operation,we can assume they are looking to promote dispensing higher dosages. He also says clients driving after dosing is a concern. Paulette Puleo, 5 Freeman Rd. - opposes because of proximity to schools and danger to children. She says there is a bus stop at the end of her street and she's concerned clients would use it frequently. She understands there's a need but this is the wrong site. Councillor Steven Pinto - 55 Columbus Ave., opposes because the business is for profit; he doesn't deny that people need help, but feels impacts to quality of life and impacts to neighborhoods would be too great. Todd Siegal says the courts do not send people for this treatment. David Pelletier, 12 Crombie St. - He opposes because the clinic is for-profit and will want as many clients as possible. Theresa Nadeau- 7 Gallows Circle - She says she and her husband own a number of properties in the area and they are strongly opposed. Arther Theopblopoulus, 24 Valley St., says he is concerned about children, since clients may be in an altered state and pose a threat. He also doesn't think this makes economic sense • and it's not needed in Salem- there are other clinics who can take these patients. 4 • Megan Romanovitz, 90 Ocean Ave. says at the last meeting it was discussed that clients may be able to take the drugs with them and fill prescriptions - the drugs could be sold and this poses a threat to children. She says there alreadyis a methadone clinic in Salem on Mason St. run by HES. She says this would be the second one and this doesn't make sense. Michelle Knox, 32 Cavendish Circle, is opposed. She says criminal background checks aren't run on clients, so perhaps dangerous people would be attending the clinic. She is concerned about proximity to schools. She says in Sept. - if someone shows without appointment or too high to be treated, and they would be escorted from property, but the client's operator does not take responsibility for these individuals. She also says there are discrepancies in information about the hours of operation. She says people typicallydo not seek treatment in their own community,so how will people come in from other communities, and how will they be taken home? She is also concerned about traffic. Rachel Doherty, 70 First St,is opposed- this is very close to her home. Pequot Highlands apartments has 250 units, and the back part of the site is about a tenth of a mile; it's in very close walking distance from the apartments. Also very close to Hawthorn apartments,which are even closer. She says the proposal isn't appropriate for a residential area. She is also concerned about traffic. Tony Germain, 15 Ravenna,is opposed. He says it will destroy neighborhood. He says the city should maintain its tourist and historic character • Jim Rush, Ocean Ave.,is opposed. He says the number of residents needing the clinic has changed. He refers to a Salem Gazette article this year- Mr. Potter quoted as saying it was a good business decision to come to Salem. He says this is about money, not helping people. He also says Potter's quote that they will be in Salem eventually flies in the face of the citizens here who are opposed. He says the citycouncilors, opposing this project, represent the people of Salem. However, he says the applicant does not care about this. He says the applicant is threatening litigation. He says this is a quality of life issue. He says no one has been coming to these meetings who is in favor of the project. He says Salem does not need a methadone clinic. Jim Hacker,4 Mayflower Lane, opposes the project and echoes comments said. He says adverse effects of proposal must not outweigh benefits; he says this project would not benefit neighborhoods. He says he lives in Mariner Village,with 108 units, and says this amounts to about a quarter million dollars a year in taxes. He says if they lose even ten percent of value,that would be a great loss to the city. He asks the Board to consider then when approving the special permit,there are standards that the permit granted shouldn't be more detrimental than what's in place. Ricki Hacker, 4 Mayflower Lane, also opposes. She says public transportation to the clinic - bus runs one way- must cross Highaldn Ave. to get return bus. She is concerned about children in the area. • Councillor Paul Prevey,Ward 6, opposes clinic. He points out in addition to negative impacts, looking at whole picture of Salem,what makes the city unique - this is a very small city to have a clinic. He feels the impact to Salem would be tremendous - not like some 5 . other cities that could more easily absorb such a facility. Things are often crammed in; only 8 square miles. Always a challenge with business corning into city and not negatively impacting residents; we must look at what makes Salem livable and growable. He says Salem doesn't have a large business base; we do rely on businesses for tax base - business will look at things that will impact new potential businesses - this will detract from Salem's appeal for new businesses. Many improvements have been made in the city;this would have a negative impact instead. Councillor John Ronan- Ward 5 - opposes clinic. He says councilors disagree about many issues, but all love Salem and want to do what's best for the city. But all agree on this issue. He says this is not something Salem wants. He refers to standards articulated in the zoning ordinance in its introduction. He points particularly to promotion of appropriate land use in the city. He says council passed an ordinance allowing a clinic in Salem if they could demonstrate that grounds of Special Permit would be met. The proposed use's benefits must outweigh impacts to city and neighborhood. However, the benefit is not to the applicant's private benefit- it's supposed to be for the city. He says the city gets very little benefit- less than one quarter of one percent of the population of Salem needs this facility. He says many clinics are state sponsored, but this one is not. He also points out that if a resident of Salem needed treatment,they could go to the two clinics in Lynn, others in neighboring cities. He says no place in Salem is further than a 10 minute drive to one of these other facilities. He says he met with Mr. Potter during last proposal. He says he is concerned about take-home dosages. He looked up regulations with regard to this - he says these are carefully regulated by statute. He reads from Federal statute. He says these are • allowed under certain conditions and at certain time intervals. He says in later years of treatment,patients need to only report once or twice a month to center. He says adverse effects to neighborhoods clearly outweigh saving a small number of Salem residents the trouble of driving to another facility. Jerry Ryan,Ward 4 Councillor- he says he has not heard anyone in favor. He has heard from many constituents who are opposed. He objects to the siting of a for-profit clinic. He says their ultimate goal is to make money. He says the Board should not let the threat of litigation guide their decision, but instead should put themselves in the shoes of the neighbors who are dealing with this proposal. Stan Poirier, 8 Cottage St., opposes. He says this should not be considered. He strongly urges the Board to vote against. He says if the applicant chooses to sue, his tax dollars couldn't be better spent opposing. Councillor Arthur Sargent urges Board to consider quality of life in Salem neighborhoods. He says the more he hears about this,the more he believes it should be in a hospital setting. There should be a staff present in case of a medical problem. Also, in case of any problems there would be a security staff present. If someone tried to leave in the wrong condition,it would be easier to prevent drivers. Urges Board to turn this down,even knowing there could be litigation- there would be burden on applicant to appeal, rather than neighbors having to pay for an appeal if approved. • Councillor Bob McCarthy says the public has spoken loud and clear in opposition. Concurs with Mr. Hacker and his colleagues - reminds Board of standards needed to issue Special 6 . Permit. He says needs are already being met in clinics elsewhere. He says he has not heard that the other clinics are at capacity. He says if other clinics were turning away Salem residents and the need was not being met, he might feel differently. He says the clinic hasn't demonstrated that need isn't being fulfilled elsewhere. He says if it came to the point where Salem residents weren't being served, let them come back- but right now the need wasn't demonstrated. He feels it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Councillor Jean Pelletier asks Keiltyexpresses concerns about the hours of operation and also comments that it would be unsafe for children walking in the early morning in this area. He is concerned about cars leaving site and heading toward First St. He refers to Attorney Keilty's threat about appealing and says the burden of proof should be on the applicant. He says the applicant was trying to intimidate Board. He says Bob Norton, president of Salem Hospital, spoke with the councilor; he had a clinic at hospital,says it got out of hand. He says police were going there daily. He says the hospital ended their clinic because they didn't see a benefit to running it. He says he hopes the Board will deny the SP for the greater good of the neighborhood and the city. Stein doses the public mnvrent portion cf the hwrirg. Stein reviews letters received for record: there is one from Women's Life imaging center. Co tenants with a clinic run by applicant. The letter says there have been no issues. Stein says not all letters will be read in entirety but are on file. She notes they are available for review. • Curran is concerned that until dose is right, a user has the potential to be drowsy. Since they can't park there,would they be in the neighborhood? Keilty says they had not stated they couldn't park. The crash gate no longer proposed. If drowsy,the client would be kept inside facility. Similar to giving blood,people are kept until they are steady on feet. Stein asks questions about the traffic study. She says she noticed identified peak hours 7:30 to 8:30 on Highland. If there are 300 clients, how many will come before 7:30? If 5-8 is peak dispensing time, how many are coming between 7:30 and 8:30? Keilty: 174 trips during peak operating hour in Peabody and Chelsea. Stein: when you say during peak hours, is it 174 in that one hour? Ken Cram of Land Strategies,which performed the study, says they gathered several weeks' worth of data from CCRC, data showed their peak was 5:30 to 6:30 - roughly- about a quarter of total trips occurred. Assuming a worst case scenario,they matched up peak hours. Stein asks for clarification various points in the traffic study which Cram provides. Stein asks about a provision in the lease that others couldn't use parking spaces. Keil . our P P g P t1'' 33 spaces complies with zoning, so other 111 spaces beyond the crash gate are available to remaining space in building. • Stein says that one of factors is traffic and parking she doesn't think 33 spaces are adequate. Trips are very concentrated because of type of service. Her concern is if something else goes in rest of site - how would we weigh that? Debski is also concerned about that. 7 Stein says one of her issues is that 33 is even remotely adequate. What would safeguard be, if the board approved,that more spaces would be dedicated? Keilty says he can say with assurance they would have access to all spaces. Stein asks if that's a risk the landlord is willing to run? Fred Massa, broker says the parking requirements already exist on site if building were full. Church would occupy 12,000 SF. Debski: are there other prospective tenants? Massa: yes, prospective commercial,and no larger parking needs than already exist. Keilty: the clinic's significant use time is over when other commercial uses would open. Keiltysays at the Sept. hearing, they stated that they were treating 100 from Salem in Peabody,then suggested they couldn't guarantee theyd all come back to Salem for treatment because of issues of travel to work, etc., and people not wanting to be treated in their own community. He assumed 20 or so people wouldn't come back to Salem. He says they identified at least 600+ Salem people in need of services. He says it's true that as Ronan stated, they have choices,there is another facility in Salem. Many people were surprised to find out there's one on Mason- this gets to our issue that these facilities don't cause the kinds of problems people speculate about. Debski: what is your incentive to get clients off methadone? How long are people in treatment? Potter: average patient we see is late 20s, blue collar, has been addicted to Oxy or heroin. If using 5 years, about 12-18 months. Sometimes people staym treatment longer, but this is a personal and not a business decision. Can detoxify at anytime,their goal is to get people drug free. Ding treatment is long term and people do sometimes relapse,this is not a quick fix. Keilty: incentive is to be successful. Stein asks about take-home prescription. What is your policy? Potter: federal policy allows to close one day a week, but this isn't good medicine. Fed regs are more lenient- we need to see someone min 6 months. To be eligible, need to keep all appointments, safe home environment, clean urine,no legal issues,etc. One bottle is given in child safe bottle. Must bring bottle back or goes back to 6 month track This is an incentive to do well and not have to attend'clinic every day. Much more restrictive at CSAC than on Fed level. Stein: peak hour is 26% of your business. Potter says there is one nurse's line to confirm people are going to work Stein - you stop dispensing at 8? Potter- it depends - it's a slow operation to start. As population grows, latest is 11 but these facilities are larger. Stein: getting sense of traffic - most if not all is done by 8 a.m? Potter- yes. Debski is very concerned about proximityto schools. She notes the school dept. did not comment- we don't have their input. Do you have other facilities located near schools? Potter- yes, one is from B&D properties - owns 10,000 SF building. 5,000 SF next door is girls dance studio. A daycare center then came in. Owner's daughter has a consignment • shop there. Over 10 years there has never been an issue. Keilty: near public schools? Potter- yes,in Chelsea. 8 • Debski- these are supervised settings - here you have kids walking along First in an isolated neighborhood and then down Hghland. Schools start at 7. Potter- all facilities have play areas because mothers come with children. Stein: my issue isn't kids being around- it's kids walking to school with the amount of traffic. I don't doubt that drug use is a problem and we need to offer a variety of treatment opportunities - need to be fair to people who need services. Concern I have with this location is the traffic numbers. You are taking first st. from 20 to 77 trips. Adding 57 in an hour. At 300 people - this would almost triple traffic on First St. There are a lot of kids that walk there - I'm concerned about the traffic and the walking, not the proximity of methadone. Unfortunate that your peak hour coincides with school starting. This is near three schools. Curran doesn't think the benefit outweighs the negative impact. It's a strange site - zoning does allow as a SP use - but the topography is such that it's isolated within the residential area as opposed to business area- there are parking and traffic issues. She is concerned about the schools and timing, and parking issues related to everyone coming at once. I don't support this and don't support that benefit outweighs. A small percentage of the community needs it, and the impact on the neighborhood is very great. Debski: it disrupts the neighborhood character. The impacts outweigh benefits. This is a prime location on Highland- if there were retail uses from that these neighbors could benefit from,that would be great. Stein didn't know that HES was operating a site on Mason. Potter- perhaps a private doctor is dispensing, but there is no actual clinic. Tsistinos: what about the hospital? Potter- hospital didn't express interest in having clinic there. Curran: we also have a conflict between residential uses and proposed use. Stein gives Keiltyan opportunity to respond; says they have clarified everything they've been asked to. Curran moves to grant the petition,seconded by Dionne, and unanimously denied (Debski, Stein,Dionne, Curran, and Tsitsinos opposed,none in favor). Documents &Exhibits: ■ Application, dated 8/26/11 • AUL and soil test information, dated 3/3/96 ■ Traffic Impact and Access Study, dated 11/12/10,prepared by Land Strategies, LLC ■ Data from state dept. of public health submitted by Community Substance Abuse Centers,dated 11/10/11 ■ Information packet about the proposed clinic. • memo submitted by Chief Paul Tucker, dated 11/8/10 9 • Public hearing: Petition of EXPRESS AUTO BODY, INC, seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert the existing building located at 162-168 BOSTON ST to an auto body shop (I Zoning District). AttomeyPeterMartino, 986 Saratoga St.,East Boston, representing Express Auto Body Inc. presents the petition. He says the past use of the property was a mill works building, most recently used to manufacture windows. Mr. Chavez intends to run an autobody shop. Currently a warehouse. 6-8 cars expected. Repair of auto body parts and bumpers is primary pan of business. No room on property for cars to be parked. Debski clarifies this is the old Jeffers Lumber. Stein asks about ventilation;Martino says there is a good ventilation system. All work would be done inside, must meet all codes for fire, fumes, etc. No exterior work. Cars would not be parked on street or at exterior of building. Carlos Farias says there will be four employees. Curran: are there two principal uses on one lot? Board asks for clarification on which building this is and how it's accessed. Stein: how many uses on site now? • St. Pierre: there's a third building. NO in back, but off to left of lot toward Boston St., in driveway there's a steel building, 10 yrs old, in addition. The problem is the owner is putting a lot of uses on the site. We need to determine if there's enough parking. But he hasn't defined parking. Access, adequacy of parking are issues with special Permit. Cars can't come in because of elevation, have to go onto a common right of way and into back of mill building to come in and out. Martino: mill would have had same issue of traffic. As far as we're concerned,we won't have people parking- if cars would be repaired,they would come into the shop. Curran: wouldn't there be a lot of juggling of cars that happens outside? Martino explains that cars would be entering the building. Could not park on street. Stein: under new recodification, what does this fall under? St. Pierre: motor vehicle general and auto body. He also notes that with this kind of use, he is concerned about parking situation- if this were the only use, no problem, but need clarification of other uses and parking on site. Board members also ask for a site plan. Are • there two or three principal uses? • St. Pierre: for your client's sake, if he's renting from Mr. Cucurull, he needs to have these defined. 1 • Martino: we will get this defined and then submit a site plan. Stein opens the public co mrnt portion cf the hearing Bob Brophy, 165 Boston St. asks questions about parking- where is employee parking? Where would Uhaul and Hertz employees park? Says there will be more congestion, also says they want to change the nonconforming use of the property. St. Pierre says this is actually 164. St . Pierre then clarifies this is refers to 164 map 16, lot 0190, the lumber yard property only. Stein doses public corrnrs it portion Applicant requests to continue to January 19,2011. Curran moves to continue,seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Curran,Dionne,Belair,Debski and Stein in favor,none opposed). Documents &Exhibitions ■ Application dated 11/18/10 and accompanying undated drawing ■ Assessor's plate of 164-168 Boston St. Public hearing: Petition of JOSH GILLIS, seeking a Variance from rear yard setback, and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, in order to enclose and • roof over a 12' x 11'4" porch on the second story of the existing two-family home on the property located at 7 UNION ST. 7 Union St. - Marcus Springer, 319 A St., representing Josh Gillis, who is also present. He says they are renovating and expanding the property at 7 Union St. Says current house was built around 1885, addition exists to south of house, not sure when it was made. Does not meet current setback requirements. Want to enclose the second floor porch to create a family room off kitchen. Easiest way is to go up on current foundation and walls. Says they have provided the existing plans of house, as well as elevations. Stein: just closing existing porch? Yes. Curran: in historic district? Springer- no. Curran asks for clarification on window details;Springer explains. Stein opm public corn m portion qf pwtiog no ork-here to cmwv4 she doses it Stein says this is minimal relief. Board asks about roofline - Springer explains they are following line of existing addition. Curran moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions: • 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 of the building is to comply with the submitted plan. 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. seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Belair,Debski, Stein,Dionne and Curran in favor, none opposed). Documents &Exhibitions: • ■ Application dated11/19/10 ■ Plans dated 11/18/10 Public hearing: Petition of WILLIAM WHARFF, seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another, and a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert a three-unit bed and breakfast to three individual dwelling units, on the property located at 51-53 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH (R-2 Zoning District). Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. St. Pierre says a Special Permit for Bed and Breakfast has been in place since 1999. Attorney Grover says they want to convert back to the residential use it was prior to 1999. Says the building is very large - the unit is 5000 SF, which is much larger than most units in the area. He says the current zoning would not even allow one unit based on lot area per dwelling unit required. He says parking requirements are met. He says access from Pleasant St. Ave is easy, and five of spaces are allocated to unit 2, which is the inn. For the 3 units proposed,they have enough spaces already. He speaks about the benefit to the neighborhood of having a commercial use converted to a residential one. Curran: would these be 2 bedroom units? • 1 • Grover- 3 floors, one unit per floor,Wharff- unit size would be about 1300 SF each. Similar space to what we did at the EWs - similar finishes,etc. No exterior work, stairs. Stein: we're always happy to see a residential use reestablished in a residential neighborhood. Stein opens the issue up for public wnvm Barbara Swartz, 47 Washington Square north,says she fully supports,saying it would be good for the neighborhood Richard Wise, has next door unit, supports, saying the change from inn to residential owners would improve neighborhood. Stein Bases public wnwrnrt portion Stein: the benefit to neighborhood is great- there is a hardship because of the size of building versus size of lot. Debski moves to grant petition with 8 standard conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety 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 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. Mr. Wharff explains why exterior finishes cannot match current finishes exactly, Board says this is fine,they just have to be in harmony,seconded by stein and approved 5-0 (Belair, Dionne, Stein, Curran and Debski in favor, none opposed). • Documents &Exhibitions: ■ Application dated 10/27/10 1 ■ Plan dated 1/21/99 ■ Undated photographs Debski moves to adjourn, seconded by Dionne, all in favor. Meeting adjourns at 10 pm. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 2/16/11 • • 1 ONDIT,{q� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR �. r q SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 _ TELEPHONE: 97 -74 8 5 9595 FAx: 978-740-9846 •KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR r, -1 N C� MEETINGNOTICE �- ry cJa BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING November 17, 2010- 6:30 P.M. NATHANIEL BOWDITCH SCHOOL CAFE TORIUM - v 79 WILLSON STREET- SALEMMA u (NOT 120 WASHINGTON STREET AS USUAL,! �c-�-M .l)-tein/Art Robin Stem, Chair AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes - October 20,2010 meeting 2. Public hearing:Petition of FIRST CHURCH IN SALEM, seeking a Variance from minimum rear yard depth and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,and requesting a finding that no additional off-street parking is required,to construct an addition on the property located at 316 ESSEX ST.,Salem,MA[R-2]. •" 3. Public hearing:Petition of MADELINE JACKSON appealing a decision of the building inspector regarding the properties located at 3 BEDFORD ST. and 76 PIER-PONT ST.,Salem, 4. Request of NORTH RIVER, LLC for extension of a Variance previously issued for the property located at 28 GOODHUE ST. [NRCC]. 5. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES, INC. (lessee),seeking a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE [R 2]. 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment INS 1116046 C4ty WWII %J I ��� , � .�� ' t ` au��r. lid �;; 51�t,;..,�:. 6riill� 7 m:: �o�ufrq . CITY or SALf:M,MrvssACFIUSETrs •' �°'t - DEPAR'CMENI OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DHVFT.OPME.NT , P tg0 120WAS111NG1'ON STREET ♦ SAL@,M,MASSACI IUSF;1'1S 01970 q �MmEor TELE: 978 619-5685 ♦ rnx:978-740 0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL IV WOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: November 9, 2010 RE: Meeting Agenda—November 17,20111 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 10/20/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Public hearing: Petition of FIRST CHURCH IN SALEM,seeking a Variance from minimum rear yard depth and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and requesting a finding that no additional off-street parking is required, to construct an addition on the property located at 316 ESSEX ST., Salem,MA [R-2]. Petitioner proposes a 24 x 24 addition at the rear of the church to improve handicap accessibility and increase storage space. This would mean a 8.7'rear yard setback(existing is 10. 2�, and 30 feet is required. Petitioner also requests a finding that the increased area would not trigger the need for additional parking, since the addition does not result in an increase in office or child care space. Public hearing: Petition of MADELINE JACKSON appealing a decision of the building inspector regarding the properties located at 3 BEDFORD ST. and 76 PIERPONT ST.,Salem,MA [R-1]. Mrs.Jackson has filed an appeal of a decision of the Building Inspector,who determined that the property at 3 Bedford St. (owned by James Denis) could legally have two driveways. Mrs.Jackson,who lives next door,does not agree that the driveway abutting her property is legal. I have included in your packet a letter from Attorney Michael McMahon,who represents Mr. Denis, explaining his client's position to Tom St.Pierre,and photos of the property. I have also included a letter from Mr. St. Pierre to Mrs.Jackson concurring with Attorney • McMahon's opinion and explaining his position that the driveway is legal. -1- Request of NORTH RIVER,LLC for extension of a Variance previously issued for the property • located at 28 GOODHUE ST. [NRCC]. Attorney Joseph Corrend requests an extension of a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit for this project through June 30,2011. Continuation of Public hearing: Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES, INC. (lessee), seeking a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE [R-2]. I sent copies of the plans and application for this project to Lt. Erin Griffin, Fire Marshall;Dr.William Cameron,Superintendent of Schools;and Chief of Police Paul Tucker,requesting their feedback. Lt. Griffin responded that the fire department will need access through the proposed crash gate (such as a key or code in the knox box for the lock to work). Also, the applicant should post"no parking" signs along the sides of the building without marked spaces. A memo from Chief Tucker is included in your packet. I have not yet heard from Dr. Cameron,but will pass along anything I receive from him as soon as possible. I have also included several letters,both in support of and in opposition to the project. I'm enclosing an information packet about the clinic from.Mr. Potter. Attorney Keilty does not expect a traffic study to be ready until Monday,and he is also trying to get me the AUL information the Board requested. While I can't include these in the packets because they need to be mailed today, I will pass them along via email as soon as I have them. • • -2- City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet 3t. 9, Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail �)Ay�✓) Pou.�Cf !0 /IF/� .i''�!..�E, <.J F7�7�Fi--viz„ �ers U�-1ni ,c atp � 76F d�.r_,l 36) d-!-e-n /,k�� Let? . Gam', 4 9x=744s--l676 r}ylti 9 7 't t - e Page of �oNDIQ City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet !IGii foot' ��� �innNeon Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date II l� l l0 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail D.R` 14rt Zul�o"k,- aR KoorL� IL3 _ 97�-7LfI-q( zutq&ed� 64, liet TA I Chcknox 32 rr60_416 q�.�_�� • We� r'J 6 R Sr�d�z� C'.(ur� e �i Fi RST Sr 9009-1 boil-S-oyo ��r h uza 6,7 C-Agpooc�54 C« �78•-745-35y, TpH,n �he� 10�r— 2�iveqAa Tomes Twomey l3 1�45DeL; -IG7` io2e 4 SI— q,F-��t � 5a�3 'i 5��8- �� � Page 2 —of �COND[T9�� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet nt _ g PP Board: Zoning Board of Appeals .�Mrna Date ame Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 222- 71-C-"99 ke ? �� d'L��6Gf�f►'U� (.a1.5E5 ���� , �rny,, �c�e T C£G� �1 GC c( 7f DD6o2 /r ' S ��esT U nd (C�tRn«l5 2 �c a Q is v_e 7 53 D lkig/�ICb� JiM y�/c0 ��1iSr( -Durk^ y Z� C�1 c IZ4/ C,U L 7L/14 - 9'7p - �3 040AAJ LI r/��/�L3� Sarr��C�sGGo/d alaw�r� Su�ftA, 1/kdt(Z ova -2 0mEEJ_A ivO A Uz - �4��� �w/e% ' ! Ile�-d�j/' ;�7r,%G���JpA--��,,-\\ GAT 74 �1 �iG�a ��Sq/h�e�J7r� .C�^��j•"4�,«�r • Page j of 4- City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail kL&() YY1 7LY c�rgk(0 eo fl� l5 `4S �( t b,e . 3 U,on< CLkt 0Y),X Cbm&�sT.t) lk A _ 8 Gee J ereet d I97p-zvzz 978 - Z. . 21YZ Vk"ROn� c 27 Fred` st ? 7e - 741/ - Page of A v �ONDIT.I,�Q' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR • � � . M,. +� SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 W FAX. 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 2010 NOV N P 1- 21 November24,2010 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of MADELINE JACKSON requesting a reversal of Director of Inspectional Services' decision to allow a second driveway on the property located at 3 BEDFORD STREET, abutting 76 PIERPONT STREET, Salem,MA(R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above petition was opened on November 17, 2010 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board of Appeals members were present: Elizabeth Debski (chairing the meeting), Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, and James Tsitsinos (alternate). The petitioner,Madeline Jackson, sought a reversal of the Director of Inspectional Services' finding that a second driveway on the abutting properly,located at 3 Bedford Street, is legal. 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. Madeline Jackson is the owner of 76 Pierpont Street, which abuts 3 Bedford Street, owned by James Denis. 2. Ms.Jackson and her daughter,Laura Ridley, presented the appeal at the hearing. 3. 3 Bedford Street is within the Residential One-Family Zoning District. 4. 3 Bedford Street is not located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. 5. There are two driveways on 3 Bedford Street, one of which is located more than two feet, but less than five feet, from Ms.Jackson's property line, and is the subject of the appeal. 6. The petitioner is requesting reversal of a finding made by the Director of Inspectional Services that the second drivewayconforms with the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances and may remain without any relief from the Board of Appeals. • 7. At the hearing, Mr. Denis'attomey,Michael E. McMahon,spoke in opposition • to the request to appeal. He presented a petition with ten signatures in support of allowing the driveway to remain. 8. At the hearing, the Director of Inspectional Services stated that driveways must be within five feet of an abut ting properly line within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District; however,outside the Entrance Corridor, the required distance, from abutting properties is two feet, and Mr. Denis'driveway meets this requirement. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: . 1. The driveway located at 3 Bedford Street nearest to 76 Pierpont Street is legal and may remain. The decision of the Director of Inspectional Services regarding this property is upheld. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor(Curran, Dionne, Tsitsinos, and Debski) and none (0) opposed,to uphold the Director of Inspectional Services' decision allowing the driveway on 3 Bedford Street to remain. • ., a 19-��/�k Elizabeth Debski Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on.the owner's Certificate of Title. • ;conolra.�a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 7 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • � y� p SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 W�p TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2� P 21 MAYOR November 24, 2010 f ` Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Public hearing: Petition of FIRST CHURCH IN SALEM, seeking a Variance from minimum rear yard depth and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and requesting a finding that no additional off-street parking is required, to construct an addition on the property located at 316 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA[R-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 17, 2010, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on November 17, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Elizabeth Debski (chairing the meeting) Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and James Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1,a Special Permit pursuant to Section • 3.3.3, and a determination that no additional parking is needed pursuant to Section 5.1.3, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact 1. Attorney William Quinn represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated September 23, 2010,petitioner requested a Variance and Special Permit to construct a 24'x 24' addition at the rear of the First Church in Salem, in order to make the facility handicap accessible and increase interior storage space. 3. The building on 316 Essex Street houses the First Church in Salem's religious meeting house and associated religious and educational facilities, offices and programs, including a daycare program on the she second floor of the Church, which currently is not handicap accessible. 4. At the November 17, 2010 hearing, the Inspectional Services Director stated that the project did not increase any of the indoor space that would increase the parking requirements. 5. At the November 17, 2010 hearing,several residents and members of the Church's congregation attended in support of the project. No members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. • 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 lot is oddly shaped and the topography is such that the proposed improvements would be cost prohibitive if the zoning code were strictly enforced. 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 proposal improves accessibility to the facility and does not create a need for additional parking. 3. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the addition to the First Church of Salem as proposed. 4. In pennitting 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 Variance from rear yard setback is granted to allow for the addition to the church facility, as shown on the submitted plans. 2. A Special Permit is granted to expand the currently nonconforming church building, as shown on the submitted plans. 3. The project does not trigger the need for additional parking on the site. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor(Curran, Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance, a Special Permit and determination that no additional parking is required,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. 3 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. Elizabeth De s Salem Boatel 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 f o fice of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40 Section P � 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 Zoning Board of Appeals • Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, November 17, 2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Beth Debski (chairing the meeting),Becky Curran, Rick Dionne, and Jimmy Ts its inos (alternate). Those absent were:Robin Stein (chair),Annie Hams and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre,Director of Inspectional Services. Debski opens the nzi�tirgat 6:40. Debski announces that due to an illness, Chair Robin Stein is unable to attend this evening. She explains that when only four members of the Board are present, the Board always gives the applicant the option to continue the petition until the next meeting, and that Attorney Keilty had indicated he wished to continue to December 15,2010. Several residents ask why the petition could not simply go ahead; Debski and Dionne reiterate that the applicant has the right to go before a full Board if • they choose. Several questions were answered regarding scheduling the December meeting. The Board confirmed that in the case of a snow emergency,the hearing would be postponed. Curran moves to continue the matter to December 15,2010, seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0. Public hearing: Petition of FIRST CHURCH IN SALEM, seeking a Variance from minimum rear yard depth and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and requesting a finding that no additional off-street parking is required, to construct an addition on the property located at 316 ESSEX ST., Salem,MA[R-2]. . Attorney Bill Quinn presents the petition. He explains the church is not currently handicap accessible, and they wish to upgrade the facility so that the church and day care can be more easily used. He says the building is unusually large and sits at the back of the site. In order not to disrupt the meeting hall facility,they want to put the addition in the rear. He explains the addition would be 30-40 feet away from any residences. Attorney Quinn introduces the project's architect, Patrick Guthrie, who indicates the site plan (titled "First Church Salem, 316 Essex St., Salem,MA," prepared by Menders, Torrey&Spencer, Inc., 123 North Washington St., Boston,MA, dated August 15, 2009, available at in the Salem Building Department and hereby incorporated as part of these minutes). He explains that this addition will improve daily access and provide universal access to the church. He shows the location of the addition in relation to the parking area at the rear and the existing garden, explaining that entry could be from either side; people will be able to enter at grade and take the elevator up instead of having to take the stairs. St. Pierre observes that this is a well-prepared plan,saying the applicant has managed to create • handicap accessibility while preserving the "flavor" of the historic building. Guthrie notes that they had previously received a determination of no adverse impact from the Historical Commission. He 1 shows the floor plans, roof plans and elevations and explains that the material used will be stucco, • the same as the 1927 addition,noting this will give them a chance to clean up the stucco on the parish house. Debski opens the issue up for public wane Mary Richards, 6 Federal Court, is a member of the church. She asks about the location and dimensions of the addition in relation to the garden and asks if the building has a nonconforming setback. Attorney Quinn answers that the setback isn't nonconfomung in that direction- it's 32 feet, and the legal requirement is 30. He clarifies that the rear setback they have asked for relief from is being modified from 10.2 to 8.7 feet. 7bm are m further mnvrents,Debski doses the public can rem portion cf tbe bearing. Attorney Quinn summarizes the hardship argument he set forth in his application: due to the shape of the lot and the topography of the land, strict enforcement of zoning would create a financial hardship. St. Pierre notes that the project does not increase any of the indoor space that would increase the parking requirements. Board members note that the project is appropriate and consistent with zoning. Dionne moves to rant the petition with seven 7 standard conditions, and also to affirm that no S P ( ) additional parking is needed on the property due to the addition,seconded by Curran and approved • 4-0 (Curran, Dionne,Debski and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of MADELINE JACKSON appealing a decision of the building inspector regarding the properties located at 3 BEDFORD ST. and 76 PIERPONT ST., Salem,MA[R-1]. Ms.Jackson and her daughter,Laura Ridley,present the appeal. Ms. Ridley says Mr. Denis,the neighbor at 3 Bedford Street,put in a driveway on Ms.Jackson's properly line, and that St. Pierre had sent a letter to him saying the driveway was illegal. A lawyer was then hired, and Ms.Jackson received a letter saying the driveway was legal after all. Ms. Ridley says Mr. Denis parks his truck right by Ms.Jackson's bedroom window and the diesel fumes enter the house. She has been told the driveway must be five feet from the property line. She says Mr. Denis has been kind enough to not park his truck there most of the time. However, she says Mr. Denis has not gotten a variance for the driveway, so she doesn't want it used at all. She says she feels having this driveway so close to the property devalues the house and asks what the distance must be by law. Debski notes that this is on a comer lot. The Board examines photos provided by Ms. Ridley(on file in the Building Department and herebyincorporated as part of these minutes) showing the driveway's proximity to 76 Pierpont St. St. Pierre explains that when this issue first came up, he looked at the off street parking regulations and inadvertently used those applicable to entrance corridors,which require a 5-foot buffer. However, in this district, only a 2-foot buffer is required. He says there is nothing in the zoning • ordinance that would prohibit this driveway. 2 Attome Michael McMahon, 583 Chestnut St., Lynn, representing Mr. Denis, hands the Board a Y Y� P g • packet of information (on file in the Building Department and hereby incorporated as part of these minutes), containing photos of the driveway, a police report filed about an incident involving Ms. Jackson and Mr. Denis, and a petition from neighbors in support of Mr. Denis's driveway. He says the driveway and house have been the subject of multiple inspections and meet all requirements with regard to this Board. He states that Mr. Denis has a gas-powered vehicle, not a diesel one. He says the reason he has used that driveway in the recent past is because he had 3 significant lumbar back fusions - he would park the truck there when bringing in groceries, etc. and then usually move it. He says the driveway is not on Ms.Jackson's property and shows a photograph of a stake from a survey that was done. He says Mr. Denis has attempted to make peace by grading and landscaping portions of his property. Ms. Ridley comments that it's fine to have 11 signatures from neighbors in support of Mr. Denis, but they aren't the ones living with the driveway. Mr. Denis, 3 Bedford St., says the driveway used to be gravel, but then was hottopped. The city put in curbstones in 1980. Ms. Ridley refers to a previous ZBA petition, 12 Clark St.,which required a variance to have a second driveway, and asks whythe same does not applyto this property. St. Pierre explains that in the recodified zoning, driveway width is limited. However,he says he must use the old zoning ordinance to evaluate this property, since it was in effect at the time the driveway was put in. The old zoning did not limit driveway width. • Debski comments that this is a legal driveway that needs no relief from the Board of Appeals. Curran moves to uphold the Building Inspector's decision, seconded by Dionne and approved 4-0 (Debski,Dionne, Curran and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). The Building Inspector's decision stands and the request for appeal is denied. Curran moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded byDebski and approved 4-0. Debski adjourns the meeting at 7:42 p.m Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Minutes approved by the Board of Appeals 12/15/10 Decisions November 24, 2010 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals • 3 Petition of MADELINE JACKSON requesting a reversal of Director of Inspectional • Services' decision to allow a second driveway on the property located at 3 BEDFORD STREET, abutting 76 PIERPONT STREET, Salem,MA(R-1 Zoning District). A public hearing on the above petition was opened on November 17, 2010 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board of Appeals members were present: Elizabeth Debski (chairing the meeting),Rebecca Curran,Richard Dionne, and James Tsitsinos (alternate). The petitioner,Madeline Jackson, sought a reversal of the Director of Inspectional Services'finding that a second driveway on the abutting property, located at 3 Bedford Street,is legal. 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. Madeline Jackson is the owner of 76 Pierpont Street,which abuts 3 Bedford Street, owned by James Denis. 2. Ms.Jackson and her daughter, Laura Ridley, presented the appeal at the hearing. 3. 3 Bedford Street is within the Residential One-Family Zoning District. 4. 3 Bedford Street is not located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. . 5. There are two driveways on 3 Bedford Street,one of which is located more than two feet, but less than five feet, from Ms.Jackson's property line, and is the subject of the appeal. 6. The petitioner is requesting reversal of a finding made by the Director of Inspectional Services that the second driveway conforms with the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances and may remain without any relief from the Board of Appeals. 7. At the hearing,Mr. Denis'attomey,Michael E.McMahon,spoke in opposition to the request to appeal. He presented a petition with ten signatures in support of allowing the driveway to remain. 8. At the hearing,the Director of Inspectional Services stated that driveways must be within five feet of an abutting property line within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District; however, outside the Entrance Corridor,the required distance from abutting properties is two feet, and Mr. Denis'driveway meets this requirement. On the basis of the above findings of fact,including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to,the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The driveway located at 3 Bedford Street nearest to 76 Pierpont Street is legal and may remain. The decision of the Director of Inspectional Services regarding this property is • upheld. 4 In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor(Curran,Dionne, • Tsitsinos, and Debski) and none (0) opposed,to uphold the Director of Inspectional Services' decision allowing the driveway on 3 Bedford Street to remain. Elizabe Debski Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • November 24,2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Public hearing: Petition of FIRST CHURCH IN SALEM, seeking a Variance from minimum rear yard depth and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure, and requesting a finding that no additional off-street parking is required, to construct an addition on the property located at 316 ESSEX STREET, Salem,MA[R-2]. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on November 17,2010,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on November 17, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Elizabeth Debski (chairing the meeting) Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, and James Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1, a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.3,and a determination that no additional parking is needed pursuant to Section 5.1.3, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: • 1. Attorney William Quinn represented the petitioner at the hearing. 5 2. In a petition dated September 23,2010, petitioner requested a Variance and Special Permit • to construct a 24'x 24' addition at the rear of the First Church in Salem, in order to make the facility handicap accessible and increase interior storage space. 3. The building on 316 Essex Street houses the First Church in Salem's religious meeting house and associated religious and educational facilities, offices and programs, including a daycare program on the she second floor of the Church, which currently is not handicap accessible. 4. At the November 17, 2010 hearing, the Inspectional Services Director stated that the project did not increase any of the indoor space that would increase the parking requirements. 5. At the November 17, 2010 hearing, several residents and members of the Church's congregation attended in support of the project. No members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. 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 lot is oddly shaped and the topography is such that the proposed improvements would be cost prohibitive if the zoning code were strictly enforced. • 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 proposal improves accessibility to the facility and does not create a need for additional parking. 3. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the addition to the First Church of Salem as proposed. 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. A Variance from rear yard setback is granted to allow for the addition to the church facility, as shown on the submitted plans. 2. A Special Permit is granted to expand the currently nonconforming church building, as shown on the submitted plans. 3. The project does not trigger the need for additional parking on the site. • In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four (4) in favor(Curran,Debski, Dionne and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance, a Special 6 Permit and determination that no additional parking is required, 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 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. • Elizabeth Debski, Salem 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 Permit n r 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. • 7 CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSE'1"I'S BOARD OF APPEAL ;rvro 120 WA$FIINGTON$TAFFY+$ALEM,MASSA(]-IUSETLS 01970 l"1t F 'ISLE:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRrsooLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,November 17,2010 at 6:30 p.rrL at the Nathaniel Bowditch School Cafetorium,79 Willson St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following items: Petition of FIRST CHURCH IN SALEM,seeking a Variance from minimum rear yard depth and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure,and requesting a finding that no additional off-street parking is required,to construct an addition on the property located at 316 ESSEX ST.,Salem MA[R 2]. Decision:Granted Filed with the City Clerk on November 24,2010 Petition of MADELINE JACKSON appealing a decision of the Director if Inspectional Services regarding the properties located at 3 BEDFORD ST. and 76 PIERPONT ST.,Salem,MA[R 1](decision that a second driveway on 3 Bedford St. is legal). Decision:Decision of the Building Inspector upheld Filed with the City Clerk on November 24,2010 Thu notim is hmg sor in a-Thanx uith the Massadmetts Gemral Law, dxtpter 40A,Salim 9& 15 aril die nat raqiare aaion by the 7eapieri Appeals, t an)y shall be n=L paasuar¢to CbVter 40A,Salim 17,and shall be fill uithin 20 dada from the date uhidt the&xim zw filal with the C�y C k& • Wnrrq46 QT'Y OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETfS BOARD OF APPEAL f 'yy f�Ygi m.. "y ;;�P 120 WAS}11NGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSA©TL6ETTS 01970 %"frs'flK1Yt'' TUC:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 KIMIIERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR K p REVISED MEETING NOTICE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING - CIO October 20, 2010 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET ppSALEM,MA :" W Robin Stein, Chair AGENDA WITHDRAWN:Petition of DILULLO ASSOC.,INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL Street[I]. 1. Approval of Minutes - August 18, 2010 and September 15, 2010 meeting. 2. Continued from Judy 21,2010:Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a • nonconforming single or two familystructure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R 1]. PETITIONER REQUESTS TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Petition of IVETTE RIVERA, seeking Variances from side and rear yard setbacks,lot area per dwelling unit,and parking requirements,and a Special Permit to convert the current single-family home into a two-family home on the property located at 29 BOSTON STREET, Salem,MA[B-2]. 4. Petition of JOAO P. REBELO,seeking a Variance rmnxunum driveway width (Sec. 5.1.5 of Zoning Ordinance) to allow construction of an additional driveway on the property located at 12 CLARK AVE., Salem,MA[R 1]. 5. Petition of JAMES SHEA,seeking a Special Permit and Variances to allow the demolition of the existing nonconforming stricture at 78A WEBB STREET and to constrict a new building containing two residential dwelling units with two parking spaces [R-2]. 6. Petition of BRIAN&JENNIFER CARR,seeking a Variance from rear yard setback,side setback and lot coverage,to construct an addition on the single-family home on the property located at 38 JAPONICA ST., Salem,MA[R-2]. 7. Petition of KEVIN TALBOT,seeking a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to expand a nonconforming structure (construct a second level over an existing fast floor of a single-family home) on the propertylocated at 134 OCEAN AVENUE WEST [R 2]. S. Petition of PRIDE CONSTRUCTION &DEVELOPMENT,seeking a Variance from lot coverage and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to construct a one and a half story addition on the existing single- story building on the property located at 75 NORTH ST., Salem,MA[NRCC]. 9. Old/NewBusiness po This �6B V�J�61p}ny� 10. Adjournment City Hall n `� be'. �� o`°lO r4A a 0 ')d Kr'i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 3 �n BOARD Ca�F 'P�A� F},�b� 120 WASHNGTON STREET SALEM, �.�7 ET �00 "IELE:978-745�']M 1 FAx:978`740=9$46 ' KIMBERLEY DRiscOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING October 20, 2010 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MA Robin Stein, Chair AGENDA WITHDRAWN:Petition of DILULLOASSOC.,INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL Street[11. 1. Approval of Minutes - August 18, 2010 and September 15,2010 meeting. 2. Continued from July21,2010: Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two familystructure for the propertylocated at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R-1]. • 3. Petition of IVETTE RIVERA,seeking Variances from side and rear yard setbacks,lot area per dwelling unit, and parking requirements, and a Special Permit to convert the current single-family home into a two-family home on the propertylocated at 29 BOSTON STREET, Salem,MA[B-2]. 4. Petition of JOAO P. REBELO,seeking a Variance maximum drivewaywidth(Sec. 5.1.5 of Zoning Ordinance) to allow construction of an additional drivewayon the propertylocated at 12 CLARK AVE.,Salem,MA[R-1]. 5. Petition of JAMES SHEA,seeking a Special Permit and Variances to allow the demolition of the existing nonconforming structure at 78A WEBB STREET and to construct a new building containing two residential dwelling units with two parking spaces [R-2]. 6. Petition of BRIAN&JENNIFER CARR,seeking a Variance from rear yard setback,side setback and lot coverage, to construct an addition on the single-family home on the property located at 38 JAPONICA ST., Salem,MA[R 2]. 7. Petition of KE VIN TALBOT,seeking a Special Permit tinder Sec. 3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to expand a nonconforming structure (construct a second level over an existing first floor of a single-family home) on the property located at 134 OCEAN AVENUE WEST [R 2]. S. Petition of PRIDE CONSTRUCTION &DEVELOPMENT,seeking a Variance from lot coverage and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure,in order to construct a one and a half story addition on the existing single- story building on the property located at 75 NORTH ST., Salem,MA[NRCC]. 9. Old/New Business This natice �;�� • 10. Adjournment City f 0"C" 6M a 3s. att ®crDhe�f ,�iD C,OIU17(Tq '. CI lY OF SALEM MASSrACI IUSE'ITS C ULPARI'MENT OF PLANNING AND ��I f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 120 WA$I IING"TON S[121sE1' ♦ Sr\LEM,MASSACIIU$ETl'S 01970 ��C�MmE r TU.LE:978 619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740 0404 KIMBIRI:.EY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: October 13,2010 RE: Meeting Agenda—October 20,2010 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 8/18/10 and 9/15/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items WITHDRAWN: Petition of DILULLO ASSOC., INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL Street [I]. This petition has been withdrawn; the applicant has cleared and striped spaces that previously did not exist on the rear part of the lot. The site now contains enough legal parking and does not require a Variance. Continued from July 21,2010: Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R-1]. Petitioner requests to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single family home with insufficient frontage (it has 75' of the required 100') and lot width (also 75'of required 100�. The existing structure to be demolished does not meet side or front setback requirements,but the proposed structure does. In response to a neighbor's concern about blocking views, the applicant has submitted new plans showing the house,which is now smaller, and located in a slightly different position. Additional detail is also shown in the new elevation drawings. However, the issue is not fully resolved,and the neighbor's attorney,Bill Quinn,will be present at the meeting to oppose the project. Petition of IVETT RIVERA, seeking Variances from side and rear yard setbacks,lot area per dwelling unit, and parking requirements, and a Special Permit to convert the current single-family home into a two-family home on the property located at 29 BOSTON STREET, Salem,MA [B-2]. -I- Work has begun on this project. Petitioner proposes three parking spaces;however,the required rear stair will encroach on the third parking space as shown on the plan. This will also result in a rear yard smaller than the 30' required. There are no side setbacks (10'required). The lot is 1,568 square feet,and the proposed second unit would mean a lot area per dwelling unit of 784 square feet (3,500 is required). I have so far received one phone can from an abutter who opposes the project. Petition of JOAO P. REBELO,seeking a Variance maximum driveway width (Sec. 5.1.5 of Zoning Ordinance) to allow construction of an additional driveway on the property located at 12 CLARK AVE., Salem, MA [R-11. The property currently has one driveway,and the petitioner is requesting relief to add another one on the opposite side of the house. Zoning limits driveway width to 20;with the second driveway, total driveway width on the property will be 41.' Petition of JAMES SHEA, seeking a Special Permit and Variances to allow the demolition of the existing nonconforming structure at 78A WEBB STREET and to construct a new building containing two residential dwelling units with two parking spaces [R-21. Replacing the existing garage structure with the proposed two-unit residential building as proposed would require relief from height (number of stories,not feet). 3 stories are proposed (2 are allowed). In addition, two residential units require 3 parking spaces (1.5 per unit), and 2 parking spaces are proposed. A Special Permit is also requested to reconstruct the nonconforming structure. Petition of BRIAN &JENNIFER CARR,seeking a Variance from rear yard setback,side setback and lot coverage, to construct an addition on the single-family home on the property located at 38 JAPONICA ST., Salem,MA [R-2]. Petitioner proposes a rear setback of 24' (30'is required),side setback of 9' (10'is required),and lot coverage of 44% (35%is allowed,and 36%is existing). Petition of KEVIN TALBOT,seeking a Special Permit under Sec.3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in • order to expand a nonconforming structure (construct a second level over an existing first floor of a single- family home) on the property located at 134 OCEAN AVENUE WEST [R-2]. Floor plans and elevations are included in your packet. Petition of PRIDE CONSTRUCTION& DEVELOPMENT,seeking a Variance from lot coverage and parking requirements, and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to construct a one and a half story addition on the existing single-story building on the property located at 75 NORTH ST., Salem,MA [NRCC1. The current use of the building is a cabinet shop. The applicant proposes an addition on the current structure; the new use will be for the offices of Pride Construction&Development. Relief was granted for the same plan in 2006, but the Variance has since expired. The original decision granting dimensional relief is included in your packet. 60% lot coverage is proposed;50%is the maximum allowed. I have asked the applicant to be prepared to discuss the number of parking spaces that can fit on the plan, since the submitted plan only shows three spaces. Zoning requires one space per employee,but I don't have definitive information about how many employees will be working there. The original application did not address the issue of a Special Permit for expansion of a nonconforming structure;however, this is also required. • -2- CITY OF SALEM, KASSACHUSETfS BOARD OF APPEAL 2010 N011 -8 P 2: 2b 120NVA-S1[ING I'ONS I KF I:F# SALB4,MASSACHUSETIS01970 KIMBERLEY Dfuscou- TFiz:978-745-9'595 * FAX:978-740-9846 Giry j.; November 3, 2010 Dart DiLullo Dil-Ullo Associates, file. 16 Crystal Street Melrose, MA 02176-2706 Re: Variance to reduce the number of'reqUired parkin.- spaces on the property located at 142-144 CANAL ST. (Industrial Zoning District). Dear Mr. DiLL1110: On October 20, 2010, the Board of Appeals voted Five (5) in favor(Beth Debski, Becky Curran, Bonnie Belair, Rick Dionne, and Annie Harris), and none opposed, to allow withdrawal without l)I-CJL1diCC ofthe above petition. Robin Stein Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120NV.-\Si11NC;10NS110*F1'* SAI-E%4,1'VL%SSA(IIUSEQ�oii4,-'a -8 P 2: 2b 'I i:ij;;978-74D-9595 + F,�x:978-740.9846 ;1 November 3, 2010 Robert & Anthie .lackson 30 Columbus Avenue Salem, ,\,IA 01970 Re: Request for Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single-family residential structure on the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE, Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jackson: On October 20, 2010, the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor(Beth Debski, Becky Curran, Bonnie Belair, Rick Dionne, and Annie Harris), and none opposed, to allow withdrawal without prejudice of the above petition. Robin Stein Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk � �oNnrq_�Q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 0 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ll�a • �r�.`..... V TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 11 lu ITSI - I • �^G• nb MAYOR 20i'; November 3, 2010 C; "r Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition o e p f JAMES SHEA seeking a Special Permit and Variances to allow the demolition of the existing nonconforming structure at 78A WEBB STREET and 10 construct a new building containing two residential dwelling units with two parking spaces [R-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20, 2010,pursuant to D/hss General Law Ch. 40A, 5 11. The hearing was closed on October 20, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Becky Curran, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and JimmyTsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Pernut pursuant to 3.3.3, and Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 and Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated September 29, 2010, petitioner requested Variances from the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit and the maximum number of stories permitted, as well as a Special Permit to reconstruct a nonconform ng structure. 3. The current use of the property located at 78A Webb Street is a garage, currently used to store equipment. 4. Petitioner proposes b P garage oses an addition above the garage that Would contain two residential dwelling units, With the existing garage used for parking. 5. At the hearing, Attorney Grover clarified that the request was to add on to and renovate the existing garage structure, not to demolish it, as indicated on the application form. 6. At the hearing, Attorney Grover stated that because the building occupied alinost the entire lot, there would be no place to put additional parking spaces; therefore, • meeting the requirement of three parking spaces for a two-family home, which is an allowed use in the R2 zoning district, would constitute a hardship. 7 7. At the hearing, Attorney-Grover also presented a petition of approximately 40 • neighbors in support of the project. S. The Board of Appeals received a letter prior to the hearing in support of the project from Ward One Councillor Robert McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue, stating drat the renovation and change in use would be a positive improvement to the neighborhood. 9. At the hearing, several residents, including At-Large Councillors Steven Pinto and Arthur Sargent, spoke in support of the project, saying it presented an opportunity to redevelop an unattractive site, and that the shift from a commercial to a residential use would be positive for the neighborhood and for property values. 10. At the hearing, several residents spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns about traffic, density and appropriateness to neighborhood character. 11. At the hearing, Board members stated their concerns about the parking relief requested, indicating that they would be more inclined to support the project if three parking spaces were provided. In response, the petitioner agreed to change the plans for the interior of the garage structure in order to provide three spaces. 12. At the hearing, Board members indicated that they did not have concerns about allowing relief from the requirement for number of stories, since the height • requirement for the building was being met. 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; 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, as the project provides an oppatunit} to redevelop an unattractive, underutilized site and to change the current commercial use to a residential use in a residential neighborhood. 4. The applicant may vary the terns of the Residential Two-Fanuly Zoning District to allow for the proposed addition and renovation. 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. A Variance from the number of allowed stories is granted to allow for the proposed renovation and addition to the stricture on 78A Webb Street. 2. A Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure is granted to allow for the proposed renovation and addition to the structure on 78A Webb Street. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for Variances and subject to the following teens, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All constriction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Comnussioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictlyadhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior of the building is to complywith the subm tted plan. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any Guy Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not linvted ro 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 nor be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Robin Chair Salem Board of Appeals • I A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOAKD • A AID 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 mthul 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 Pei nurgranted herein shall not take effect until a copy of die decision bearing the certificate of ilie Citi�Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL c+ 1 20 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RO FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595N. . FAx: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL POLO NriV -3 P 2: 3b MAYOR Iyi.�C. .. . .. -.. . November 3, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PRIDE CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, seeking Variances from lot coverage and parking requirements, and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforring structure, in order to construct a one and a half story addition on the existing single-story building on the property located at 75 NORTH ST., Salem, MA (NRCC Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20, 2010, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on October 20, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsmos (alternate). • Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1.1, and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. At the hearing, Brian Dapice of KW Commercial presented the petition along with Sean Meyers, CFO of Pride Construction. 2. In a petition dated September 15, 2010, petitioner requested a Variance from lot coverage in order to construct an addition on the existing structure at 75 North Street. The Building Commissioner determined that a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure was also needed for the proposed project. 3. At the hearing, the Building Commissioner expressed concern that the site not become a construction yard and should not be used for storage of commercial vehicles. However, Mr. Meyer stated that most vehicles would be removed from the site at the end of each day. 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 rn:ry 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 North River Canal Corridor Zoning District to allow for the construction of the addition as shown on the submitted plans. 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 Variance from maximum lot coverage, and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, are granted to allow for the construction of an addition on the property located at 75 North Street, as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Harris) 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. • 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 Comnussion 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. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BE EN 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. • .CONUrr,��Q CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR + ^ f SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 6 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 0°N FAX: 978-740-9846 •KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZOI'IJ NOV _3 !� Z: 36 MAYOR November 3, 2010 CT'r Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of KEVIN TALBOT, seeking a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to expand a nonconforming structure (construct a second level over an existing first floor of a single-family home) on the property located at 134 OCEAN AVENUE WEST IR-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20, 2010, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, $ 11. The hearing was closed on October 20, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair (altemate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3. of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. Petitioner and owner Kevin Talbot represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated October 6, 2010, petitioner requested a Special Pernut to expand a non-confornung structure. 3. At the hearing, abutter Melissa Pagliaro, 136 Ocean Avenue West, corm vented that trees on 134 Ocean Avenue West are hanging over onto her property. In response, Mr. Tremblay agreed to trim the trees on Ms. Pagliaro's side of the fence to keep them out of her yard. 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 Zoning District to allow for the construction of the addition as shown on the submtted plans. 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 heanng including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Special Permit to expand a non-conforming structure is granted to allow for the construction of an addition on the property located at 134 Ocean Avenue West, as shown oh the subnutted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance and a Special Permit subject to the following terns, conditions, and safeguards. 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All constntction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions subnutted to and approved by the Building Coinmissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safetyshall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning anyconstnuction. 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. Petitioner is to cut back and maintain the trees on the property along the property line between 134 and 136 Ocean Avenue West. Robin Stem, l.nan Salem Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH TI-IE PLANNING BOARD . AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special 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. • poNo�rAd CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 0 BOARD OF APPEAL j120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2010 lrIV —3 P 2! 35 MAYOR November 3, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of BRIAN &JENNIFER CARR, seeking Variances from rear yard setback, side setback and lot coverage, to construct an addition on the single-family home on the property located at 38 JAPONICA ST., Salem, MA(Residential Two-Family Zone). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20, 2010, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on October 20, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Becky Curran, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and JimmyTsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. Tom Tremblay, contractor, presented the petition on behalf of owners Mr. and Mrs. Carr, who were also present. 2. In a petition dated September 29, 2010, petitioner requested Variances from rear setback, side setback and lot coverage and a Special Permit to extend a non- conforming structure. However, the Building Commissioner determined that only dimensional Variances were needed, and not the requested Special Permit. 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 subsrantiallyderogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the proposed addition. • 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 7 • 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. Variances from rear yard setback, side setback and lot coverage are granted to allow for the proposed addition to the home on 38 Japonica Street, as shown on the subnutted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for Variances and subject to the following tenns, 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 constriction 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 Cc,mmission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. Robin Stem, Chair Salem 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 withut 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • Y�titoNDira CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • 1�. ,�. (eta' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O1970 �J�IPCS' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 9 78-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2019 NOV _3 P Z: 35 MAYOR November 3, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JOAO P. REBELO, seeking a Variance from maximum driveway width (Sec. 5.1.5 (6) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) to allow construction of an additional driveway on the property located at 12 CLARK AVE., Salem, MA(Residential One- Family Zone). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20, 2010, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on October 20, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 5.1.5 (6) of the City of Salem Zoning • Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner and owner of 12 Clark Avenue,Joao Rebelo, represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated September 15, 2010, petitioner requested a Variance from Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for relief from maximum driveway width, in order to construct a second driveway on his property. 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 Zoning District to allow for the construction of the second driveway as proposed. • 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. 7 • On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. A Variance from maximum width of driveways is granted to allow for the construction of a second driveway on the property located at 12 Clark Avenue, as shown on the subnutted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran,Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Cotmnission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. RoQin in,, ' /ir rl� Rom—Tin Stein, Chair Salem 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. • *cono�ra,�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL j - 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR • � �`_ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 e DON KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX: 978-740-9846 Z011 ;;Qy -3 P 2: 35 MAYOR November 3, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of IVETT. RIVERA, seeking Variances from side and rear yard setbacks, lot area per dwelling unit, and parking requirements, and a Special Pennit to convert the current single-family home into a two-family home on the property located at 29 BOSTON STREET, Salem,MA[B-2]. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20, 2010,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on October 20, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Annie Hams, Beth Debski, Becky Curran, Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1, and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5, of the Cry of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner and owner of 29 Boston Street, Ivett Rivera, represented herself at the hearing along with owner Arthur La Fave. 2. In a petition dated September 22, 2010, petitioner requested a Special Permit to change the single-family home (a nonconforming use) on 29 Boston Street to another nonconforming use, a two-family home. The Building Commissioner also determined that relief from side and rear yard setbacks, lot area per dwelling unit, and parking requirements would also be required. 3. At the October 20, 2010 hearing, the petitioner presented revised plans showing a rear exterior stair, required for the proposed second unit. 4. At the October 20, 2010 hearing, the Building Commissioner noted that the proposed stairs did not meet code and must be 36 inches wide; the petitioner agreed to make this change. 5. At the October 20, 2010 hearing, the owners of an abutting property expressed concerns about a dumpster parked behind the house, not located fully on the site. • 6. Also at the hearing, Board members noted that this proposal would take cars off the street because the plan provides three spaces not currently on the site. 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, as the proposal improves the property and provides parking not previously provided on the site. 2. The applicant mayvary the terms of the Business Highway Zoning District to'allow for the conversion of the single-family house to a two-family house. 3. In pern fitting 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 heating including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. Variances from side and rear yard setbacks, and lot area per dwelling unit are granted to allow for the conversion of the single-family home on 29 Boston Street to a two-family house, as shown on the submitted plans. • 2. A Special Permit is granted to allow for the conversion of the single-family home on 29 Boston Street to a two-family house, as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski,Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Variances 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. 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 constriction. 5. Extenor finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 3 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. S. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Conunission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 9. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area 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. 10. Dumpster is to be kept on the property at 29 Boston Street. 11. The property's use is limited to two one-bedroom units. 12. The exterior stairway is to be 36 inches in width, in accordance with the requirements of the Building Commissioner. • I.o nl,� Robin Stem, Cliair Salem 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. DI 'QVr""'co ' City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet _ 41J Irt4':` Board. Zoning Board of Appeals Date lo _/ Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Wiv OAP(cc- soy Cdntl('�f c�NTF�e,SJ/ /Sty t/FRcy can— 3awkA&c: l a Vhks Sf 1�/ = 0,5q is SAn 2 00Al605 , rv-C d 17 WA14 • �� NUO&LLpL �cla SJetrru �N �o 9 '37Loioti aA� • Page of • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, October20,2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA') was held on Wednesday,October 20,2010 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,Rick Dionne,Annie Harris,Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Also present were:Danielle McKnight Staff Planner, and Thomas St.Pierre,Building Commissioner. Stein opens the meeting at 6:40. The minutes from August and September are reviewed. Harris moves to approve both sets of minutes, seconded Stein, and unanimously approved. Continued from July 21, 2010: Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R-1]. McKnight has a letter to the Board from the applicant requesting to withdraw without prejudice. Stein states that she has a conflict with this project and will abstain from the vote. Curran moves to permit 30 • Columbus to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Debski and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran,Harris, Debski, and Belair(alternate) in favor, Stein abstaining,none opposed). McKnight says that the petitioner for 142 Canal St. has also submitted a letter withdrawing the application. Stein notes that she has a conflict for this petition too. Curran moves to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Harris, Debski and Belair(alternate) in favor, Stein abstaining, none opposed). Petition of IVETTE RIVERA, seeking Variances from side and rear yard setbacks, lot area per dwelling unit, and parking requirements,and a Special Permit to convert the current single-family home into a two-family home on the property located at 29 BOSTON STREET, Salem,MA [B-2]. 29 Boston St. Ivette Rivera and Arthur La Fave present the petition. Ms. Rivera explains they would like to convert the single family home to a two family. She hands out an updated drawing showing the exterior stair("Proposed Floor Two Second Egress," Sheet A2, dated 10/3/10 and revised 10/11/2010;"Detail View Floor Two Second Egress," Sheet D1, dated 10/11/2010; and"West Elevation," Sheet A6, dated 10/3/10 and revised 10/11/10, hereby incorporated as part of these minutes). Ms. Rivera also shows the Board a plot plan ("Land of Dane Machine Co., Salem, Mass," dated May 21, 1946, hereby incorporated as part of these minutes). Stein asks if this use is allowed in B-2; St. Pierre says no, this would be a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming single-family home. Stein asks if the stairs make the setback Variance necessary; St. Pierre says yes. Debski asks if what's shown on the plot plan is different from this drawing? Arthur La Fave explains the deck shown on the drawing needs to be rebuilt. Debski asks if the deck will block a parking space; Mr. La Fave says no and explains they want to cutback the porch to 4 feet. He explains the stairs would go • along the left side. Harris asks if the dimensions of the stair meet code. St. Pierre says it does not; it needs a 3 foot minimum clearing. There would be room for this,but barely. Harris says she doesn't think 1 • there would be room based on the submitted plan. St. Pierre says it's tight but they could get 36 inches in, if the plan is accurate and to scale. Curran asks if the use is by Special Permit. Stein says yes, it's a Special Permit to alter/extend a nonconforming use and Variance for the stairs. Curran asks if the parking spaces are 9x18 according to the plot plan. St. Pierre says yes. Curran asks what's surrounding their property. La Fave says 2 businesses, a car dealership and parking lot with dry cleaner's/Laundromat. Stein asks how many bedrooms are in the house now; Rivera says none. La Fave explains that there used to be four, but currently it's all open. The goal is to have a one- bedroom unit on each floor. He says they have had to redo all the electrical and plumbing. Stein opens the issue up for public comment Robert and Cathy Adam, 31 Boston St., own the business Ms. Rivera referred to. Mr. Adam says he is concerned about a dumpster being parked behind the house. He says he has deliveries to his building and doesn't think parking was ever intended for the right of way shown behind the house. He says he already has issues with people trying to park there during snow emergencies. He is concerned about having his driveway blocked. Stein clarifies where the parking is proposed—it's not in the right of way. Harris asks if there is a problem when cars are parked in the rear;Mr. Adam says no. Belair asks if he has trouble with his deliveries; Adam says he has a 55 foot trailer making deliveries and it currently has to back out. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing Curran asks if there is presently no parking on the site. La Fave says there wasn't any when they bought it. Belair says it's a busy area, with parking at a premium. She says we have a nice young couple trying to improve a property in the city; she'd be in favor of approving. Stein says they're actually taking cars off the street. Curran asks if the Board could condition the dumpster during construction—she says the neighbor brought up some good points about it not being in the way and says it needs to be kept on their own property. Ms. Rivera explains they had a permit for the dumpster,but when it arrived she was told it didn't fit on the property. The dumpster is now in the rear. Debski asks St. Pierre if he is comfortable about the stairway fitting at 36 inches wide; St. Pierre says they should be able to do it. Stein proposes the following conditions: the building is limited to two single bedroom units, the dumpster is to be located on the property, and a 36 inch wide stairway is to be installed. Curran moves to approves the petition with these three special conditions and I 1 standard conditions, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Harris,Debski in favor, none opposed). Decision is attached to these minutes. Petition of JOAO P. REBELO, seeking a Variance maximum driveway width (Sec.5.1.5 of Zoning • Ordinance) to allow construction of an additional driveway on the property located at 12 CLARK AVE., Salem,MA [R-11. 2 • Rebelo presents his petition. Stein asks how many cars he owns. Rebelo says four, but soon they will have another. Curran asks if it will be paved bituminous; Rebelo says yes. Stein asks if he will pave a whole new driveway? Rebelo says yes and indicates the plans, showing where the new driveway will be. Stein asks St. Pierre if there is any issue with paving or parking in front of the building. St. Pierre says he can't park within 5 feet of the property line, and there is supposed to be a 2 foot buffer between parking and any abutter. Stein opens and closes the public comment portion; no one is here to comment. Stein says the proposal is not inconsistent with the bylaw. Curran moves to approve the petition with 1 standard condition, seconded by Stein, and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Harris and Debski in favor,none opposed). Petition of JAMES SHEA,seeking a Special Permit and Variances to allow the demolition of the existing nonconforming structure at 78A WEBB STREET and to construct a new building containing two residential dwelling units with two parking spaces [R-21. 78A Webb St. Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He presents photos of the property ("Proposed House 78A Webb Street"rendering and attached photos are available for review in the Building Department and are hereby incorporated as part of these minutes). Atty. Grover says Mr. Shea has owned the garage almost 40 years and it's used to store equipment. He says the business has grown, and he's outgrown this facility, so he's proposing converting it into a two-family home. He indicates the rendering and says the petition says they want to demolish,but actually, the upper two floors are planned to be built above the garage. The first level is to be used for parking. The garage doors will be replaced • with architecturally appropriate doors; there is ample room to pull in from the Andrew St. extension. He says the structure is legally nonconforming; they need a Special Permit to allow the conversion of the building to an allowed use. He says the new proposed use will be a vast improvement and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. He says the project is consistent with zoning. He says the building occupies almost the whole lot, which is very small. This won't change; however, there is a great deal of open space surrounding it, and the space between it and surrounding buildings is ample. He says it's consistent with the current streetscape; large Victorians line the street, and this building will be a similar height. It will be under the 35 foot limit of the zone. Mr. Grover presents a survey to the Board of properties on Webb St. to demonstrate that the two units are consistent with the multifamily character of the street. Mr. Grover says the height of the building is consistent with zoning,but not the number of stories. The third story counts as a full level,not a half story. The other variance needed is from parking requirements. He says the size of the building is a special condition; this lot is even smaller than most in the neighborhood and so the parking requirement cannot be met. He discusses the hardship requirement— in this case, literal enforcement would mean 3 spaces for 2 units; he says there is no way to put 3 on this site. Enforcement of this would prevent the applicant from using the property for an allowed use in the zone. Mr. Grover presents the petition to the board of 40 residents in support of the project. Dionne says it's an improvement in the neighborhood. He asks for confirmation that they will not be demolishing the structure; Atty. Grover confirms this. Curran asks if they are in the flood zone or out? An abutter says it is not in the flood zone. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Jessica Herbert, 70 Webb St., presents a letter in support of the project from her neighbors, Michael and • Dawna Bucco (72-74 Webb St.) She says she is happy to have the site developed but think it's too small for a two family. 3 • Lloyd Temes owns the property across street at 81 Webb St., and says the building is not appropriate for the neighborhood. He is concerned about density and feels it's a negative for the public welfare of the neighborhood. Daniel Pierce, 22 Andrews St,presents a letter to the Board in opposition (letter is on file at the Building Department and is hereby incorporated into these minutes). He says he also submitted letters opposing a similar project in 2004, and at the time it was withdrawn without prejudice, but he still has the same concerns. He says the 3 car garage was built prior to current zoning. He says it was originally part of 78 Webb St—it belongs to the adjacent property, and was built in 1963. Later, he says it was sold and split off, and someone else bought it and used it as a 3 car garage. He doesn't think it's appropriate to convert a nonconforming use into an appropriate use on a nonconforming lot; the lot is far too small. He says the design is beautiful, but the issue is the lot is too small. He says if a 2 family were to be put on the property, he could support it if it met the requirement for number of stories and parking requirements. He says Webb St. is very busy, and parking is dangerous and limited. He asks the petitioner how many of the signatures are owners vs. renters—and how many own single family homes? Grover says he is unsure of the mix. He thinks they are owners; tenants tend to not be interested in such petitions. Mr. Shea says all are owners as far as he knows, except one. Mr. Pierce says this is significant because owners are more invested in the neighborhood than renters The Board examines the signed petition. Ms. Herbert, 70 Webb St. says this is a rare opportunity to clean up that site—it's an eyesore. She says the parking underneath makes this a good design, and it's closed—not parking"on stilts." She says it might be worthwhile to continue because some of the neighbors aren't aware of what this project could • be. She says it would be a shame to miss the opportunity to redevelop the site. She says she would like to see good finishes, and the garage doors should be kept closed unless entering or exiting; it would be bad to have them up. There would probably be storage in there. Mr. Pierce adds that private garages are allowed in R2 only as an accessory use. He says the current use is illegal. He asks Mr. St. Pierre if it's now considered a commercial use. St. Pierre says he does not know its status. Keith Willa, representing himself and his wife, owns 78 Webb St. He opposes the project on the basis of the size of the lot and proposed structure. He says his property will be crowded. He says he has owned his property since 2005, investigated the previous attempt to convert the property, and found it was not buildable. He says the Andrews St. extension is heavily trafficked. He says he has witnessed several accidents there. He says he does not see a hardship here. At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., says he is familiar with the property; he says anything would be an improvement. He says he does not see how it could be a detriment to the surrounding properties—it would improve their property values. He says all the surrounding homes are 2 family homes. He supports the project—he wants to keep a residential neighborhood residential. Katherine Bergeron, 29 Andrews St., says she questions the 40 signatures Mr. Shea presented. She says he aggressively pursued the signatures. She wants to know how many did not sign it; 40 is not that many for the neighborhood. She opposes the project based on the size of the lot; the building is too small. She does not think there is enough parking on the site; there should be 2 spaces per condo. She says people may use the garage as storage and park on the street; the limited parking on the street is a problem. She • agrees that the building is an eyesore are she would like it redeveloped. 4 • At-Large Councillor Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Ave., says there was once a meat market in the neighborhood, and the parking situation is much improved there now. He speaks in support of the petition. He discusses the previous business uses in the neighborhood and says it's better that the trend is toward all residential; this would be the last piece of that change. He says someone could take the garage and make it an active use, it could be much more detrimental to the neighborhood. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Attorney Grover responds: the building wouldn't look that different as a single family than as a two family; the first level is parking anyway. The idea of a different scale building doesn't work there. He says the building is not large in comparison to what's around it, it's not out of character with the neighborhood. He says the view corridor down Andrews St. is preserved even with the proposed redevelopment. He says the limit to just residential trips would be an improvement to the traffic. He says the units will be small; there would likely be a single person living there. He also points out the proximity to the train. Curran says on the existing plan,there are three garage bays—did they look at putting three parking spaces in there? Mr. Shea says that's for mechanicals. Curran asks what makes this addition a full as opposed to a half story; St. Pierre says it's the dormer—the wall perpendicular to the ridge that exceeds 2 feet. Curran says the residential use is an improvement over this. Debski says it's a huge improvement for the neighborhood, and it's great to get rid of the commercial use in this neighborhood. She says it's very consistent with what's around it. Stein is concerned about the parking—it's a crowded area,the traffic volume there is high, getting in and out is difficult. Mr. Grover says the good thing is people can pull in from Andrews St. extension—there's a wide berth to get in. Stein says she hates to put extra cars on the street. Tsitsinos says he lives in the neighborhood—what else could you do with this? This is the best idea he's seen for this property. He says there is plenty of space around the building. Mr. Grover says Mr. Shea's intent is not to sell off the condos—he wants to hold onto the property and rent the units. Based on his plan, a single-family doesn't meet his investment profile. He could only do this or sell it as a commercial use. Harris asked if they really looked at putting in the third space. Stein says with a third space she would fully support the project. Grover says they also talked about an offsite parking space. Harris says it would be best to get it in the building. Belair says if they put in 3 spaces,there's no room at all for storage. Harris says she's comfortable with the height—it fits the neighborhood. It's just the parking. Mr. Grover says his client thinks he could do the third parking space by changing the location of the mechanical equipment. Curran and Stein say the height requirement is met and they have no issue with the number of stories. Curran moves to approve the petition with 9 standard conditions (changing, in the ninth condition, "demolition"to "reconstruction"), seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein,Harris and • Debski in favor, none opposed). 5 • Petition of BRIAN &JENNIFER CARR, seeking a Variance from rear yard setback, side setback and lot coverage,to construct an addition on the single-family home on the property located at 38 JAPONICA ST., Salem,MA [R-21. Tom Tremblay, contractor, presents the petition for Mr. and Mrs. Carr, who are also present. Stein opens the issue up for public comment, no one is here to comment, she closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Stein asks about the deck's dimensions and the location of the stairs. Mr.Tremblay shows where the stairs lead back to the yard. There's a level change; there's a stairway and concrete walkway. The walkway is existing. Harris clarifies with Tremblay which portions of the interior are new; she asks how many square feet he's adding. Tremblay says roughly a 24x16 foot area. Stein opens the-issue up for public comment; no one comments;she closes the public comment portion. Stein says she feels this is an appropriate project. Curran moves to approve the petition with 7 standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved, 5-0 (Dionne, Curran, Stein, Harris and Debski in favor,none opposed). Petition of KEVIN TALBOT, seeking a Special Permit under Sec.3.3 of the Salem Zoning • Ordinance in order to expand a nonconforming structure(construct a second level over an existing first floor of a single-family home) on the property located at 134 OCEAN AVENUE WEST [R-2]. Kevin Talbot presents the petition. He shows a photo to the board to clarify the request. St. Pierre says in the past they would have allowed this; in the recodified zoning,he now needs relief; we had Jerry Parisella look at this. Stein says it seems like a reasonable project. Stein opens up the issue for public comment. Melissa Pagliaro, 136 Ocean Ave. West—commented about the trees hanging over to her property; Tremblay says she wants the tree taken out, he says he would lop the trees and shave her side of the fence so it's not choking her yard. Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, 7 Lawrence St., says this should be a condition as part of the permitting process. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Debski moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions,and special condition that the applicant would maintain the trees at 136 Ocean Ave. West, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Dionne, Curran,.Stein, Harris and Debski in favor,none opposed). Petition of PRIDE CONSTRUCTION&DEVELOPMENT,seeking a Variance from lot coverage and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure, in order to construct a one and a half • story addition on the existing single-story building on the property located at 75 NORTH ST., Salem,MA [NRCC]. 6 • Brian Dapice, KW Commercial,presents the petition with Sean Meyers, CFO for Pride Construction. Debski confirms this is the same plan that was approved in 2006; Curran confirms this has expired. No changes are proposed to the plan. St Pierre, speaking about the proposed use, says this is a new owner and zoning has changed down there, though he's sure this is a grandfathered building, commercially. Meyers says this would be Pride construction's corporate office space, with standard materials held inside building. St. Pierre asks if there will be outside storage. Dapice says there will be parking only outside. St Pierre says he has to make sure this isn't parking for construction vehicles. Meyer says any vehicles on the premises will go home at the end of the day. There will be 5-8 employees. Harris asks if there will be 3 parking spaces on the property. Dapice says the plan shows a trailer, and they could fit additional parking where that trailer currently is. Meyer says this will be removed; it's not needed. Dapice shows photos of the property where the trailer could be removed. Harris asks what the parking requirement is there. Stein asks if they couldn't use whatever parking they had before? Curran asks if this use is allowed in the NRCC? St. Pierre says the old petition was in 2006. What's happened since then is the recodification—this now would be a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming use, which was not requested in the old application. Stein says she is fine with treating this that way. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Eunice Santucci, 12 Waters St., says on Commercial St.,there are metal containers on the sidewalk, which is blocked. The containers are rusting, and there could be chemicals leaking from them, as there are on a nearby property. St Pierre asks her to call him and clarifies that this has nothing to do with these developers. He invites her to look at this plan. • Stein asks if the Board wants to see a parking plan. St.Pierre notes that the whole front of the property has on-street parking. Debski asks if they need to file with Con Com. Dave Jalbert, current owner, says they didn't have to go in front of because the street divides the property from the river. Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Stein says it's nice to see the properties getting better in that area. Harris moves to approve the petition with eight(8) standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Debski, Harris, Stein, Curran and Dionne in favor,none opposed). Debski asks about getting methadone clinic info prior to the next meeting, including traffic counts. Curran moves to close the meeting, seconded by Stein seconds and approved 5-0, and the meeting adjourns at 8:45. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Minutes approved-by the Board of Appeals 12/15/10 Attachments: Decisions 7 . November 3, 2010 Dan DiLullo DiLullo Associates, Inc. 16 Crystal Street Melrose,MA 02176-2706 Re: Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142-144 CANAL ST. (Industrial Zoning District). Dear Mr. DiLullo: On October 20, 2010, the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor(Beth Debski,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair, Rick Dionne, and Annie Harris), and none opposed,to allow withdrawal without prejudice of the above petition. Robin Stein Chair • CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk November 3, 2010 Robert&Anthie Jackson 30 Columbus Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Re: Request for Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single-family residential structure on the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jackson: On October 20, 2010, the Board of Appeals voted five(5) in favor(Beth Debski, Becky Curran, Bonnie Belair, Rick Dionne, and Annie Hams), and none opposed,to allow withdrawal without prejudice of the above petition. Robin Stein Chair • CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk 8 i November 3,2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of IVETTE RIVERA,seeking Variances from side and rear yard setbacks, lot area per dwelling unit, and parking requirements,and a Special Permit to convert the current single-family home into a two-family home on the property located at 29 BOSTON STREET, Salem,MA[B-2]. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20,2010,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch.. 40A,4 11. The hearing was closed on October 20,2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein,Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair (alternate),and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1,and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5,of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. The petitioner and owner of 29 Boston Street,Ivett Rivera,represented herself at the hearing along with owner Arthur La Fave. • 2. In a petition dated September 22,2010,petitioner requested a Special Permit to change the single- family home (a nonconforming use) on 29 Boston Street to another nonconforming use,a two- familyhome. The Building Commissioner also determined that relief from side and rear yard setbacks,lot area per dwelling unit,and parking requirements would also be required. 3. At the October 20,2010 hearing,the petitioner presented revised plans showing a rear exterior stair, required for the proposed second unit. 4. At the October 20,2010 hearing,the Building Commissioner noted that the proposed stairs did not meet code and must be 36 inches wide;the petitioner agreed to make this change. 5. At the October 20,2010 hearing,the owners of an abutting property expressed concerns about a dumpster parked behind the house,not located fully on the site. 6. Also at the hearing,Board members noted that this proposal would take cars off the street because the plan provides three spaces not currently on the site. 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 proposal improves the property and provides parking not previously provided on the site. • 2. The applicant mayvarythe terms of the Business I-Eghway Zoning District to allow for the conversion of the single-family house to a two-family house. 9 • 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. Variances from side and rear yard setbacks, and lot area per dwelling unit are granted to allow for the conversion of the single-family home on 29 Boston Street to a two-family house,as shown on the submitted plans. 2. A Special Permit is granted to allow for the conversion of the single-family home on 29 Boston Street to a two-family house,as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein,Curran,Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Variances 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. 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 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 CityBoard or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to the Planning Board. 9. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise,any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject propertyto 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. 10. Dumpster into be kept on the property at 29 Boston Street. 11. The property�s use is limited to two one-bedroom units. • 12. The exterior stairway is to be 36 inches in width,in accordance with the requirements of the Building Commissioner. 10 Robin Stem,Chair Salem 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. November 3,2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Petition of JOAO P. REBELO, seeking a Variance from maximum driveway width(Sec.5.1.5 (6) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) to allow construction of an additional driveway on the property located at 12 CLARKAVE., Salem,MA(Residential One-Family Zone). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20,2010,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, � 11. The hearing was closed on October 20,2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein,Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair (alternate), and JimmyTsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 5.1.5 (6) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 7. The petitioner and owner of 12 Clark Avenue,Joao Rebelo,represented himself at the hearing. 8. Ina petition dated September 15,2010,petitioner requested a Variance from Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for relief from maximum driveway width,in order to construct a second driveway on his property. 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: 4. 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. • 5. The applicant may varythe terms of the Residential One-Family Zoning District to allow for the construction of the second driveway as proposed. 11 • 6. 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. A Variance from maximum width of driveways is granted to allow for the construction of a second driveway on the property located at 12 Clark Avenue, as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein,Curran,Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards: 13. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any CityBoard or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to the Planning Board. Robin Stem,Chair Salem 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. November 3,2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JAMES SHEA, seeking a Special Permit and Variances to allow the demolition of the existing nonconforming structure at 78A WEBB STREET and to construct a new building containing two residential dwelling units with two parking spaces [R-21. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20,2010,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, 5 11. The hearing was closed on October 20,2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein,Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair . (alternate), and JimmyTsitsinos (alternate). 12 • Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to 3.3.3,and Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 and Section 5.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact 9. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 10. In a petition dated September 29,2010,petitioner requested Variances from the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit and the maximum number of stories permitted,as well as a Special Permit to reconstruct a nonconfomung structure. 11. The current use of the property located at 78A Webb Street is a garage,currently used to store equipment. 12. Petitioner proposes an addition above the garage that would contain two residential dwelling units, with the existing garage used for parking. 13. At the hearing,Attorney Grover clarified that the request was to add on to and renovate the existing garage structure,not to demolish it,as indicated on the application form 14. At the hearing,Attorney Grover stated that because the building occupied almost the entire lot,there would be no place to put additional parking spaces;therefore,meeting the requirement of three parking spaces for a two-family home,which is an allowed use in the R2 zoning district,would constitute a hardship. • 15. At the hearing,Attorney Grover also presented a petition of approximately 40 neighbors in support of the project. 16. The Board of Appeals received a letter prior to the hearing in support of the project from Ward One Councillor Robert McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue,stating that the renovation and change in use would be a positive improvement to the neighborhood. 17. At the hearing,several residents,including At-Large Councillors Steven Pinto and Arthur Sargent, spoke in support of the project,saying it presented an opportunity to redevelop an unattractive site, and that the shift from a commercial to a residential use would be positive for the neighborhood and for property values. 18. At the hearing,several residents spoke in opposition to the project,citing concerns about traffic, density and appropriateness to neighborhood character. 19. At the hearing,Board members stated their concerns about the parking relief requested,indicating that they would be more inclined to support the project if three parking spaces were provided. In response,the petitioner agreed to change the plans for the interior of the garage structure in order to provide three spaces. 20. At the hearing,Board members indicated that they did not have concerns about allowing relief from the requirement for number of stories,since the height requirement for the building was being met. 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: 13 7. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building,which do not • generally affect other land or buildings in the same district; 8. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the appellant; 9. 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 project provides an opportunity to redevelop an unattractive,underutilized site and to change the current commercial use to a residential use in a residential neighborhood. 10. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the proposed addition and renovation. 11. 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: 4. A Variance from the number of allowed stories is granted to allow for the proposed renovation and addition to the structure on 78A Webb Street. 5. A Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure is granted to allow for the proposed renovation and addition to the structure on 78A Webb Street. • In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran,Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for Variances and subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards: 14. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 15. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved bythe Building Commissioner. 16. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 17. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 18. Exterior of the building is to comply with the submitted plan. 19. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 20. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to the Planning Board. 21. 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 14 • cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction,it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Robin Stem,Chair Salem 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. November 3,2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Petition of BRIAN&JENNIFER CARR,seeking Variances from rear yard setback, side setback and lot coverage,to construct an addition on the single-family home on the property located at 38 JAPONICA ST., Salem,MA(Residential Two-Family Zone). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20,2010,pursuant to Mass General Law C h. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on October 20,2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein,Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair (alternate),and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 21. Tom Tremblay,contractor,presented the petition on behalf of owners Mr. and Mrs.Carr,who were also present. 22. In a petition dated September 29,2010,petitioner requested Variances from rear setback,side setback and lot coverage and a Special Permit to extend a non-conforming structure. However,the Building Commissioner detemuned that only dimensional Variances were needed,and not the requested Special Permit. 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: • 12. 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. 15 13. The applicant may vary the terns of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the proposed addition. 14. 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: 6. Variances from rear yard setback,side setback and lot coverage are granted to allow for the proposed addition to the home on 38 Japonica Street,as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein,Curran,Debski, Dionne and I Tanis) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for Variances and subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 22. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 23. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved bythe Building Commissioner. 24. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safetyshall be strictly adhered to. • 25. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 26. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 27. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 28. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any QtyBoard or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to the Planning Board. Robin Stein,Chair Salem 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. • 16 • November 3,2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of KEVIN TALBOT, seeking a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to expand a nonconforming structure(construct a second level over an existing first floor of a single-family home) on the property located at 134 OCEAN AVENUE WEST [R-2]. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20,2010,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, y 11. The hearing was closed on October 20,2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein,Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 23. Petitioner and owner Kevin Talbot represented himself at the hearing. 24. In a petition dated October 6,2010,petitioner requested a Special Permit to expand a non- conforming structure. 25. At the hearing,abutter Melissa Pagliaro, 136 Ocean Avenue West,commented that trees on 134 • Ocean Avenue West are hanging over onto her property. In response,Mr.Tremblay agreed to trim the trees on Ms.Pagliaro's side of the fence to keep them out of her yard. 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: 15. 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. 16. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to allow for the construction of the addition as shown on the submitted plans. 17. 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: 7. A Special Permit to expand a non-conforming structure is granted to allow for the construction of an addition on the property located at 134 Ocean Avenue West,as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein,Curran,Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance and a Special Permit • subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 29. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 17 • 30. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 31. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 32. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 33. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 34. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 35. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any CttyBoard or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to,the Planning Board. 36. Petitioner is to cut back and maintain the trees on the property along the property line between 134 and 136 Ocean Avenue West. Robin Stein,Chair Salem 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. November 3,2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of PRIDE CONSTRUCTION&DEVELOPMENT,seeking Variances from lot coverage and parking requirements,and a Special Permit to expand a nonconfomring structure, in order to construct a one and a half story addition on the existing single-story building on the property located at 75 NORTH ST.,Salem,MA(NRCC Zoning District). 18 A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on October 20,2010,pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A,§ 11. The hearing was closed on October 20,2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein,Richard Dionne,Annie Harris,Beth Debski,Becky Curran,Bonnie Belair (alternate),and JimmyTsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1.1, and a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.5,of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 26. At the hearing,Brian Dapice of KW Commercial presented the petition along with Sean Meyers, CFO of Pride Construction. 27. In a petition dated September 15,2010,petitioner requested a Variance from lot coverage in order to construct an addition on the existing structure at 75 North Street. The Building Commissioner determined that a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure was also needed for the proposed project. 28. At the hearing,the Building Commissioner expressed concern that the site not become a construction yard and should not be used for storage of commercial vehicles. However,Mr.Meyer stated that most vehicles would be removed from the site at the end of each day. 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: • 18. 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. 19. The applicant may vary the terns of the North River Canal Corridor Zoning District to allow for the construction of the addition as shown on the submitted plans. 20. 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: 8. A Variance from maximum lot coverage,and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure,are granted to allow for the construction of an addition on the property located at 75 North Street, as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,five (5) in favor(Stein,Curran,Debski, Dionne and Harris) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance and a Special Permit subject to the following terms,conditions,and safeguards: 37. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 38. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. • 39. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 19 40. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 41. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 42. 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. 43. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any CityBoard or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. 44. 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 fiftypercent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction,it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Robin Stem, Chair Salem Board of Appeals • A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH TI-IE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special 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. 20 CITY OF SALEM A ET°I'MASS C�-�LTS S BOARD OF APPEAL �a 4d 120 WASHNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAalUSETTS 01970 - "�Iislt l D TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 KIMIERLEY DRISOOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,October 20,2010 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 DILULLO ASSOC,INC seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL Street[I]. Withdrawn without prejudice Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R 11. Withdrawn without prejudice Petition of IVETTE RIVE RA,seeking Variances from side and rear yard setbacks,lot area per dwelling unit,and parking requirements, and a Special Permit to convert the current single-family home into a two-family home on the property located at 29 BOSTON STREET, Salem,MA[B-2]. Decision:Approved, filed with the City Clerk 11/3/10 Petition of JOAO P. REBELO,seeking a Variance maximum driveway width(Sec. 5.1.5 of Zoning Ordinance) to allow construction of an additional driveway on the propertylocated.at 12 CLARK AVE., Salem,MA[R-1]. Decision:Approved,filed with the City Clerk 1113110 Petition of JAMES SHEA,seeking a Special Permit and Variances to allow the demolition of the existing nonconforming structure at 78A WEBB STREET and to construct a new building containing two residential dwelling units with two parking spaces [R 2]. Decision:Approved, filed with the City Clerk 11/3/10 Petition of BRIAN &JENNIFER CARR,seeking a Variance from rear yard setback,side setback and lot coverage, to construct an addition on the single-family home on the property located at 38 JAPONICA ST.,Salem,MA[R-2]. Decision:Approved,filed with the City Clerk 11/3/10 Petition of KE VIN TALBOT,seeking a Special Permit under Sec. 3.3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to expand a nonconforming structure (construct a second level over an existing first floor of a single-family home) on the propertylocated at 134 OCEAN AVENUE WEST [R 2]. Decision: Approved,filed with the City Clerk 11/3/10 Petition of PRIDE CONSTRUCTION&DEVELOPMENT,seeking a Variance from lot coverage and a Special Permit to expand a nonconforming structure,in order to construct a one and a half story addition on the existing single-story building on the propertylocated at 75 NORTH ST., Salem,MA[NRCC]. &Decision:Approved,filed with the City Clerk 11/3/10 Thu nabs is Ding sou in mVliame wth the Massadmetts General L aw, Chapter 40A,Sa=m 9& 15 and doe not n q e aazen by the rffiprem Appeals, tf arty,shall be mule pwsuarn to Chapter 40A,Seetion 17,and shall he fki uithin 20 da55 from the date sdx&the deasion teas fk d uith dx city Gerk. OND12.4 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2013 cfP —q A MAYOR 1-1 cIl k �'i L' MEETING NOTICE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING September 15, 2010- 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MA �v� � Robin Stem, air AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes - August 18,2010 meeting. 2. Continued from July21,2010: Public hearing:Petition of DILULLO ASSOC., INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL STREET [I]. 3. Continued from Jtdy21,2010: Public hearing:Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R-1]. 4. Public hearing:Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES, INC. (lessee), seeking a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE [R 2]. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment This node ported on "01'eml PuHotln Ewe City Hall Sr?'st` m, �flass. on Sip' q AND at 7;0e�411 1 Elsisl Chap. � am ;� A A of .0.1" Ito utltrq'q�, CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND � 4 r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r 1z7 'V?ct a xor" `U 120 WASHNGTON STREET ♦ SALEM MASSACHUSETIS 01970 _ , TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Tom Devine,Interim Staff Planner DATE: September 9,2010 RE: Meeting Agenda- September 15,2010 • Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 8/18/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Approval of Minutes -August 18, 2010 meeting. A recent change in the state's open meeting law requires minutes to include a list of documents referenced in the meeting and decisions to be attached. Continued from July 21, 2010:Public hearing: Petition of DILULLO ASSOC.,INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL Street[I]. At the July 21 meeting,members asked whythe Planning Board allocated FamdyDollar's parking only in the spaces closest to it despite the large parking lot on the other side of the parcel. The spaces around FamilyDollar are allocated to Family Dollar because that is how the parking was configured on the plan submitted bythe applicant and approved by the Planning Board. I've included in the packet a copy of the part of the plan that shows the allocation of spaces around Family Dollar. There is no record in meeting minutes that this matter was discussed at any length;the Planning Board merely approved this element of the plan as submitted. Although the ZBA cannot reallocate the spaces,it can grant relief from Family Dollar's parking requirement, • freeing up spaces to allow Enterprise to meet its parking requirement. If,however,the variance is denied or withdrawn,the applicant may go before the Planning Board for an amendment to the site plan and propose an _t_ altered parking configuration that spreads each use's required parking across the whole site. The applicant may wish to consult with the Building Department regarding the status of Enterprise's temporary Certificate of anc OccuP Y s if this option i pursued. With only 4 members present at the August 18 meeting,Mr.DiLullo asked to continue to the September 15 €� g meeting. Continued from July 21, 2010: Public hearing:Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R-1]. Petitioner requests to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single family home with insufficient frontage (it has 75'of the required 100') and lot width(also 75'of required 100'). Existing structure tube demolished does not meet side or front setback requirements,but the proposed structure does. Mr.Jackson has been working to address the concerns of a neighbor,and reports that the issue of potential loss of views remains unresolved. He claims that in order to fully satisfythe neighbor,the structure would require a dimensional variance. Attorney William Quinn is expected to represent the neighbor at the hearing. Meanwhile,the petitioner has been granted a waiver from demolition delay from the Historical Commission. With only members present at the August 18 meeting,Mr.Jackson asked to continue to the September 15 meeting. Public hearing: Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE,INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES, INC. (lessee),seeking a Special Permit for the operation of a medical clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE [R-2]. • The petitioner seeks a Special Permit to operate a methadone clinic at the site of the former Hillcrest Chevrolet dealership. The petition is pursuant to the recent zoning amendment that was precipitated bythe same organization's attempt to operate a methadone clinic byright at the former Jeffrey Brother's property on 142 Canal St. Their building permit application was rejected as incomplete while the zoning amendment was introduced. The department has not received any public comments regarding this proposal. Only property owners receive abutters'notices, and all the housing units surrounding the site are rentals. The department has,however,notified the City Council of the proposal, and The Salem News covered the issue recently in a front page story. • -2- City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet 'F Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date / S / "a Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail ,jL ag �hzd Aijoy LLI "/D COLWY Sus Aye '�7f'7ID-&7ZQ / -Z e 1 � � vrre ID r� 11�,;� c, Nel 't a VThn R12-14 SY1 1 tA� nn--nn nnodd __II 'Lo XJ r+� 6 9/61 Atgf2grjkg A lPc, Ip(�L JL 0d �f;4 to �g � i 971f�yy-}�zs% S'PF2 Lante9sf Ne� 2D5 14 A�zAtw 711=l/C -7Y5-2c;'?!� qn 7V<9 ' a , Lqn(ftd V- si 5'>F75�y�3 • �i�-C0u-cis �u 6h Q� �F•`�� /tLt�.'�t�n►i�Q�Xf•(mac (72S7gf �dry C{ Page of � City of Salem — Meeting g Si n-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Sd 9�� 5aa-Sz2Y 1 ` �h cc i5 rAIVI 7�u� �� 7cP 1�/Dal�2 .�� ,visc � sr ado M�f romo 2- C( c7�-- /yq&W( Mc(chn . YY zeS nclinaQ er; irrcP -&n Mi& rmo �3 Y Sj` �_� �178-7�/�i �GY�6 _ ' �-. 0 13�Forf- ,�-✓2• g78- 7'f�-bao� �,hns ,_ „��r�o��, ne+ f-7 �L� e �i RMAk-V �cJ �17k ?`I/-yy45 /��/ eC�Mcasrtir7 cup / reu t� uh +il. �, y r�5 �Tl(x}a �01 U oy 11�k Elr24&f-A LeL6erc Aug- TW- 746--70,9V Fuzu535sa@At-c&� /,3 C,c�lxl\U- Q,� !_u nee �c a✓Hh ned ✓CCC� ��t �� '7 �,Sqy -rSjT$ �if s<r36�'yyug:(_ rd L, d-7 47S 7YO-917cr��(�o Al Ml (D Page d— of� RIU,,n t1 eyv/ t0v 96'448-7 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board. Zoning Board of Appeals ' Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Sian p �' ►o m00YLCyRpq � o7 OSetdicQS 1�l (),can l l0 2�" S+ 9 4r- rva_�T c)qa yAkooc,, .I h Ile"n4/1eo +7 4ye Y4dL 47'P 7 S GzzS' Jeanie4-�"emg6 Cot, �Mm e�Ii (Pied �� a �avendG sh ' mcas+ 7A T /j� a4�— QKeF/1A(�HF1.C�CI✓ • �W i s P qL1 W Aptis L0 s13o7o2_ 0' d334 1) bl �n d 3 i/G h/1�J v/ �J '/�T� �{ y�/ l,J,�jl 7�i QGvb�• >m� e/ee.+< �vsd�✓ ao5/-��9�/��r1�ir� �7� 7'F�_STJ s/ �---_. Ar2f4fitrk.,,,k 6��f, l�lb'7VO-oov3 70-45 �fN tyMy oz-30 J /u z�t�t e.�v �e, �eervyQ �yt g7,Y7Y18K-G 2 �2�u(Coy�raunckn�, �c¢�` • r rs �f / [c i e 9g7(?camcO sfy�f �pV i �o s Df �A LDS GN �7tf D Z7S� „✓�j I'Q 2� �� ,/ Page of 1� a-vj tisJb aj) eo a�l6,�vfW�Zo G •Y v��coNuiP,�Q, �QZ a City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet zt a�i� Board: Zoning Board of Appeals ,civdue o4 Date q Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail \ Mc, -(.._ /,kwyL/f 5L /��D � f� -o?5 M�4 �✓S i(, -u7r �fv�lafLPF�a�CoiS �(� W55Vo �Z v��CQhCu�,Nr� �r.dfn n1A,6 I��` C 1p rr'���1 q_79�45 3u3? !S�IrIAMrK_1�)GOACQ4,AA �Ou �e gn/ef lc/M 714 �qw �Eila- �,e�� z�g ��- �►- Q�� � � �.� r�l��rne�skfn�c. � eti cif eS 'a-3`-{A2 rti5 13 ,M6 Ate ct1g245d3LQ _�c+s�vnwicKe�l usl�Pne cax 7 -9Y/-2yf 3 1_I/�/� "" tM(A CSC l� !7a c ��� 14 4 e ��� > l�l (28- 2 rS 9�ka �akD- of-20� 05'0 77_,q2fi,�l 6�0 ON e,)L))s,H ci2cle 978 7X5 -yv�� 2f�azrny cpq �ConC, Lk 6 Page- of fr G(,, "le f�+✓�c �b ✓1/�a� � ro.�� n� ��� �YS �Z �IrMk �(� �"1`7 ��oNDfPggO\ • ice ; City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail O e (hnr: l <<y L biyc( GkAf t., Cori e i S �r 3. &_Uc ne �97hLQS�. • • Page of • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, September 15, 2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 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, Rick Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Absent were: Annie Harris and Bonnie Belair (alternate) Also present were: Tom Devine,Interim Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner. Stein the nwi at 6:30 .m %� nS P Approval of minutes Stein notes that not enough members present at the 8/18 meeting are present tonight and suggests reviewing the minutes at the next meeting. Stein moves to review the 8/18/10 meeting minutes at the 10/20/10 meeting, seconded by Dionne and approved unanimously. Continued from July 21,2010: Public hearing: Petition of DILULLO ASSOC., INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL STREET [I]. Stein recuses herself from this item and Debski presides. Devine notes that Dan Dilul10 has submitted a letter requesting to continue. Dionne moves to continue the public hearing at the 10/20/10 meeting, seconded byTsitsinos and approved unanimously. Continued from July 21, 2010: Public hearing: Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R 1]. Stein recuses herself from this item and Debski presides. Mr.Jackson requests to continue due to having only 4 voting members. Curran moves to continue the public hearing at the 10/20/10 meeting, seconded by Dionne and approved unanimously. Public hearing: Petition of COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. (owner) and HEALTH CARE RESOURCES, INC. (lessee), seeking a Special Permit for the operation of a medical • clinic (methadone center) on the property located at 207 HIGHLAND AVENUE [R 2]. 1 • John Keilty, 40 Lowell St.,Peabody, attorney for the applicant, said they are petitioning to use 207 Highland Ave. as a medical clinic—specifically as a methadone center. This would provide counseling, dosing, and related services. If approved,the center will lease 7,000 sq. ft. of the former Hillcrest building. The organization operates 12 centers in other communities. The treatment is for recovering addicts, not active users. We require periodic urine samples. We expect to eventually treat 250-300 clients in Salem. Right now we treat 80-100 Salem residents at our Peabody location. We expect to have 25 full and part time employees. Dosing hours would be between 5:30 and 10 am. We looked at seven other sites, and we understand the concerns regarding the Canal St. site. Dionne asks how long a client receives methadone. Robert Potter,Vice President for Development for the applicant, said there is detox for six months to wean a client off and an individual may need a maintenance program. The average user with five years experience with heroin tries other treatments first and will need 12 to 18 months of methadone treatment. Dionne asks if they use a twelve step program. Potter said they offer space to Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. We are specialized,so we refer to other facilities for such things as AIDS, mental health, and alcohol. Keiltysaid we have had community advisory boards to meet and see what we are doing right and wrong. Curran asks about nighttime security. Potter says the facility is alarmed per DEA regulations, and the dispensary is secured. Nurses have panic buttons and remote controls and the lot would be locked. Curran asks if the clients are impaired by the methadone. Potter says that on the right dose, there is no impairment. We evaluate a client throughout treatment and work with him or her to make realistic goals. Curran asks about traffic volume. Potter says highest volume is in the • morning. We have a high tech system to get people in and out quickly. Curran asks where the closest residential neighbors are and Potter identifies the locations on the plan. Stein notes that the clinic would only use part of the building. Fred Massa, broker for the property, said they are looking at other commercial uses and many are by right in the B-2 zone. Steins asks how much parking there will be. Massa says 31 spaces. Stein notes that there would be 25 employees. Massa notes that the employees would be full and part time. Debski asks if 250 clients would come in during the morning. Keithy says the would not all come at the same time. And not all will come in single cars. Keilty says there are 44 spaces for 300 clients in Peabody. Debsi asked if the proximityto the school is an issue with many-students walking and bus stops nearby. I think this would generate more traffic than other uses. Do you share space with other tenants in other locations? Potter says they do. We are well managed and owned by doctors. Stun opens up the issue to the public Patricia Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, said she is concerned about traffic congestion. I am concerned that the Cloister Condominiums were never notified. This is too close to residential neighbors and the school. A member of the public said she is concerned with security. Where do clients go if they are kicked out of the building? Potter says they only spend a small part of their time focused on difficult • clients. If someone uses, we work harder with them. Police would be involved if someone is violent. 2 • Terry McCabe, manager of New England Veterinary Clinic, 204 Highland Ave., asks if people who are not enrolled in the clinic show up,where will they go? Will they come to our veterinary pharmacy? Potter says it is a police issue. Chuck Puleo, 5 Freeman Rd.,says people live nearby and he is concerned about the early morning hours. We don't allow retail to operate that early. The service entrance was never designed to be an entrance. This is too close to the schools. A member of the audience says this is not an appropriate location near residences and schools. There is no need for this since there are clinics nearby. This is for profit and the success rate is not high. You are essentially creating longterm addicts. Arthur Theophilopoulos, 24 Valley St.,says he is opposed to the clinic. My family uses the nearby bus stops and I am concerned about addicts taking buses and walking through the area. My business will lose customers. I think the existing locations are enough. Phillip Blaskovich, 8 Admirals Lane, said methadone is not a cure. It is just trading one addiction for another. They have high rates of hepatitis and HIV. This is too close to the school. John Sullivan, 205 Highland Ave., asked if 250 clients is the minimum needed to make money. Potter said they don't share that information. Chuck Barton,26 Marlborough Rd., said the risks outweigh the benefits when you concentrate so • many addicts in a residential area near a school. And it doesn't matter whether it is for profit. A member of the public expresses concern about homes and businesses without security. Burglaries could be a problem. Potter says the goal is to keep people motivated to fight their addition. If they don't work at it,they are terminated from the program Marsha Gerber, 24 Bengal Lane, said the petitioner is overly optimistic. What about those who fail treatment? They can break into homes. Potter said many clients will come from Salem. It is better to have them in treatment then out using. Erin Higgins, Lafayette St., asks about people who take methadone home. Potter said that under federal rules, only those who are clean for 6 months can take it home. It can be very motivating, but it you fail, you are back to square one. Laura Lanes, 13 First St., said she is opposed to the proposal. In my experience, addicts are dishonest. Todd Siegal, 28 Brittania Circle, submitted police logs for the Chelsea and Lynn locations. The Chelsea clinic had 66 calls and the Lynn clinic,not affiliated with the applicant, had 180. Judges do not allow anyone in drug court to use methadone. A member of the audience asked if people will hang out at the facility before it opens. Potter said • his patients don't do that because the monitors don't allow it. It would be a violation of our policy. 3 • Stephen Burrell, 10 Britannia Circle, asked if the crash gates cover all entrances and noted that people can't cross the divided highwayto the bus stop. This is a bad area for traffic alone. Massa said the crash gates will be internal. Jack Carroll, 205 Highland Ave., asked what the payment policy is for methadone. Potter said we bill through insurance, and if it is private pay,we bill monthly. Mark Burns, 15 Aurora Lane, said he is concerned about traffic. People brings friends and family to the Lowell location. Sandy McMahan, 2 Madeline Ave., said people have covered most of my concerns. I worry that you can't cap it at 250. You could end up with many more than that. This is a poor location. Theresa Nadeau, 7 Gallows Circle, said her kids travel this area before school. I know users. They take half of their methadone and sell the other half and get others addicted. A member of the audience said she is concerned about addicts going into area businesses. I don't see the benefit of this. I am concerned that some patients are homeless and will loiter in the neighborhood. You could put this in Shetland Park A member of the audience said he is concerned about all the bad proposals that can damage our neighborhood. I am concerned about having addicts in the community. I agree with the comments of others. This is not appropriate for the location. How was the previous application rejected? • Keilty said it was withdrawn. The audience member said he is concerned about loss of investment in the community. Mica Kreutz,4 First St., asked what the noise level will be on weekends. I am concerned about the condition of the street, pedestrian safety, and illegal u-tums. Do your clinics increase crime. Potter said it has been studied, and they lead to a decrease in crime. A member of the audience said he is a recovering addict and thinks the petitioner does not know what he is talking about. There is no need for methadone when getting clean. You dose up, not down, and people become a slave to the clinic. They can't go on vacation. I am concerned about crime at this location. Rachel Dorhery,7 First St., said she is concerned about the kids in the housing authority property What about children going to the clinic with a parent? Potter said it is encouraged and there is a play area for them. Dorhery said an AUL restricts child-related uses there. Massa said the AUL has to be remediated. Paul Prevey, Ward 6 Councilor, said he is opposed. This is not something we want for Salem as we try to market the city. A member of the audience said he is aware of a big problem. We are losing more people to drugs than wars. I am aware addicts are working on recovery. I do know there are positive results from • methadone. 4 • Amy Albert, 8 Lightening Lane, said she is opposed due to the traffic and addicts it would bring to the neighborhood. I am worried about this in conjunction with other proposals for the neighborhood. Todd Mover, 8 Pope St, said he is concerned about property values. Scott Morgan, 7 Savona St., said it is outrageous to propose this near the schools. I am concerned about property values and I think the applicant will profit from taking our value away. This will bring in over 200 zombies each day and I demand that the board oppose it. Sean O'Brien, 10 Mooney Rd., said he is concerned about addicts driving. Will they be clean the first day they drive there? I am concerned about the school children.. How much revenue will the city make? A member of the audience said he is concerned that that facility would have room to grow. I am opposed. I see the benefits for the reahor,the lawyer, and the for-profit business, but none for the city This is in an entrance corridor and a tax-generating business would be preferable. Jean Pelletier,Ward 3 Councilor,said the owners do take MassHealth, despite their claim that they take no state or federal funds. I am concerned about the patients who would never come off the methadone. Up to 300 children live nearby. This is a bad location and it will overburden police. Joan Lovely, Councilor at Large, said she is opposed. I have received manyemails and talked to • many people. We need a different location. They could expand at the Cummings Center. Meghan Romanovitz, 90 Ocean Ave., said the police are strained with the growing college. Traffic is an issue at the Peabody location. Why not go to Cummings Center? I don't think we have the need. I know addicts who won't touch methadone. Julie Pelletier, 39 Hazel St., asked where people go between dosing and counseling. I am concerned about them milling around. Potter said they might go to work and come back. Addicts sill have lives and I don't see them waiting around 2 hours. A member of the audience asked if the urine samples are supervised. Potter said there is a heat sensitive tab on the container and there are other ways to tell if people are using. The audience member said she is concerned about addicts moving into the city. It is wrong to broaden the tax base with this kind of business. A member of the audience said she supports clinics as a nurse, but not necessarily as a parent and a homeowner. What guarantee do you have for the safety of the neighborhood? Potter said once a patient is offsite, he has no control. The patients have their own lives and children and want to get on with their lives. I am more concerned about active users. The audience member asked if the applicant will put up money for more police or to fix the road. Martin Miseandino, 13 First St., said the proposal degrades Facrest's 25 years. I am concerned with • traffic. The petitioner has been held responsible for a crash victim and failing to monitor a patient. I am concerned about losing interest from homebuyers. This doesn't serve community needs, it has 5 • traffic problems,will destroy neighborhood character, and will harm the local economy. If you approve this,you can limit the use. We will ask they no methadone is distributed at the location. Teassie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., said she is perplexed that Boston's prestigious medical community couldn't run a methadone clinic well. Potter said Boston now has well run clinics. Goggin asked what makes success. Potter said it would mean operating within a community without problems. Luis Zukowski, 29 Mooney Rd., asked what the rest of the building will be. Massa said it is unknown and there are no specific plans. A member of the audience asked what stops the clinic from expanding if the rest of the space can't be rented. Stein said they would be limited to the space in their plan. Steven Pinto, Councilor at Large, said that in hearing the public response, he is adamantly opposed to the clinic. John Ronan,Ward 5 Councilor,said he authored the zoning amendment to require this kind of clinic to have a public hearing, giving neighbors a chance to be heard. The man who spoke in favor of this is a lobbyist. Everyone else is in opposition. I saw a house near the previously proposed site sitting on the market while there were rumors of the clinic coming. The clinic can't do background checks on its patients. Methadone is more addictive than heroin and requires treatment every day, tethering addicts to the clinic. The situation with the Peabody clinic is bad,with people sleeping in • the doorways of nearby businesses. Addicts will move into the neighborhood. The neighboring apartments are already hard to rent. The board only needs one legitimate reason to reject the special pemut, and there are many reasons. Some states don't even allow these clinics. We are already served by nearby clinics. The council is opposed. A member of the audience said he is totally opposed. It is bad for the neighborhood and businesses. The board should visit other methadone clinics. Stan Poirier, 8 Cottage St.,said the neighborhood is in strong opposition and I recommend denial. Pelletier asked Mr. Potter to restate his position with the company. Potter said he is Vice President of Development and Communications, in charge of finding new sites. Pelletier asked if Potter thinks this is the right site. Potter said yes. Sean O'Brien said you can't sell drugs within 1000 of a school. Stein said she doesn't think that would apply. Michelle Knox, 23 Cavendish St., said this is not an isolated location. It is near a school. Addicts can drive to appointments like the rest of us do. The police will be strained with violent criminals and pedophiles in my neighborhood. If it is safe, why do nurses need panic buttons? Please reject the petition. Jerry Ryan,Ward 4 Councilor,said he is completely opposed. I haven't heard from anyone in support it. This will ruin the neighborhood's quality of life. There is no good place to put it. The council appointed you and you can stop this. 6 Stein said I have many question I want to ask We will not vote on this tonight. It is routine • g practice to give applicants a chance to address issues raised at a first meeting and we treat all applicants equally. Tsitsinos said all of his concerns have been'stated. Debski said traffic irnpac[ is'a big issue. We need a traffic study. Stein said we would`,want a traffic study to show the higher possible number-of clients. Debski said parking looks like it is inadequate: I would'like comments from the police,fire, and school departments, and I would like to see the plan to address the AUL. I am concerned about the building's other future tenants and their parking needs:;Stein said we haven't heard much'about the actual community need and we need to balance intterests'here 'We should consider a cap''on the number of patients: _ ,._ _. . Curran said that foria special pernnt,we have to ri;ake sure costs don't outweigli'benefits. I am not convinced you can meet that threshold: I am concerned about traffic flow and whether this addresses a community need, as well as housing values--.,.If you address these concerns,we can figure this out. Stein said she doubts we can come to enough of a balance to approve this. Keilty asked to continue to the Nov et ember rneug so theycan hire a'traffic consultant; Dionne moves to continue the public hearing at the 11/17/10 meeting,seconded by Stein and approved unanimously. Debski moves to adjourn,seconded by Stein and approved unanimously. • Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Interim Staff Planner In addition to the applications before the Board and related materials,the following documents are referenced in these minutes and are available at the Department of Planning and Community Development. Police log for Chelsea methadone clinic Police log for Lynn methadone clinic Minutes approved by the Board of Appeals 10/20/10. • 7 ccneq CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS �J BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR � m SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 • NET�� FAX: 978-740-9846 n:^ KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL � �`1�I A.Em73 MAYOR MEETING NOTICE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING August 18, 2010 — 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 — 120 WASHINGTON STREET �F�MA P Robin Ste , air m AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes -July21,2010 meeting. 2. Continued from July21,2010:Public hearing:Petition of DILULLO ASSOC., INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL STREET [I]. 3. Public hearing:Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R-1]. • 4. Public hearing:Petition of IAN HUNTER seeking a Variance from the required minimum side setback for an accessory structure,to build a garage for the two family home on the propenylocated at 14 1/2 FORT AVENUE [R-2]. 5. Public hearing:Petition of THOMAS P. COTE seeking Variances from the required min mum,lot area and required minimum lot frontage,for the two familyhome on the propertylocated at 12 DERBY STREET [R-2]. 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment This 110*0 p ted can "pO� f °tat OL°II0tin I�QF�W city Hall 8 I�rn, 1$i9�5 on F}uc as aota �' 33401 In t=1-1irv1Qj Mj1 c1w, �NUI Fqq CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 0: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KI.\BERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHNGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETrs 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYnT GOOMN DuNcAN,AICt, DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Tom Devine,Interim Staff Planner DATE: August 11, 2010 RE: Meeting Agenda- August 18, 2010 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: Agenda i Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 7/21/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Approval of Minutes -July 21, 2010 meeting. A recent change in the state's open meeting law requires minutes to include a list of documents referenced in the meeting and decisions to be attached. Continued from July 21, 2010:Public hearing: Petition of DILLTLLO ASSOC.,INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL Street[I]. At the Judy 21 meeting,members asked why the Planning Board allocated Farr lyDollar's parking only in the spaces closest to it despite the large parking lot on the other side of the parcel. The spaces around Family Dollar are allocated to Family Dollar because that is how the parking was configured on the plan submitted by the applicant and approved bythe Planning Board. I've included in the packet a copy of the part of the plan that shows the allocation of spaces around FamilyDollar. There is no record in meeting minutes that this matter was discussed at any length;the Planning Board merely approved this element of the plan as submitted. Although the ZBA cannot reallocate the spaces,it can grant relief from Family Dollar's parking requirement, • freeing up spaces to allow Enterprise to meet its parking requirement. If,however,the variance is denied or withdrawn,the applicant may go before the Planning Board for an amendment to the site plan and propose an -1- altered parking configuration that spreads each use's required parking across the whole site. The applicant may • wish to consult with the Building Department regarding the status of Enterprise's temporary Certificate of Occupancy if this option is pursued. Public hearing:Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R-1]. Petitioner requests to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single family home with insufficient frontage (it has 75'of the required 100') and lot width(also 75'of required 100'). Existing structure to be demolished does not meet side or front setback requirements, but the proposed structure does. A neighbor,via his attorney, has expressed concerns regarding potential loss of air,light, and ocean views. The attorney is asking the petitioner to submit a plot plan certified by a surveyor or engineer(the submitted plans are stamped by an architect) and to place stakes on the property to indicate the proposed new footprint. Public hearing: Petition of IAN HUNTER seeking a Variance from the required minimum side setback for an accessory structure,to build a'garage for the two family home on the property located at 14 112 FORT AVENUE [R-2]. The petitioner,Mr. Hunter,and his neighbor at 12 Derby St., seek to file an ANR and Waiver from Frontage with Planning Board in order to give Mr. Hunter full ownership of a strip of properly roughly corresponding to the current easement connecting his parcel to Fort Ave. Petitioner seeks relief from the required minimum setback for an accessory structure to build a garage on this strip. The proposed setbacks are 2'and 3.86'of the required 5'. It has been determined that the other variance requested by the petitioner,for an accessory structure in a front yard,is unnecessary. • Public hearing: Petition of THOMAS P. COTE seeking VARIANCES from the required minimum lot area and required minimum lot frontage, for the two family home on the property located at 12 DERBY STREET [R-2]. Submitted in conjunction with the above petition for 14 'h Fort Ave.,Mr. Cote seeks relief from minimum required lot area and frontage for the lot that will result from the adjustment of the boundary shared with Mr. Hunter. Required minimum lot area is 15,000 sq. ft., and a reduction from 6,775 to 5,799 is proposed. A reduction from 57' to 41' of the required 100'frontage is proposed. -2- City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,August 18, 2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday,August 18,2010 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m Those present were:Rick Dionne,Annie Harris,Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Absent were:Robin Stein (Chair),Beth Debski(Vice Chair),and Rebecca Curran. Also present were: Tom Devine,Interim Staff Planner,and Thomas St.Pierre,Building Commissioner. Dian opera the nwteng at 6:30 pm Approval of minutes The minutes of July 21,2010 were reviewed. Devine states that the minute reflect a recent change to the state's open meeting law,requiring decisions and a list of documents referenced to be included. Hams moves to approve the minutes,seconded by Bonnie Belair and approved 4-0. Continued from July 21,2010:Public hearing:Petition of DILULLO ASSOC.,INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL STREET [I]. Devines presents a letter from DilhAo requesting a continuance due to the presence of only four members of the board. Harris moves to continue the public hearing at the September 15 meeting,seconded by Belair and approved 4-0. Public hearing:Petition of ROBERT JACKSON seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 30 COLUMBUS AVENUE [R 1]. Devine presents a letter from Jackson requesting a continuance due to the presence of only four members of the board. The petitioner is also working to resolve issues with neighbors. Belair moves to open the public hearing at the September 15 meeting,seconded by Harris and approved 4-0. St. Pierre suggests taking the remaining items in reverse order,since the last agenda item depends on the approval of the second to last., and the Board agrees. Public hearing:Petition of THOMAS P. COTE seeking Variances from the required minimum lot area and required minimum lot frontage,for the two family home on the property located at 12 DERBY STREET [R 2]. The petitioner,Thomas P. Cote,says that his lot is already nonconforming and he is proposing to convey a strip of land to his neighbor,Ian Hunter at 14 1/5 Fort Ave.,that roughly corresponds to Hunter's existing easement. I am happy to do this,since nothing can now be built on the easement. . Ian Hunter, 14 1/5 Fort Ave.,who has a petition before the Board in conjunction with this one,says he is in favor of the petition. Belair asks if Cote is aware that with only 4 members,unanimous approval is needed. Cote responds affirmatively. 1 • Diorm opera the issue to the pubic No members of the public speak in favor or in opposition. Belair asks St.Pierre for his comments. St.Pierre says the petition is straightforward. It is a land swap that will give Hunter the strip of land currently in easement and allow a garage to be built. Hunter identifies proposed movement of lot line on plan. Hams remarks that the change will give Hunter more land. Hunter shows that there is a small conveyance to Cote. Harris asks where the garage will go. Hunter identifies the proposed garage on the plan. He says it was an old familyplot subdivided into odd shapes sometime in the 1920s. Dionne asks if Hunter will have to drive through the garage. Hunters shows a walkway on the plan. Harris states that this is clearer. St.Pierre commends the surveyor for completing a difficult task and the petitioner and neighbor for coming up with a good plan. Belair says that the lack of opposition speaks volumes in a neighborhood with a strong neighborhood association. I am in favor. Harris says the hardship is the odd shaped lot without frontage on a public way. This is an improvement. Harris moves to approve the request for Variance with conditions,seconded byBelair and approved 4-0 (Dionne,Harris,Belair, and Tsitsinos in favor,none opposed). PP .) Public hearing:Petition of IAN HUNTER seeking a Variance from the required minimum side setback for an accessory structure,to build a garage for the single family home on the property located at 14 112 FORT AVENUE [R-2]. The petitioner,Ian Hunter,notes that he has a classic car that is in storage, and the garage will allow him to keep it on his property. Other garages in the neighborhood are similarly placed,but mine would be smaller • and in line with the character of the neighborhood. He submits a letter of support from his neighbor Gustavo A. del Puerto, 8 Derby St. Belair asks for the height of the garage. Hunter says approximately 10 feet. St.Pierre notes that this is well below the maximum allowed of 18 feet. Harris asks about garage doors. Hunter says he will have doors on both ends. Diorm opera the issue to the public No members of the public speak in favor or in opposition. Cote says that Hunter is a good neighbor and he is happyto work out this deal. Hams says the irregular lot without access to the street is the hardship. St.Pierre says the garage should be marked as part of the property to make it clear to emergency workers. Harris asks if the property is in a historic district. Hunter says it is not. Tsitsinos moves to approve the request for a Variance with conditions,seconded by Belair and approved 4-0 (Dionne,Harris,Belair,and Tsitsinos in favor,none opposed). There being no further business before the Board,Harris moves to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Tsitsinos and approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. • Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Interim Staff Planner 2 • In addition to the applications before the Board and related materials,the following documents are referenced in these minutes and are available at the Department of Planning and Community Development. Letter from Gustavo del Puerto,dated 8/17/10 • • 3 • August 20, 2010 Decision Petition of Thomas P. Cote seeking Variances from the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements to relocate the lot line for the propertylocated at 12 DERBY STREET in the Residential Two Family Zoning District[R-2]. A public hearing on the above petition was opened on August 18, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members being present: Annie Harris, Rick Dionne, Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances under Section 4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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: • Petitioner Thomas P. Cote represented himself at the hearing. • In a petition date-stamped August 2, 2010,the petitioner requested to adjust the parcel boundary at • 12 Derby Street to convey a piece of land to the property at 14 1/5 Fort Avenue to provide access to a public way and allow construction of a garage. • Ian Hunter, owner of 141/5 Fort Avenue, petitioned the Board separately for zoning relief related to the proposed lot line adjustment. • No member of the public spoke in favor or in opposition of the petition at the hearing. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: • Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, and literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship,financial or otherwise, to the appellant, since the neighboring lot lacks access to a public way. 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 changes to the parcel boundaries give the abutting lot access to a public way. • 4 • The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to adjust the lot • lines as proposed, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. • 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: • A Variance is granted from the minimum lot area requirement to adjust the property boundaries as shown on the submitted plans. • A Variance is granted from the minimum frontage requirement to adjust the property boundaries as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted four(4) in favor(Dionne, Harris, Belair, and Tsitsinos), none (0) opposed,to grant the petitioner's request for Variances, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: • Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • • 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 that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • 5 August 20, 2010 Decision Petition of Ian Hunter seeking a Variance from the minimum setback requirement for an accessory structure to build a garage on property located at 14 1/5 FORT AVENUE in the Residential Two Family Zoning District [R-2]. A public hearing on the above petition was opened on August 18, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members being present: Annie Harris, Rick Dionne, Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos(alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance under Section 3.2.4: Accessory Buildings and Structures, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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: • Petitioner Ian Hunter .represented himself at the hearing. g • In a petition date-stamped August 2, 2010,the petitioner requested to construct a garage on the • property at 14 1/5 Fort Avenue. • Thomas P. Cote, owner of the property located at 12 Derby Street, petitioned the Board separately for zoning relief related to a proposed lot line adjustment that will convey property to 14 1/5 Fort Avenue to establish access to a public way and the ability to construct the proposed garage. • Gustavo A. del Puerto, 8 Derby Street, submitted a letter to the Board in support of the petition. • No member of the public spoke in favor or in opposition of the petition at the hearing. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: • Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, and literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant, since the lot will be configured is such a way that the only feasible location for a garage is the location proposed. • 6 • The proposed structure is in character with the neighborhood, therefore, desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. • The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to construct a garage as proposed, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. • 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: A Variance is granted from the minimum setback requirement for an accessory structure to construct a garage as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four(4) in favor(Dionne, Harris, Belair, and Tsitsinos), none (0)opposed,to grant the petitioner's request for a Variance, subject to the • following terms, conditions, and safeguards: Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. • All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • Petitioner is to 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. Richard Dionne Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South • Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. 8 Minutes approved by the Board of Appeals 10/20/10. • 9 CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETrS 01970 �`7tFt yC 1)' ALE: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,August 18,2010 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: IAN HUNTER Location: 141/5 FORT AVENUE (R-2) Request: Variance Description: Variance from the minimum side setback requirement for an accessory structure to construct a garage. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on August 23,2010 Petition of: THOMAS P. COTE • Location: 12 DERBY STREET (R-2) Request: Variances Description: Variances from the miu um lot area and minimum frontage requirements to adjust parcel boundaries. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on August 23,2010 This notiw is beingsea in cu»pltanx with the Massadhxetts Gewral Law, Chapter 40A,Seam 9& 15 and daps not nquzreaamlytbe7wzjwi Appeals, if any,shall be mzdepunnam to CJxtpter 40A, Se awn 17,and shall be fl&wthin 20 da3s from the date which the decision was filed with the City GY rk. 40 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD J` L : Ob f 11.E i CITY CL Eit , St+ E 11L ,+�S MEETING NOTICE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING July 21,2010 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,,MA Robin Stein,Chair AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes -June 16,2010 meeting. 2. Continued from June 16,2010:Public hearing:Petition of DILULLO ASSOC.,INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of req jed parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL Street[I]. S ✓1 i.-u i 3. Public hearing:Petition of Clear Wireless,LLC seeking a Variance from the minimum rear yard requirement and to exc d a nonconforrigig structure (to add a cabinet and lease area) to the property located at 52-60 Dow Street[R-3]. " r1 sp4411 10- 4. Public hearing:Petition of John Januario seeking a variance from the minimum depth of side yard requirement to add an elevator to the property located at 15 Jackson Street[R 2]. 5. Public hearing:Petition of Mary Woodcock seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two familystructure fQr the property located at 24 English Street[R 21.6. Request of John Bertini (Represented by Attorney George Atkins) to extend Variance and Special Permit granted for the property located at 284 Canal Street[B-2]for six(6) months to March 28,2011. 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment This nadw punted On votrojejej Bz0finB9 anr Y eco S iPtyt, Mass. onis Zero at WA A 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALFM.COM �t,owur,� I CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT c�%'{m�oo;.. KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALI?:M,MASSACHUSE'tTS 01970 TEL.E:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 L.YNN C.00NIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRHCI'OIt MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Tom Devine, Interim Staff Planner DATE: July 13, 2010 RE: Meeting Agenda—July 21,2010 Board Members, • Please fund the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 6/16/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Continued from June 16,2010: Public hearing: Petition of DILULLO ASSOC.,INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL Street [I]. (Note: the following is an updated version of the background Danielle provided for this application in the June 16 meeting packet memo.) Mr. DiLullo has made a request to reallocate the parking spaces on 142 Canal Street to accommodate future uses, which would require a reduction in the amount of parking required for some of the buildings on the site. Zoning requires the Family Dollar and Little Caesar building to have 69 spaces, Hertz to have four spaces,and the "tile" building(the small building along the property line adjacent to 134 Canal) to have four spaces. There are currently 73legal, striped spaces on the site (as approved by the Planning Board last December). This leaves another four not accounted for, but the Planning Board allowed these to be provided by the extra space at the rear of the site. This parking area is not yet striped, and the pavement needs to be repaired,but the Planning Board consented to allowing the space to be used as overflow for the four extra spaces,if needed. Currently, the proposed changes on the site do not trigger further site plan review by the Planning Board,which is why the application is before the ZBA currently in order to ask for relief from parking,and not the Planning Board to amend the site plan. • �l- The fact that.the rear parking lot is not yet striped is important to this application, since Mr. DiLullo has shown the rear parking area on the plan as an existing condition,and has included these 85 spaces in the parking calculation on. the plan. Another important piece of the application is the fact that it originally said"142-144 Canal Street." Danielle included a small printout of the site with the materials for the June 16 meeting,showing the property boundaries clearly, since it's a little difficult to see on the submitted plans. 142 Canal Street is the property that takes up most jqf the site. 144 is about an 11,000 SF rectangle at the south side of the property, and 142 wraps around it. 144 does not currently have any parking on it,and the building takes up nearly the whole site. All of the uses the applicant details in the parking chart on the plan refer to uses and parking on 142 Canal Street, and no mention is made of 144. Danielle contacted the applicant to ask why the application was for both sites,if nothing in the plan referenced 144, and he told her that 144 is not actually part of the application. She included his email in your June 16 packet. The applicant has since submitted a revised application for only 142 Canal Street, excluding 144. Complicating this further is the fact that the owner recently submitted an application for a building permit for 144; its proposed use would have been a methadone clinic, and Danielle heard from several abutters who were concerned that in asking for approval of a new parking plan, the applicant was attempting to lock in parking for 144. The owner has dropped the plan for the methadone clinic,which would require a Special Permit under a pending zoning amendment. Some neighbors who protested the clinic are still interested in this application and likely to be present at the meeting. Danielle also heard from abutters that not enough parking exists on the site for the Family Dollar. If this is not opened on July 21, the applicant must sign an extension form. Robin has a conflict with this item and will not be participating. Public hearing: Petition of CLEAR WIRELESS, LLC seeking a Variance to the minimum rear yard • requirement and to extend a nonconforming structure (to add a cabinet and lease area) to the property located at 52-60 DOW STREET [R-3]. Applicant seeks to construct a cabinet and lease area on rear of apartment building whose rear yard setback (approximately 8� is already less than required(30J. Public hearing: Petition of JOHN JANUARIO seeking a variance from the minimum depth of side yard requirement to add an elevator to the property located at 15 JACKSON STREET [R-2]. Applicant seeks a Variance to construct an elevator on the side of a two family house. A 10' setback is required and a 3'foot setback is proposed. Public hearing: Petition of MARY WOODCOCK seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 24 ENGLISH STREET [R-2]. Applicant proposes to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single family home with less than the required lot area, frontage, side yard,and rear yard setbacks. The western side setback would decrease from 25' to 19' (30' required). Request of JOHN BERTINI (Represented by Attorney George Atkins) to extend Variance and Special Permit granted for the property located at 284 CANAL STREET [B-2] for six (6) months to March 28, 2011. The applicant seeks to extend the Variances originally issued on the property for an additional six months. The original decision letter is enclosed. SQL , City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet ICE •`� bb. Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 07 / cal l 70 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail �D�►�i l�vllo �[RYrsrnoC S�T.�M��/.(lurs�e'`. 781t1�aL2U3��t`4p-P7v �;lu�/U/.o�'�Guimcnsr:n�eT J/0 , �Ol/�Qi1 T ( Y 1_,&j n!/I/1.� .Y�� "'�� �7U 7 /QO/1 ! 'i S`��,IwpVr fu, (17Yi tpl f 5-739,� 7 ELF-�.C. 1�LN `fir E.�1sG1'� _q_ leer Z9 2e l S+ I sW ca ao czr-\ LfIV) N Ids y 4F �7� S00 u�uS N6aHIgOCGvncasr,r,zr Jae 4/if T> � qj-- YGfE� t F/^vi erJe�t 3o Gee Isd �� 919, 7q( ,US70 L �ren �A/Y7 c3F 6,1411jt sr 7Yr 06 1 CO . J; ?e-r Page-1 of l • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals APPROVED Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,July 21,2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA'� was held on Wednesday,July 21,2010 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were:Robin Stein (Chair, arriving at 6:40),Becky Curran,Beth Debski,Rick Dionne,Annie Harris (arriving 6:45),Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Also present were:Tom Devine,Interim Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner. Debski opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Approval of minutes The minutes of June 16,2010 were reviewed. There being no comments, Curran moves to approve them, seconded by Debski and approved 5-0. Request of John Bertini(Represented by Attorney George Atkins) to extend Variance and Special Permit granted for the property located at 284 Canal Street [B-2] for six(6) months to March 28, 2011. Attorney George Atkins,attorney for the applicant, said some of the work has been done,but it is taking longer and costing more than expected. Belair moves to extend the Variance and Special Permit to March 16, 2011 seconded by Dionne and • approved 5-0 (Curran,Debski,Dionne,Belair,and Tsitsinos in favor,non opposed). Continued from June 16,2010: Public hearing: Petition of DILULLO ASSOC.,INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL Street [I]. Dan Dilullo said the new retail building was completed a year ago and they reconstructed the old Tile Building. We are here because Family Dollar requires 57 spaces,which are never fully used and Enterprise wants space for 15 cars. These spaces are currently taken up by other tenants. We are not asking for reduction in total spaces,but only a reduction in the allocation to family dollar. We have more spaces than needed. The rental car spaces would not be constantly used and most cars are gone by noon. Debski asks where the Family Dollar spaces are. Dilullo says the Planning Board approved 73 spaces for the right side of the site and we want to shuffle the numbers around without decreasing parking. He points out the parking configuration on the plan. Debski asks about paving and why Enterprise can't have parking the rear. Dilullo says the rear parking area is partially paved and striped. Enterprise would like parking near them as a convenience. Belair asks if this is all one parcel. Dilullo answers affirmatively. Belair asks how 142 Canal fits in with this. Dilullo says it is not part of the application and has no parking. Curran asks if this request is being made because Enterprise wants those specific spaces. Dilullo says that is the case. Harris asks about the spaces already used by Hertz. Dilullo says they typically use only 9 to 11 spaces at a given time. The Planning Board and Planning Department said we cannot reserve spaces on this site. Debski asks why then are you asking to reallocate. Dillullo says the Planning Board's interpretation is that all of Family Dollar's spaces are on the right hand side of the site. Curran says if this is all one lot and we are not reducing the number, I am unsure why we would make the variance to reallocate spaces. • 1 St. Pierre says this was based on retail space and they got the required number of spaces. Now they want to • reduce that as they axe asking for 15-plus spaces for Hertz and only need 3-4. Dilullo says we would like to be able to use all the spaces as open parking. Harris asks if you already have permission to do that since you don't label them. Dilullo says the Planning Board designated the 57 spaces near Family Dollar for Family Dollar. Harris says she doesn't see why we would give a variance if you are not reducing the number of spaces. Dilullo says we are reducing Family Dollar's from 57 to 35 and providing more than required for Hertz. Curran asks why it wouldn't be the Planning Board reallocating spaces as part of their decision. St. Pierre says that by square footage the Planning Board properly allocated spaces. I told Mr. Dilullo that the desired spaces for Enterprise are allocated to Family Dollar. This complies with zoning on the approved site plan and now the request is to deviate from that. Dilullo suggests that the board could rule that all spaces are available to all tenants on the site. St. Pierre notes that if another business came in,it would need to meet the parking requirement and a use could be denied based on that. I have not observed parking problems on this site. Curran says there is a hardship requirement for a variance and I am struggling to see what that is. Debski openr up the issue for public comment. John Ronan,Ward 5 Councilor, 274 Lafayette St., says he doesn't understand why this is before the board if there is ample parking on the site for all uses. The request is for a reduction of 5 spaces and I don't see why you would do that without showing hardship. The 85 rear spaces are not counted. My concern was that this would have made parking available to the proposed methadone clinic. There is no hardship here with the ample parking on the site. If a plan is to make way for future tenants,you should know what they are before granting a variance. The original application was for both 142 and 144 Canal St. The only change in the second application is to take out 144,which has no parking. The only was to have parking for 144 is to work something out with 142. The idea of a variance without knowing future uses makes me nervous. Iris not • within your jurisdiction to reallocate parking within a lot. I worry about potential offensive uses as a matter of right resulting from the variance. Julie Pelletier, 19 Hazel St., says a representative from Little Caesars at South Salem Neighborhood Association meeting said his lease gives him 10 to 12 spaces. When the front section of the Tile Building gets a tenant,will we have to reallocate parking again? Where would the spaces go? Becky Marcinkevich,Operations manager for Enterprise, 248 Mishawum Dr.,Wobum, says Enterprise can't get a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) until we have our parking allocated. There are only 2 spaces for us per the Planning Board. We don't need assigned parking,but we do need 15 spaces so we can get our CO. Dionne asks if Enterprise wants its 15 spaces in the front. Marcinkevich says only some,but not all. Employees and overflow can be in the rear. Harris asks why this reallocation is needed. Dilullo says the Planning Board said we need to have parking reallocated by the ZBA to reduce Family Dollar's requirement. Belair says the applicant seeks to reduce Family Dollar's spaces in order to have other businesses there. Harris asks why not use the rear spaces. Belair answers that it is because it is not in the plan. St. Pierre says the Planning Board incorporated the zoning requirement into the plan. They have 57 spaces to meet zoning in that space and also allowed for other businesses. They must comply with the parking requirement. Debski states that they comply using the parking in the rear. St. Pierre says if he were this petitioner,he would withdraw. Marcinkevich says she still can't get a CO. Curran says we should be aware that uses could change. Ronan says Family Dollar has its 57 spaces and this is not Family Dollar before you. But they are asking to reduce the store's requirement by 12 spaces,which reduces the total on the site by 12. Future uses will have more parking. I don't know why Enterprise can't get a CO. There is ample parking for it. Dilullo says they • are not reducing parking,but merely reallocating it. 2 • Julie Pelletier,29 Hazel St., says a future use would take on this variance. Ronan says she is right. If the variance is granted,a future tenant will have more parking. Harris remarks that a written statement of hardship is required for a variance and there does not see one with the application. Devine notes that the statement was included in the original application, distributed to members ahead of the previous meeting. Harris reads the statement aloud. Belair says she thinks the size and shape of the lot qualifies as a hardship. I don't have a problem with this variance. I have never seen a full lot in front of Family Dollar. I think we should do this to support business in Salem. I don't feel the relief requested is that major. Dionne says his concern is the possibility that Family Dollar could get busier. Belair states that overflow parking can go to the rear of the site. Tsitsinos says Family Dollar has 25 spaces in its lease. Harris says she is still confused about why this is in front of us when we just require a number of spaces per use. Belair says it is because this would reduce the number of spaces required by the ordinance. Curran says she is concerned about the future use of the building on the right hand end of the site. Why are we not dealing with this as one lot? D lullo states that the easiest thing would be to get permission from the ZBA, Planning Board,or Building Inspector to use the parking on the site as a whole. Debski says that could work as long as it conforms with zoning. Dilullo says right now the Planning Board says we don't have that approval. Debski notes that they ask you to repair and stripe the rear lot but don't let you count it. Mr. Dilullo asks whether Enterprise will be able to keep its temporary CO if the request is continued. St. Pierre answers affirmatively. Dilullo requests to continue. Belair moves to continue the request at the August 18 meeting, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Curran,Debski,Dionne,Belair,and Tsitsinos in favor,non opposed). • Public hearing: Petition of Clear Wireless, LLC seeking a Variance from the minimum rear yard requirement and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure (to add a cabinet and lease area) to the property located at 52-60 Dow Street [R-3]. Anne Malone, attorney for the applicant,describes the technology proposed. The variance would be for the equipment installed at the base of the nonconforming building. It is 7 feet by 7 feet and would be 1 foot from the building, so it would extend 8 feet. It wouldn't extend further than the existing decks. She submits an affidavit to the board showing that other sites were not viable for this equipment. Belair asks if the equipment will be fenced. Malone answers affirmatively. James George, Site Acquisition Specialist for the Applicant, says the roof,which is hard to access now,will meet OSHA standards and be locked to prevent anyone except those with authorization to access it. Stein asks if this is an application for a variance and a special permit. St. Pierre answers affirmatively. Stein asks if they need both if they are not altering the building. St. Pierre says that is a good point. We looked at it as an addition to the building. George says one wouldn't even call it a shed. St. Pierre says it is an equipment cabinet. Harris asks for a clarification of the plan,which Malone provides. Curran asks how we deal with HVAC. St.Pierre says we look at that as an accessory structure. Stein opens up the issue forpubfic comment. No member of the public comments. Belair says the request is reasonable as long as accommodations are made to lock it. Stein asks if the decks are above the cabinet. George says it is between the decks. The property abuts Mary Jane Park. Stein asks if • only a Special Permit will suffice. St. Pierre says given reconsideration, a special permit will suffice. 3 Curran moves to approve the request for a Special Permit with conditions, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Stein, Curran,Debski,Harris, and Dionne in favor,non opposed). • Malone requests to withdraw without prejudice the request for a special permit. Curran moves to approve the request to withdraw the Variance request without prejudice, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Stein,Curran,Debski, Harris, and Dionne in favor,non opposed). Public hearing: Petition of John Januario seeking a variance from the minimum depth of side yard requirement to add an elevator to the property located at 15 Jackson Street [R-2]. John Januario, 206 Judge Rd.,Lynn,representing the applicant, says the homeowners are having trouble with stairs as they age and want to maintain their quality of fife. The layout of the lot and the location of the house on it make the request necessary. Stein asks if this would need a special permit. St. Pierre consults the ordinance and determines that only variance is needed. Januario states that this would not hurt neighbors. I modified this plan in response to neighbors. Stein opens up the issue forpubliccomment. No member of the public comments. St. Pierre says it is commendable to make this investment to create an accessible unit. Stein remarks that this qualifies for a hardship by the shape of the lot. Harris moves to approve the request for a Variance with conditions, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Stein,Curran,Debski,Harris,and Dionne in favor,non opposed). • Public hearing: Petition of Mary Woodcock seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure for the property located at 24 English Street [R-2]. Mary Woodcock distributes a revised plan to the board and introduces Allan Dennis,structural engineer for the applicant. Woodcock says the request is to demolish the house and reconstruct one slightly larger. We have received a waiver of demolition delay from the Historical Commission, so if approved,we would be able to start sooner than 6 months. Woodcock submits an emails of support from Councilor Joan Lovely and abutter Chester Chalupowski. Devine distributes a letter of support from Lovely. St.Pierre consults the zoning ordinance and confirms that only a special permit is required in this case. Woodcock notes that the dotted line on the plan is a lot line,but we own both 22 and 24 English St. and treat them as one lot. Stein says she thinks for zoning purposes this is one lot. Woodcock says new legislation will possibly allow this to be viewed as one lot. However, they are deeded as separate lots. St. Pierre says with structures on them, they are considered separate lots. Woodcock displays photographs. St. Pierre says Councilor McCarthy agrees that it is time for this building to move on. Stein says we all agree that this is appropriate relief. Stein opens up the ti ue forpublic comment. Janet Andersen, 30 English St. says she wants to be sure this is only for a single family, and does not allow a 2-family, as the notice seems to state. St. Pierre says that is probably taken straight from the ordinance, and it doesn't mean that a 2-family would be allowed. Woodcock says there is no plan for a 2-family.. St. Pierre states that this could be a condition. Woodcock remarks that she canvassed the neighborhood to hear neighbors'concerns and get feedback. We are not flipping th s house. We have a long term relationship with • the neighborhood. 4 • Brenda Shanley, 39 English St., asked how many people the property can accommodate. St. Pierre said the ordinance allows no more than 3 unrelated people, but there is no limit for a family. Woodcock says it is an esistutg 3-bedroom,and we are planning to increase the area so that a 3-person family can live comfortably there. Stein says this seems reasonable and is an improvement over what is there. Woodcock adds that they have taken special note of abutters. Debski moves to approve the request for a Special Permit with conditions, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0 (Stein, Curran,Debski,Harris,and Dionne in favor,non opposed). There being no further business before the Board,Dionne moves to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Debski and approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Interim Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 7/21/10 In addition to applications before the Board and related materials, the following documents are referenced in these minutes and are available at the Department of Planning and Community Development: Affidavit from Clear Wireless,LLC Revised Plan for 24 English St., dated 7/20/10 • Letter from Councilor Joan Lovely, dated 7/19/10 Email from Councilor Joan Lovely, dated 7/19/10 Email from Chester Chalupowski, dated 7/19/10 • 5 Decision to Extend • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of JOHN BERTINI,TRUSTEE,JAB TRUST, requesting a six (6)month extension of a Variance from minimum front yard setback, and a six (6) month extension of a Special Permit for the extension of a nonconforming structure, to allow for an addition onto the restaurant on the property at 284 CANAL STREET, Salem,MA, in the Business Highway Zoning District (B-2). August 4, 2010 George W. Atkins, III 59 Federal St. Salem, MA 01970 Re: 284 Canal Street Extension of Variance and Special Permit On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem voted to approve the application of John Bertini, Trustee, JAB Trust, for 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 St., Salem, MA, in the Business Highway Zoning District (B-2). A Decision dated September 28, 2009 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office on September 30, 2009. The Decision is valid for one year from the date of the Decision unless extended by the Board. On July 21, 2010, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to extend the variances granted on September 16, 2009 for six (6) months to March 16, 2011. A COPY OF THIS DECISION TO EXTEND HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Beth Debski, Vice Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 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 District Registry of Deeds. • 6 August 4, 2010 Decision Petition of MARY WOODCOCK seeking a Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single family structure for the property located at 24 English Street in the Residential Two Family Zoning District [R-2]. A public hearing on the above petition was opened on July 21, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members being present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Rick Dionne, Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit under Section 3.3.5: Nonconforming Single and Two Family Residential Structures, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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: • Mary Woodcock, the owner and petitioner, represented herself at the hearing. • ■ In a petition date-stamped June 30, 2010, the petitioner requested to demolish and reconstruct the existing non-conforming structure located at 24 English St. • Allan W. Dennis, Structural Engineer for the petitioner, submitted in writing his finding that the condition of the structure is extremely poor and that retrofit of the structure is not economically feasible. ' ■ Councilor at Large Joan Lovely submitted a letter to the Board in support of the petition. Ms. Woodcock submitted an email from Chester Chalupowski, owner of 11-13 Becket St., supporting the petition. ■ At the hearing, Janet Andersen, 30 English St., voiced concern that the Special Permit could allow for construction of a two-family house. Brenda Shanley, 39 English St., asked how many people the property can accommodate. 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: • The proposed demolition and reconstruction of the existing non-conforming structure is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use, since the improvement of the property would be a benefit to the neighborhood. • 7 ■ In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals re quires uires 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: • A Special Permit is granted to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single or two family structure as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Harris, Dionne and Debski), none (0) opposed, to grant the petitioner's request for a Special Permit, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: • Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. ■ All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. • All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. ■ Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. • • A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. • Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • The new structure is to be a single family residence. • Petitioner shall notify abutters two(2) weeks prior to the commencement of demolition work. 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 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. 8 • August 4, 2010 Decision Petition of JOHN JANUARIO seeking a Variance from the minimum depth of side yard requirement to add an elevator to the property located at 15 JACKSON STREET in the Residential Two Family Zoning District [R-2]. A public hearing on the above petition was opened on July 21, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members being present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Rick Dionne, Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance under Section 4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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: ■ Petitioner John Januario represented property owner, Stanley Fudala, at the hearing. ■ , In a petition date-stamped June 28, 2010, the petitioner requested add an elevator to the • existing structure located at 15 Jackson St. ■ No member of the public spoke in favor or in opposition of the petition at the hearing. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: ■ Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, and literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant, since the lot is configured in such a way that the only reasonable location to add an elevator is in the location proposed. ■ Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriinent to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, since the proposed changes to the house create an accessible dwelling unit. ■ The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to alter the structure as proposed, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. ■ In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and • safeguards as noted below. 9 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: • A Variance is granted from the minimum depth of side yard requirement to add an elevator to the existing structure as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Harris, Dionne and Debski), none (0) opposed, to grant the petitioner's request for a Variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: ■ Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. ■ All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. ■ Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. ■ Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. ■ A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • • Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to, the Planning Board. • Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent(50%)of its floor area or more than fifty percent(50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent(50%)of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent(50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 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 tiling of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South • Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. 10 August 4,2010 Decision Petition of CLEAR WIRELESS,LLC seeking a Variance from the minimum depth of rear yard requirement and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming structure to add a cabinet and lease area to the multi-family apartment building on the property located at 52-60 DOW STREET in the Residential Multi-Family Zoning District [R-31. A public hearing on the above petition was opened on July 21, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members being present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Rick Dionne, Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsmos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Variance under Section 3.3.4: Variance Required, and a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3: Nonconforming Structures, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 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: ■ Attorney Anne Malone represented the petitioner at the hearing. James George, Site • Acquisition Specialist for the petitioner, was also present at the hearing. ■ In a petition date-stamped June 29, 2010, the petitioner requested to add a cabinet to the existing non-conforming structure located at 52-60 Dow St. The petitioner plans to lease an area surrounding the cabinet from the property owners. ■ Property owner Stephen Wolfberg submitted a Letter of Authorization permitting the petitioner to apply for any necessary zoning petitions, permits or any other approvals which are necessary for the placement of a wireless communications facility within a portion of the property. ■ At the hearing, no member of the public spoke in favor or in opposition to 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: ■ At the hearing, Building Commissioner Tom St. Pierre determined upon reconsideration that a Variance is not necessary for the proposed cabinet and lease area and that a Special Permit to extend the existing nonconforming structure would suffice. The board granted the petitioner's request to withdraw without prejudice the request for a Variance, by a vote of 5- 0. 11 ■ The proposed addition of a cabinet and lease area to the existing non-conforming structure is • not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use, since it extends less from the structure than the structure's existing decks. • 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: ■ A Special Permit is granted to extend the existing non-conforming structure by adding a cabinet and lease area as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Harris, Dionne and Debski), none (0) opposed, to grant the petitioner's request for a Special Permit, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: • Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. • All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. • All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be • strictly adhered to. ■ Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. • A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. • Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been tiled,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • 12 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET S Z0, b . BOARD OF APPEAL x �x t9 4�' 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETrS 01970 ",('�7E7!�C➢�fi� TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBEsEEY DRiscocc MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,July 21,2010 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: CLEAR WIRELESS,LLC Location: 52-60 DOW STREET (R-3) Request: Variance and Special Permit Description: Variance from the minimum rear yard requirement and a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming multifamily residential structure,to build a wireless communication cabinet and lease area. Decision: Request for Variance withdrawn without prejudice Special Permit approved- filed with City Clerk on August 4,2010 • Petition of: JOHN JANUARIO Location: 15 JACKSON STREET (R-2) Request: Variance Description: Variance from minimum depth of side yard requirement to add an elevator to a two familyhouse. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on August 4,2010 Petition of: MARY WOODCOCK Location: 24 ENGLISH STREET (R-2) Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit to demolish and reconstruct a nonconforming single family house. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on August 4,2010 This notue is Eeingsera in awpharxe wth dx Massadmats G wal Law, Caapter 40A,Sections 9& 15 and dar Trot inquire aawn by the recipiem Appeals, if any,shall be nude punuanrt to G*ter 40A, Section 17,and shall be filed uzAn 20 da)s f-cm the date zvl ai the dws on vm filed urth the City Clerk. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120WASHNGrONSTREET♦ SALEM,NWSA(}ILSEM01970 Ng q,0" 1ttF:978-745-9595 # FAx:978-740.9846 KI\1BERLE Y DRtscou. MAYOR MEETING NOTICE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING June 16, 2010 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASENGTON STREET SAnLEM, A,"�'� Robin Stein,Chair REVISED AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes -May 19,2010 meeting. 2. Request to extend Variances issued to ROY LAPHAM for the propertylocated at 2 ATLANTIC AVENUE AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET (R 2). 3. Public hearing:Petition of CLIFFORD GOODMAN seeking to alter a nonconfomring structure (add 2nd floor) on the property located at 22 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (R-1). • 4. Public hearing:Petition of MATTHE W BANKO seeking to amend a previously granted Special Permit for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). 5. Public hearing:Petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH seeking a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the addition of a seventh unit on the property located at 278 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-3). 6. Public hearing:Petition of DILULLO ASSOC.,INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the propertylocated at 142 CANAL ST. (1). Applicant requests to continue to July 21, 2010. 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment r� 7.1 G> Ph w �OWN-, � g CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS G 1� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MINE�? KIMBEM.LY Dlascoi.i, MAYOR 120WaSIIINOiONSearF;r ♦ SALLM,MASSACHUSETrS 01970 reLE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP Dime roit MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: May 11, 2010 RE: Meeting Agenda—June 16, 2010 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 5/19/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Request to extend Variances issued to ROY LAPHAM for the property located at 2 ATLANTIC AVENUE AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET (R-2). Pam Shute, the applicant's daughter,is requesting to extend the Variances issued on the property for an additional six months. The original decision letter is enclosed. Public hearing: Petition of CLIFFORD GOODMAN seeking to alter a nonconforming structure (add 2nd floor) on the property located at 22 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (R-1). The proposed addition of a second floor triggers a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming use. No dimensional relief is requested. Public hearing: Petition of MATTHEW BANKO seeking to amend a previously granted Special Permit for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). A Special Permit,issued in 1980 (and enclosed in your packet),was granted to allow a third unit in a two-family house (located in the R1 zone). The current owner seeks to have three conditions from this decision removed: 1. • Owner occupancy to remain a three-family(specifically requiring occupancy of the owner who was granted the 1 Special Permit), 2. Reverting of the property from a three to a two-family house upon sale to a new owner, and 3. Limiting the number of occupants on the property to seven. • Public hearing: Petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH seeking a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the addition of a seventh unit on the property located at 278 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-3). Attorney Stephen Zalotas. The property is currently a multi-family with two buildings on the site—a five-unit building and a separate carriage house with one unit in it. The applicant proposes to add a second unit to the carriage house,bringing the total number of units on the lot to seven. This would require relief from lot area per dwelling unit(3,500 SF per unit is required, and they are proposing 3,157 SF per unit). The parking plan submitted is not very detailed and only shows blocks of parking area,rather than individual spots with their dimensions. I have spoken to the applicant about this,and he has agreed to provide a more detailed plan with the individual spots shown. Public hearing: Petition of DILULLO ASSOC.,INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL ST. (I). Mr. DiLullo has made a request to reallocate the parking spaces on 142 Canal Street to accommodate future uses, which would require a reduction in the amount of parking required for some of the buildings on the site. Zoning requires the Family Dollar and Little Caesar building to have 69 spaces, Hertz to have four spaces,and the"tile" building(the small building along the property line adjacent to 134 Canal) to have four spaces. There are currently 73 legal, striped spaces on the site (as approved by the Planning Board last December). This leaves another four not accounted for, but the Planning Board allowed these to be provided by the extra space at the rear of the site. This parking area is not yet striped, and the pavement needs to be repaired,but the Planning Board consented to allowing the space to be used as overflow for the four extra spaces,if needed. Currently, the proposed changes on . the site do not trigger further site plan review by the Planning Board,which is why the application is before the ZBA currently in order to ask for relief from parking, and not the Planning Board to amend the site plan. The fact that the rear parking lot is not yet striped is important to this application, since Mr. DiLullo has shown the rear parking area on the plan as an existing condition, and has included these 85 spaces in the parking calculation on the plan. Another important piece of the application is the fact that it says "142-144 Canal Street." I'm including a small printout of the site showing the property boundaries clearly, since it's a little difficult to see on the submitted plans. 142 Canal Street is the property that takes up most of the site. 144 is about an 11,000 SF rectangle at the south side of the property, and 142 wraps around it. 144 does not currently have any parking on it, and the building takes up nearly the whole site. All of the uses the applicant details in the parking chart on the plan refer to uses and parking on 142 Canal Street,and no mention is made of 144. I contacted the applicant to ask why the application was for both sites,if nothing in the plan referenced 144, and he told me that 144 is not actually part of the application. I have included his email in your packet. Complicating this further is the fact that the owner recently submitted an application for a building permit for 144;its proposed use is a methadone clinic, and I have heard from several abutters who are concerned that in asking for approval of a new parking plan, the applicant is attempting to lock in parking for 144. I have not received any letters yet about this, but from verbal feedback abutters have given me, we can expect neighbors to attend the meeting in expectation of protesting the methadone clinic. I also heard from abutters that not enough parking exists on the site for the Family Dollar. Robin has a conflict with this item and will not be participating. -2- . , City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Approved Minutes of Meeting • Wednesday,June 16, 2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 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, Rick Dionne,Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner. Stein opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes The minutes of May 19, 2010 are reviewed. There being no comments,Debski moves to approve them, seconded by Dionne and approved 5-0. Public hearing: Petition of DILULLO ASSOC., INC. seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the property located at 142 CANAL ST. (I). Applicant requests to continue to July21, 2010. • Stein explains she has a conflict with this item and leaves the room. Debski explains the Board has received a request from the applicant to open the hearing on July 21, 2010 instead of today. Jim Rose, 25 Linden St., suggests getting the email sign-in sheet from the previous night's neighborhood meeting to notify neighbors about the next meeting. The Board discussed the possibility of alternative location given the large number of people who would want to attend. The Board and McKnight answer a few questions from the public regarding scheduling. Dionne moves to continue the hearing to July 21, 2010 seconded by Belair and approved 4-0 (Belair, Dionne,Tsitsinos and Debski in favor,none opposed). Request to extend Variances issued to ROY LAPHAM for the property located at 2 ATLANTIC AVENUE AKA 17 LUSSIER STREET (R-2). Pam Shute explains her family's request to extend the previously granted Variances for six months. Debski moves to approve the request, seconded by Stein, and the motion passes 5- 0 (Tsitsinos, Belair, Dionne, Stein and Debski in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of CLIFFORD GOODMAN seeking to alter a nonconforming structure (add 2nd floor) on the property located at 22 BERTUCCIO • AVENUE (R-1). 1 Cliff Goodman presents his petition. He presents the Board with a revised elevation drawing with dimensions. He explains he needs more room in the house,which is why he is • proposing the work. Stein opens up the issue forpublic comment. Teasie Riley Coggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks for more detail about the addition. Stein explains the owner has a currently nonconforming structure, and since he wants to add on to it, he needs a Special Permit to do so. St. Pierre explains why the permit is needed according to the Zoning Ordinance. Stein confirms with the applicant that this is to stay a single family; Goodman responds that this is correct. Stein says it would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. St. Pierre says the applicant was very thorough in his application and has shown concern about complying with all rules and regulations. There being no further comments, Stein closes the public comment portion of the bearing. Belair moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Belair,Debski, Stein, Dionne,Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of MATTHEW BANKO seeking to amend a previously granted Special Permit for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). Matthew and Joseph Banko present the petition. Joseph explains the house is a three-family right now. Matthew explains they would like conditions removed preventing the number of people who live in the house and owner occupancy. He says they have sufficient parking. • Stein asks if they are in the R-1 zone; they are. Debski asks when they purchased the property; Matthew says 1996. Debski asks if they lived in the house now; they confirm that they do. Stein asks St. Pierre if this is of record; St. Pierre says yes. Stein summarizes the petition: She explains the conditions the petitioner is asking to remove —numbers 1, 2 and 3 from the original decision. She asks St. Pierre—if the property is sold, doesn't that mean it reverts to a two-family? St. Pierre says yes, that's the case with this property. Stein opens the issue up forpublic comment. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., says if these conditions were put on the property, there must have been a reason for it. Stein explains that the Board at the time put these conditions on the Special Permit granted at the time. Goggin asks what would happen to the property if the request were denied; and if the request were granted and the limit on the number of people living there lifted—could there be 77 people in there? Stein says if denied, the property would remain the same,with the conditions in place. St. Pierre explains how City ordinance and state regulations limit the number of unrelated people in a residence anyway. • 2 Julie Pelletier, 29 Hazel St., asks what this means for ownership versus rental? Stein explains that the request would allow, among other things, for the units to be turned into condos. • There being no further comments, Stein closes public comment portion of the hearing. Belair asks how many parking spaces they have;Joseph says 5. Tsitsinos says he thinks there is only room for 3 cars. Joseph explains where on the property there is room for 4 spaces; they plan to remove an oak tree to make room for a fifth space. Debski points to the condition that since the house was sold, the house was to revert to a two-family. Stein says this should have been now converted to a two-family; this isn't really an owner occupancy condition,it pertained specifically to the old owner. Tsitsinos asks, we're actually working with a two-family then? Belair says she's concerned that they don't have enough parking for a 3-family. Debski notes that the Board is getting a lot of these requests lately, and in the 80s people were concerned about absentee landlords. Stein says she's fine with it being a three-family that's owner-occupied. St. Pierre says that would give the applicant the ability to condo it. Stein says if they make it into condos, all must be owner occupied. She says they technically should only have a two-family right now;we do want to maintain the owner occupancy condition if it is to stay a three-family. She says the Board is not prepared to make it just a free-standing three-family. However, she says she is not inclined to ask for the third unit to be removed. She proposes changing the conditions such that conditions Land 2 say the building had to be owner occupied,without specifically naming the previous owner as the person who had to occupy it. For condition 3 —Stein says given the limits the City and state already have, this condition seems unnecessary and she'd • be willing to take it out. Tsitsinos moves to amend the previous decision for the property for 9-11 Ocean Terrace by removing conditions 3 and 2 and amending 1 to say it the property must be owner occupied, otherwise it's subject to the requirements of the original special permit. He reads the original conditions 1, 2 and 3 in their entirety to clarify what the changes are. The motion is seconded by Stein and passes 5-0 (Belair, Debski, Stein, Dionne and Tsitsinos in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH seeking a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the addition of a seventh unit on the property located at 278 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-3). Attorney Stephen Zolotas presents the petition on behalf of the owner. He explains the current configuration of the property and the relief previously granted allowing the use of a carriage house as a bridal shop. He says they would like to turn the carriage house into a two-family structure. He explains that previously, the bridal shop was on the first floor and the upstairs was vacant;it had a kitchen and bedrooms in it. He says when his client purchased the property, kitchens already existed up and downstairs. The upstairs was renovated, per a special permit granted in 2001, to be a finished unit. He shows photos to the Board of the unit. He says his client wants to keep the building as historic as possible and explains the work that has been done to keep it up. He says internal construction was • required for interior changes to make it a single-family unit. He explains what the new configuration of the house would be. He says the number of bedrooms would remain the 3 same, the only change would be the number of parking spots. He passes photos of the property around to the Board and shows them updated parking plans. He says there are • other uses that would be allowed by right,including another commercial use or renting it out as a huge single family house. Debski asks about the parking—she notes the spaces don't look like they are to scale—what are the dimensions? Zalotas says 9'x20' at a minimum. Tsitsinos says he's seen the property and there is plenty of area for parking. Stein says the relief is not that far off—all they're looking for is lot area per dwelling unit—and all the units have a lot area of over 3,000, which is not that small. Stein opens up the issue forpublic comment. David Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., says this petition was improperly advertised. He says the property should be limited to five families and this should have been advertised as the rear of 278. Stein says the advertisement was sufficient for people to know where the property is. She also points out that the property on which this building is located is 278. She says his point is taken, but this was properly advertised in her opinion. She says anything they approve would require street numbering by the Assessor's office. Goggin says the access and egresses are perfect and parking is sufficient. John Ronan, 274 Lafayette Street, says he is here as an abutter and not as the Ward 5 Councillor;he says his comments reflect his own personal opinions. He lives at 274, next door. He says this exact same meeting occurred 10 years ago with many of the same • neighbors. He says his house is a single-family and points out other owners of single-family houses that also abut the property. He says the block has improved and details how the density on the street has decreased and more of the properties have become owner- occupied. He says this property is an exception. The carriage house is right on the property line. He says a variance was requested 10 years ago. He says there would be an effect on the neighborhood, since this is the only property on the street not owner occupied, and adding a unit would add to the problem. He also says there is no hardship to base a variance on—the property just sold and the buyer was well aware of the situation. He explains the grounds for variances. He brings up the carriage house special permit provision in the zoning ordinance and says it only allows for a single-family use. When the bridal shop came in,he says they tried to put in another unit, then tried again in later years. At that time, a special permit was issued allowing the property to be used as a single-family use. He says the request is not permitted by zoning because this isn't what the carriage house special permit allows. He says granting the relief would be detrimental to the community and not in accordance with the zoning ordinance. He says there are already six apartments on the property and a landlord who doesn't live there;he refers to zoning's intent to prevent overcrowding and reiterates that the request is not in keeping with zoning. Carol Sullivan, 50 Ocean Ave., says her home is very close to the property. She is concerned about owner occupancy; she's a landlord and rents to her tenants downstairs. She says if another unit is added,who will be responsible; they don't yet know the new owner. • 4 Kevin Sullivan, 50 Ocean Ave., also talks about the proximity of the carriage house to his • property. He says in the past there have been problems with the roof of that house with snow and slates falling down;he says he's concerned with maintenance down the line. He says the property was not kept up with the previous owners. James Rose, 25 Linden St., says he is also close to the property and he opposes the petition. He wants the carriage house to remain a one-family. Pat Kessler, 284 Lafayette St., says she is concerned about fire—there's no one living there now. She says she hears people talking from that building because of how close she is; she doesn't want to be living next to two families instead of one. There being no further comments, Stein closes the public comment portion of the bearing. Mr. Zolotas responds: the slate roof has been completely renovated, so nothing should be falling off the roof Also, the owner is readily available for any problems on the property. He also explains that no exterior changes are proposed. He says in order to keep the property in good repair, this request was necessary. Stein says the concern is about the intensity of use, not the building itself. Robert Woolworth, the owner, apologizes for not introducing himself sooner. He says if he converts to a two-family, then he could rent to two single people. If it is a single family, there would likely be more people in the house. He says the building won't go away; he understands the building is close to neighbors, but there will be people living in it. He says • the third floor unit would be one bedroom. He says he fully intends to care for property; he will give neighbors his number if they have any concerns; he did not buy house to be a slumlord. He wants to renovate the house. He says he wants to restore it to its former state of 100 years ago. He plans on putting a lot of money into it, and his tenants are quality people, and he has been there almost every single day since he bought the property. He notes the neglect the property has suffered over the years and explains the renovations he has completed and plans to do. Belair asks Zalotas what the hardship is other than economic. He responds that in order to make the building completely usable as a one family house,it would require much more work. Belair says she doesn't think this meets the standard for hardship required for a variance. Zalotas says the utilities in the building also create a hardship. He refers to case law saying the hardship only needs to be minimal when the requested relief is minimal. Stein says she's more concerned about relief he hasn't asked for. She wants to read the decision granted itself, she doesn't know that the Board actually said this could be used as a free standing separate primary structure and the carriage house could be made into two units. She says she's concerned they can't give the relief they are asking for. Zalotas gives Stein a copy of the 1984 decision. Zalotas says it allowed the accessory use. Stein says she doesn't think the Board ever made a declaration that they had two independent principal buildings on the property. She says this would be a use variance and/or the increase of a carriage house to two dwelling units, neither of which the zoning ordinance allows. • 5 s Stein: if they had enough dwelling unit square footage, and they came to pull a pettut to make it a two family,wouldn't Tom reject it? • St. Pierre says the point is well taken that there would need to be a determination of whether the buildings were principal structures. Stein says the building could be used for anything an accessory structure can be used for, but that they can't increase the density legally. Stein explains the provisions of the ordinance pertaining to carriage houses —they need not be accessory, but the bylaw only permits one dwelling unit in a carriage house. Stein asks if a special permit to alter a nonconforming structure would be allowed in this case. St. Pierre says this carriage house only allows one unit. Zalotas says in 1984, the bridal shop wouldn't have been allowed either; Stein says this was a variance that was granted at the time. Stein says at the time, the Board had the apparently had the ability to grant use variances,which they do not now. However, that doesn't permanently change the status of the building-it's still an accessory structure, not a principal one. Stein says she does not think the Board has the authority to allow two units in a carriage house. Dionne says this bylaw is specific to carriage houses, and Belair says people have been held strictly to the carriage house bylaw. Zalotas says his concern is that the tenant upstairs is under lease; first floor must remain unoccupied,and this will prevent the building from being rehabbed. Stein says this is a risk his client knew he was undertaking; they can't change the law to resolve a lease issue. Debski points out a condition in the previous decision and asks whether construction was permitted;if they wanted to do something different inside, such as enlarge the unit,would they just apply for a building permit? St. Pierre says yes. Stein says Land Court has been very clear they cannot grant use variances, and she believes this still qualifies as a carriage house accessory structure. Tsitsinos says it was a two unit before; Stein says it was never a legal two-unit. St. Pierre says • Assess Pro has the building assessed as two units, but this is not a legal determination; assessors must assess a structure as it's currently used; this is just a statement of what's on the ground, not a declaration of zoning status. St. Pierre says the carriage house special permit is clear; he was under the impression that this was once declared a principal structure, but the previous carriage house special permit makes this clear. The 2001 decision is what's really in play. A proper use was granted in 2001, and that's what we need to go on. Zalotas request a few minutee to confer with his client,-he leaves the room and returns. Zalotas request to withdraw without prejudice. Debski moves to permit the applicant to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0. There being no further business before the Board, Belair moves to adjourn the meeting; Stein seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:15. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner • 6 Approved by the Board of Appeals 7/21/10 • • 7 4�Co OP � . City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet t IGi 3°�,j Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date L( /1 ame Mailing Address Phone # E-mail ;/;z MCIram, �� %� @ � � c� t ova �° ,riQ11 52 � 97S ?�fc� o (9� LD1XE,4aGMAiL utati k( �7� 7y©-£s87� _f1}�or�hC'Co�cGs/. nr� • -.l or /VR/!�'OLL D 576•�•5243 ?70 579• os o�eV/ comcayt.fef- I zq Si csrn Page of 4 CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL J •�F�'t'il V!'r 1,YNQ. 120 WASHNGTON STREET 1 SALEK MASSAQil,6EM 01970 'ftLE:978-619-5685 ♦FAx:978-740-0404 KI WIERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,June 16,2010 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: ROBERT WILLWERTH Location: 278 LAFAYETTE STREET (R 3) Request: Variances Description: Variance sought from lot area per dwelling unit to allow the addition of a seventh unit. Petitioner requested to withdraw application without prejudice. Decision: Approved- filed with Ctty Clerk on July 1,2010 Petition of: MATTHE W BANKO Location: 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R 1) • Request: Amendment to Special Permit Description: Request to have conditions removed requiring occupancy by the previous owner, limiting the number of residents to seven(7), and stipulating that the property revert to a two-family use if sold by the previous owner. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on July 1,2010 Petition of: CLIFFORD GOODMAN Location: 22 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (R-1) Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit sought to alter a nonconforming structure by adding a second floor to a single family home. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on July 1,2010 This n mw is b zng ser¢in wnphan x with dx Massadnaetn Genre!Law, Chvter 40A, Scrzitaa 9& 15 and" not terrine action by dae nx7piera Apf ands, if any,,shall be mrde piamant to 05apter 40A, Seder 17,and shall be filet wthin 20 da)s fiwn the date i Jx&dbe deaswn was filed with d)e City Clerk. ONDIr CITY OF SALEM, MASS ACHUSETTS 4'M A�Q BOARD OF APPEAL o 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHU5ETTS 01 970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR July 1, 2010 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ROBERT WILLWERTH seeking a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the addition of a seventh unit on the property located at 278 LAFAYETTE STREET (R-3). A hearing on this petition was held on June 16, 2010 with the following Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Rick Dionne,Bonnie Belair,Jimmy Tsitsinos, and Beth Debski. At the request of the Petitioner, the Board of Appeal voted 5-0 (Stein,Dionne,Belair, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed) to allow the Petitioner to withdraw this petition without prejudice. GRANTED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE • JUNE 16, 2010. I\din SReI.� T4 Robin Stem, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • ��r� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 poi FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL ZT3 .�_..1 — I C- 0� MAYOR July 1, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of CLIFFORD GOODMAN seeking a Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure by adding a second floor on the property located at 22 BERTUCCIO AVENUE(R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 16, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on June 16, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Beth Debski, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.3, Nonconforming Structures, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: 1. Clifford Goodman, the petitioner, represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated May 25, 2010, petitioner requested a Special Permit to allow for the addition of a 36'x 36' second story to his house. 3. The property is currently a single-family home; at the hearing, the petitioner stated his intent to keep it as such. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed alteration of the nonconforming structure will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family Zoning District to allow for the proposed addition as shown on the submitted plans; the petition is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. �f 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: I_ A Special Permit to alter a nonconforming structure is granted to allow the addition of a second story, as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor(Stein, Tsistinos, Debski, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: l. 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 floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the stricture 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. Sje,h Ttl Robin Stein, Chair • Salem 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. • • ONDIT, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �Y 2 A' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RO FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ua� FAX: 978-740-9846 I _ I b. 04 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR July I, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MATTHEW BANKO seeking to amend a previously granted Special Permit for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 16, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on June 16, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Beth Debski, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Statements of fact: • 1. Matthew Banko, the petitioner, and his son Joseph Banko, presented the petition at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated May 19, 2010, petitioner requested an amendment to a Special Permit granted in 1980 which had allowed use of the property as a three-family dwelling under certain conditions. Petitioner requested to have conditions removed requiring occupancy by the previous owner, limiting the number of residents in the building to seven (7), and stipulating that the property revert to a two-family use if sold by the previous owner. 3. The property is currently used as a three-family home. 4. At the hearing, Matthew and Joseph Banko stated that they lived in the building. 5. At the hearing, Board members expressed concern about allowing a three-family use without any owner occupancy requirement; however, they would be willing to remove the condition requiring ownership by the previous owner, but the building must continue to be owner-occupied. 6. At the hearing, Board members and the Building Inspector discussed the condition limiting the number of residents in the building and concluded that local and state codes already placed appropriate limitations on the number of lion- related residents of a dwelling, and that this condition was unnecessary. a i 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. Amending the previously granted Special Permit for the property to require owner occupancy(rather than occupancy specifically of the previous owner), remove the limitation of seven (7) residents living in the building, and allow the building to be sold without reverting to a two- family use, will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family Zoning District to allow the above stated amendments to the previously granted Special Permit; such changes 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. The previously issued Special Permit allowing a three-family is amended to require owner occupancy (rather than occupancy specifically of the previous owner), remove the limitation of seven(7) residents living in the building, and allow the building to be sold without reverting to a two- family use. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Stein, Tsistinos, Debski, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for an amendment to a Special Permit subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Structure is to remain owner-occupied with two rental units and one owner occupied unit, or all owner-occupied condominiums. 2. If the structure does not remain owner-occupied, it shall revert to its previous use as a two-family dwelling. 3. Condition #2 of the previously granted Special Permit is hereby revoked; the Special Permit now allows occupancy of an owner other than the owner to whom the previous Special Permit was granted and allows the building to be sold without reverting to a two-family use. • 4. Condition 43 of the previously granted Special Permit is hereby revoked; the Special Permit now places no limitation on the number of people who may reside in the building. 3 • / cCk 1 Skein Tp Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter'40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of tiling of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk 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 �gQo� FAX; 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR i Decision to Extend City,of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of ROY LAPHAM requesting 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. July 30, 2010 Pam Shute l Lussier Street Salem, MA 01970 1 Re: 2 Atlantic Avenue (AKA 17 Lussier Street) Extension of Variance ] a- On Wednesday, August 19, 2009, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem voted i4vor to approve the application of Roy Lapham, 2 Atlantic Street (AKA 17 Lussier Street),.Salem,ADIA, for 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 in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. A Decision dated September 1, 2009 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office on September 1, 2009. Since the issuance of the Variances, the property has been deeded from Roy Lapham to Pam Shute. The Decision is valid for one year from the date of the Decision unless extended by the Board. On June 16, 2010, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to extend the variances granted on September 1, 2010 for six (6) months to March 1, 2010. A COPY OF THIS DECISION TO EXTEND HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been tiled with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds. • ��o�rrta QTY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASEQNGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSAOHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 * FAx:978-740-0404 KIMBEFj-EY DffiscOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the Gtyof Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,June 16,2010 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: ROBERT WILLWERTH Location: 278 LAFAYETTE STREET (R 3) Request: Variances Description: Variance sought from lot area per dwelling unit to allow the addition of a seventh unit. Petitioner requested to withdraw application without prejudice. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on July 1,2010 Petition of: MATTHE W BANKO • Location: 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1) Request: Amendment to Special Permit Description: Request to have conditions removed requiring occupancy by the previous owner, limiting the number of residents to seven(7),and stipulating that the property revert to a two-family use if sold by the previous owner. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on July 1,2010 Petition of: CLIFFORD GOODMAN Location: 22 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (R-1) Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit sought to alter a nonconforming structure by adding a second floor to a single family home. Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on July 1,2010 Tbis notice zs being sea in anrpliance with the Massad5weas Gewral Law, Cb apter 40A,Semm 9 P> 15 and dar not nquzre action by the n Vwm Appeals, zfany,shall be nv&p mtaa to CYaapter 40A, Section 17,arslsbal Ee filed wtbm 20 dabs f-cm the date vbi the derisio Tw fkd wth the City Clerk. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETfS `KK BOARD OF APPEAL Y T 9 P`PrF4,=, i�yam'by 120 WASFUNGTON STREET+ SALEM,MASSACHU5EM 01970 '11:LE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 KIMRERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETING NOTICE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING N May 19, 2010 - 6:30 P.M. o 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET T; SALEM,MA d T RobinStein Chaii REVISED AGENDA Ln1 _# o 1. Approval of Minutes - April 14,2010 meeting. n 2. Public hearing:Petition of SANDRA MEUSE requesting Variances from side yard setback and lot coverage to allow for the construction of a second-floor deck at the rear of the two-family home on the propertylocated at 19 ORCHARD STREET (R 2). 03. Public hearing:Petition of COLLIAM,LLC/LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to alter and extend an existing nonconforming structure by adding a 600 square foot addition as a second floor over a portion of the existing roof on the propertylocated at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2). 4. Public hearing:Petition of AN HUI T. ANG requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of two dormers on the single-family home at 3 HENRY STREET (R-1). 5. Request of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST for extension of Variances granted to 24 SAUNDERS STREET for an additional six months. 6. Public hearing:Petition of MICKEY L. BENSON requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the propertylocated at 150 NORTH STREET (R-2). 7. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of CABOT STREET GROUP,LLC,seeking a Special Permit to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the propertylocated at 24 CABOT STREET, Salem,MA(R-2). AttomeyJames Mears. S. Public hearing:Petition of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC requesting Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the propertylocated at 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (NRCC). 9. Request of NORTH RIVER CANAL LLC for extension of Variances granted to property at 28 GOODHUE STREET to December 31,2010. AttomeyJoseph Correnti. YS �•' t i 4 P a-. 10. Old/NewBusmess � 3-o9g 11. Adjournment s „ , � ak -• � es _ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHNGTON STREET 0 SALEM,MASSACHUSEM 01970 TELE:978-745-9595 FAX;978-740-9846 _< KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR MEETINGNOTICE > BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING May 19, 2010 — 6:30 P.M. _j 3RDFLOOR, ROOM 313 — 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MA 4'6'� Jxt'qzxy_ Robin Stein, Chair AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes — April 14, 2010 meeting. 2. Public hearing: Petition of SANDRA MEUSE requesting Variances from side yard setback and lot coverage to allow for the construction of a second-floor deck at the rear of the two-family home on the property located • at 19 ORCHARD STREET (R-2). 3. Public hearing: Petition of COLLIAM, LLC/LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to alter and extend an existing nonconforming structure by adding a 600 square foot addition as a second floor over a portion of the existing roof on the property located at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2). 4. Public hearing: Petition of AN HUI T. ANG requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of two dormers on the single-family home at 3 HENRY STREET (R-1). 5. Public hearing: Petition of MICKEY L. BENSON requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing historic carnage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 150 NORTH STREET (R-2). 6. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of CABOT STREET GROUP, LLC, seeking a Special Penn itto convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 24 CABOT STREET, Salem, MA (R-2). Attomeyjames Mears. 7. Public hearing: Petition of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC requesting Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building With retail and municipal space on the property located at 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (NRCC). S. Old/New Business: Request of NORTH RIVER CANAL LLC for extension of Variances granted to • property at 28 GOODHUE STREET to December 31, 2010. Attomeyjoseph Correnti. 9. Adjournment A CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS jr DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND �o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KI<,4RERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSE,ITS 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: May 11, 2010 RE: Meeting Agenda—May 19, 2010 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 4/14/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Public hearing: Petition of SANDRA MEUSE requesting Variances from side yard setback and lot coverage to allow for the construction of a second-floor deck at the rear of the two-family home on the property located at 19 ORCHARD STREET (R-2). The proposed 10'x18' second-floor deck requires relief from side yard setback (5'proposed, 10' minimum required) and lot coverage (40% proposed, 35% maximum allowed). Public hearing: Petition of COLLIAM, LLC/LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to alter and extend an existing nonconforming structure by adding a 600 square foot addition as a second floor over a portion of the existing roof on the property located at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2). This applicant was in front of the Board on 3/1/10 for a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use (aluminum foundry) to another nonconforming use (office and light manufacturing),which the Board granted. Now, Mr. Fabbri would like to add a 600-foot, upper floor addition and move his business _ - there, as he explains in his application. The new construction would require a Special Permit to • alter/extend an existing nonconforming structure. Public hearing: Petition of AN HUI T. ANG requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of two dormers on the single-family home at 3 HENRY STREET (R- 1). The dormers proposed require relief from maximum number of stories allowed (3 proposed, 2.5 allowed). When Mr. Ang brought this application in, he submitted a plot plan from an older decision allowing the replacement of a rear deck with a sun room (this decision, from 2007, is included in your packets). Because the plot plan showed this change, the addition of a sun room was included in his legal ad in the newspaper. However, Mr. Ang then explained that this construction has already occurred and is not a part of the application. I have removed the old plot plan from the packets (it was not required for the application). We were also able to make the correction in the abutter notice. The only relief Mr. Ang is now seeking is from the maximum allowed number of stories. Request to extend Variances issued: 24 Saunders St. Attorney Scott Grover. Attorney Grover is requesting to extend the Varainces granted for six months because of environmental cleanup required on the property. Public hearing: Petition of MICKEY L. BENSON requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 150 NORTH STREET (R-2). • There is currently a single-family home at 150 North St.; the addition of a carriage house unit would mean a total of two units on the property. Three parking spaces are shown on the plan,including two on the first floor of the carriage house. A similar petition was brought before the Board in 1989, but was withdrawn without prejudice. Unfortunately, minutes are not available from the meeting, and the decision (in your packets) says only that the petitioner was granted leave to withdraw without prejudice. The only indications in the file folder as to why the petition did not go forward are a letter from a neighbor objecting to additional traffic in the neighborhood and a report from the Fire Department stating that the property did not have proper smoke detectors at the time. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of CABOT STREET GROUP,LLC, seeking a Special Permit to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 24 CABOT STREET, Salem, MA (R-2). Attorney James Mears. I have no additional information about this petition to pass along. Public hearing: Petition of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC requesting Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property located at 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (NRCC). This petition is currently before the Planning Board. The proposed mixed-use building includes space to be designated for the Salem Senior Center. The applicant requests relief from height (60 feet proposed; . I maximum 50 allowed). Relief is also needed from the width of the buffer area between the parking lot • and abutting residential uses. Along the St.James Church boundary, the buffer is only 3 feet. The buffer along the residential properties on Federal Street varies from 14' to 47' due to the configuration of the parcel. This buffer was increased from an original 14' feet to 41' feet based on changes requested by the Planning Board during the course of their site plan review process. The seven parking spaces near the Boston Street entrance were removed in order to extend the landscaped buffer. This reduction in the number of parking spaces slightly increases the variance for parking that is being requested by the applicant. The applicant proposes 367 parking spaces;and an estimated 400 would be required based on the predictions of tenants to be secured, as outlined in the application. The applicant has stated at Planning Board meetings that reducing the amount of parking any further from the requested 367 spaces would inhibit the ability to attract the type of tenants they are looking for, such as medical offices. The Planning Board anticipates voting on this project on May 20. Request of NORTH RIVER CANAL LLC for extension of Variances granted to property at 28 GOODHUE STREET to December 31, 2010. Attorney Joseph Correnti. Attorney Corrend will be requesting a further extension of the Variances issued for the 28 Goodhue St. project due to financing problems. • • _3_ �orolrAM CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL -2 P 2: 1'3 MAYOR June 2, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC requesting Variances from building height(feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property located at 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (North River Canal Corridor Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 19, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on May 19, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Beth Debski, Annie Harris, Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate) and Bonnie Belair • (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 8.4.13, Transitional Overlay District, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances, under Section 8.4, North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC), and Section 5.1 et.seq., Off-Street Parking. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Joseph Correnti represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. The property is currently vacant land except for a single garage type building housing 2 businesses. 3. In a petition dated April 30, 2010, petitioner requested Variances from building height, buffer zone and parking requirements. 4. At the hearing, Attorney Correnti explained that due to the site's narrow shape, meeting the NRCC zoning requirements for the parking and buffer area was difficult. He explained that if strictly followed, the buffer requirement would eliminate so much parking (approximately 80 spaces) that any project would be economically unfeasible. • 5. At the hearing, testimony describing the uses proposed for portions of the building was received and it was explained that these uses required high ceilings. The proposed Salem Senior Center on the first floor was intended to have an open, spacious feel, and also would have a stage area and would house other 2 activities for which high ceilings were desirable. Also, the medical offices planned for the upper floors would need the extra ceiling height to accommodate equipment, and a planned health club in the building would also require high p g q g ceilings. The requirement of a maximum of 4 stories is being met per the plans submitted. 6. At the hearing, Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, objected to the proposed reduction in the buffer area and felt the parking area was too large. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, did not feel the proposed Senior Center usejustified the requested height variance. 7. Also at the hearing, Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street, spoke in support of the project, saying the proposed fence and landscaping in the buffer was enough to shield the neighborhood from any visual impacts. He also expressed appreciation for the developer's reworking of the project based on neighborhood concerns. 8. Board members expressed some concern about the height of the building, but were satisfied with the limitation of 60 feet of height. 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, which do not generally affect other land in the same district: the property is a long, narrow, irregularly shaped rectangle, which makes meeting the parking and buffer area requirements difficult. The shape of the site limits the number of parking aisles available, which in turn limits the overall use options for the site. The buffer area further limits the availability of parking, while the parking area eliminates availability of space for the buffer. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the NRCC Zoning District would make development of the site economically unfeasible, since the required buffer area would take up so much of the site that sufficient parking would not be available. Additionally, the proposed uses of a Senior Center, health club and medical offices have special requirements for high ceilings, and without relief from maximum allowable height, these uses would be difficult to accommodate. 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 fence and dense landscaping in the buffer area sufficiently shield the adjacent residential neighborhood from visual impacts. Also, the amount of parking on the site is sufficient • because of the variety of uses proposed, with some creating parking demand during the day and others in the evening. Board members also noted the social benefit of locating the new Senior Center in the building, 3 • and the overall benefits to the city of having a long-vacant site redeveloped and back in productive, taxable use. 4. The applicant may vary the terms of the North River Canal Zoning District to allow for the redevelopment of the site as shown on the submitted plans; the petition 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. Variances from building height (feet), buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces are granted to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space, as shown on the submitted plans titled "Gateway Center: A Multi-Use Building for the Salem Senior Center and Professional Offices,"dated April 28, 2010, prepared by Gundersen Associates Architects, Wellesley, Massachusetts. . In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor(Stein, Harris, Debski, Dionne and Curran) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. • 8. The proposed building may be up to'60' in height. 4 9. The buffer zone shall be maintained as per the final landscape plan submitted to • and approved by the Planning Board. Robin Stein, Chair Salem 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. • • ANolr- CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ��i BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RO FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • ' TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 1.3 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2010 JUG! -2 P 2: MAN OR C11 y Cl June 2, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals letition of AN HUI T. ANG requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of two dormers on the single-family home at 3 HENRY S REET (Residential One-Family Zone). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 19, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on May 19, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Annie Harris. Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning • Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. An Hui T. Ang, owner and petitioner, presented his petition at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated April 23, 2010, petitioner requested a Variance to allow for construction of a two dormers on his 2.5-story, single-family home. 3. No member of the public spoke in opposition or support of the petition at the hearing. 4. Board members expressed concern that the plans weren't clear that the proposal was actually for dormers and not simply another story. They also had concerns about the aesthetics of the new construction. To resolve these problems, they suggested that the dormers be set back from the edge of the roof at least two feet, and the petitioner agreed to this solution. 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 applicant 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. 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 Variance is granted to construct the proposed dormers, as shown in the plans submitted, but set back at least two feet from the roof edge. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Harris, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted • to and approved by the Building Commissioner, but with the dormers set back two feet from the roof edge. 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. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals • 3 A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS 13EEN FILED wrm"I'l IE PLANNING BOARD AND"FHE 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 tiled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • oNmT�.�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 1i. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 _ ' jppo FAX: 978-740-9846 z P K IMBERLEY DRISCOLL z MAYOR June 2, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of CABOT STREET GROUP, LLC, seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 24 CABOT STREET, Salem, MA (Residential Two-Family Zone). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 14, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was continued to May 19, 2010 and closed on that date with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein,, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne (who recused himself as a direct abutter), Bonnie Belair (alternate), Annie Harris, Beth Debski, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). . Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.1.2 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney James Mears represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. The principal structure on the property at 24 Cabot Street is a three-family house. 3. In a petition dated March 26, 2010, petitioner requested a Special Permit to convert a historic carriage house into one (1) dwelling unit. 4. At the April 14, 2010 hearing, the Board expressed concern about the proposed parking layout and the ability to actually access the proposed parking spaces. They were also concerned about the lack of green space left on the site after construction of the parking area. 5. Also at the April 14, 2010 hearing, abutter Richard Dionne, 23 Gardner Street, objected to the plan, citing inadequate parking area and too high a level of density on the site for the neighborhood. • 6. The hearing was continued to May 19, 2010. At this hearing, the applicant submitted a revised parking plan and narrative to the Board, showing four parking spaces to be located on the first floor of the carriage house rather than the 2 • originally proposed two, thereby eliminating the need for two of the outdoor parking spaces and allowing for better maneuvering. 7. While the new plan showed seven spaces, the Board contended that only six of them were legal because space 5 could not be easily accessed if a car were parked in space 6. Only six spaces are required by the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Board members stated they wanted the carriage house to retain its historic look, and that exterior finishes should reflect this. 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, since the project provides sufficient parking and preserves a historic carriage house. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to convert the historic carriage house into one (1) residential dwelling unit, 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: t allow for the conversion of a historic 1. A Special Permit is anted o a o P 1;' carriage house to one (1) dwelling unit. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor(Stein, Curran, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor) and one (1) opposed(Belair), 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, (approved plan is dated May 10, 2010), except that parking space 5 is not to be considered a legal • space. 3 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire isafety 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; the carriage house is to maintain its appearance as a historic carriage house, with wood doors, siding, and windows. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 9. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area of more than fifty percent • (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 'Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF Tit IS DECISION I4AS 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 tiled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • ONA�e CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR - f SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • '?� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 p0 � FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Z�'� '�I�, -� 2' 2 MAYOR - n r u June 2, 2010 CITY Decision Petition of COLLIAM, LLC/LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to alter and extend an existing nonconforming structure by adding a 600 square foot addition as a second floor over a portion of the existing roof on the property located at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2). A public hearing on the above petition was opened on May 19, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members being present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Rick Dionne, Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit under Section 3.3.3: Nonconforming Structures, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • 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. Luke Fabbri, the owner and petitioner, represented himself at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped April 28, 2010, the petitioner requested to alter and extend the existing non-conforming structure located at 14 Hubon Street by building a 600 square foot addition as a second floor over a portion of the existing flat roof. 3. At the hearing, Mr. Fabbri explained that the first floor of the building, which had previously been used as an aluminum foundry, was in a condition unsuitable for office work, in spite of extensive cleanup work. Mr. Fabbri stated that he intended to continue using the first floor space for storage and light manufacturing, and would use the upstairs addition as office space. 4. At the hearing, no members of the public commented on 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 l. The proposed extension of the existing non-conforming structure is not more • detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use, since the continued improvement of the building would be a benefit to the neighborhood. 2. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to alter the structure as proposed, 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. A Special Permit is granted to alter the existing non-conforming structure by constructing the proposed second-floor addition as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Harris, Dionne and Debski), none (0) opposed, to grant the petitioner's request for a Special Permit, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: • I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. 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. 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. 2 Robin Stem, Ch it Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. • • 3 �ONDIT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3Ro FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 • TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2TO J'Eli _2 2: MAYOR F I I CITY June 2, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MICKEY L. BENSON requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing historic carriage house to a single dwelling unit on the property located at 150 NORTH STREET (Residential Two-Family Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 19, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on May 19, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Rebecca Curran, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair(alternate), Annie Harris, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.1.2 of the City of Salem Zoning • Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. The principal structure on the property at 150 North Street is a single-family house. 3. In a petition dated April 28, 2010, petitioner requested a Special Permit to convert a historic carriage house into one (1) dwelling unit. 4. At the hearing on May 19, 2010, Attorney Grover read two letters from neighbors supporting the petition, Steve and Danigayle Harris of 148 North Street, and Nancy and Robin Nadeau of 2 Orne Street. 5. At the hearing, Kathy O'Leary, 7 Riverbank Road, asked if the proposal would add parking needs to the neighborhood and stated that parking on the street was currently difficult. Board members responded that the number of spaces proposed met the Zoning Ordinance requirements for off-street parking. 6. Also at the hearing, Attorney Grover presented a copy of the Assessor plate • showing surrounding properties and indicated their use as two-, three- and four- family properties to demonstrate consistency of the proposal with the neighborhood. 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, since the project provides sufficient parking and preserves a historic carriage house. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to convert the historic carriage house into one (1) residential dwelling unit, 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. A Special Permit is granted to allow for the conversion of a historic • carriage house to one (1) dwelling unit. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Hams, Dionne and Belair in favor) 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. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. • 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 3 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. R Stein, Salem 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. • • yMONDIT�,AO CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL �p5 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 • �� FAX: 978-740-9846 Z�liO J� Y - KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 2 P 2: 12 MAYOR CI i June 2, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of SANDRA MEUSE requesting Variances from side yard setback and lot coverage to allow for the construction of a second-floor deck at the rear of two- family home on the property located at 19 ORCHARD STREET (Residential Two- Family Zone). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on May 19, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on May 19, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning • Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Sandra Meuse, owner and petitioner, presented her petition at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated May 4, 2010, petitioner requested Variances to allow for construction of a 10'x 18' deck on the second story of her two-family home. 3. No member of the public spoke in opposition or support of the petition at the hearing. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. 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 requested dimensional relief is minimal, the construction would still be within the required setbacks, and no negative impacts on neighbors were anticipated. • 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to construct the proposed deck, which is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. 2 3. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. g 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. Variances are granted to construct the proposed deck, as shown in the plans submitted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Tsiiinos, Dionne and Belair) and none(0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: l. 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. ,> J-t- /,6-,t x Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITII THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11, the Variance or Special 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. tonnirr�a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS i� BOARD OF APPEAL � 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3Ro FLOOR - ' � SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 _ TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 poN FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Decision to Extend City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST requesting Variances from minimum lot width, minimum lot area, rear yard setback and lot area per dwelling unit to allow the construction of two single-family homes on 24 Saunders Street, R-2 Zoning District G O r�, v June 3,2010 `— r� c Riverside Realty Trust —1 c/o Scott M. Grover, Esq. Tinti,Quinn, Grover&Frey,P.C. IV 27 Congress Street,Suite 414 N Salem,MA 01970 0 • Re: 24 Saunders Street Extension of Variances On Wednesday,May 20, 2009,the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of Riverside Realty Trust for Variances from minimum lot width, minimum lot area, rear yard setback and lot area per dwelling unit to allow the construction of two single-family homes in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. A Decision dated June 8, 2010 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office on June 8,2010. The Decision is valid for one year from the date of the Decision unless extended by the Board. On May 19, 2010 the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to extend the Variances granted for six (6) months to June 6, 2010. The Board understands Riverside Realty Trust intends to go forward with the project, though additional time is needed to begin construction because extensive environmental cleanup was required on the property. A COPY OF THIS DECISION TO EXTEND HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. • Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 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 Cry Clerk has been filed with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds. 2 �oNolr�,�a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS O.1 970 ' P TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 WIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 0 c_ Decision to Extend p City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 0 Petition of North River, LLC requesting Variance to 0 Allow 1,800 sf per Dwelling Unit for property located at 28 Goodhue Street, NRCC District June 17, 2010 North River Canal, LLC c/o Joseph C. Correnti, Esquire Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP • 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: 28 Goodhue Street Extension of Variance On Wednesday, September 27, 2006, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of North River Canal, LLC, 282 Bennington Street, Boston, MA for a Variance to allow 1,800 square feet per dwelling unit in the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. A Decision dated October 17, 2006 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office on October 18, 2006, and such Decision is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 27106, Page 44 (the "Decision"). The Decision is valid for one year from the date of the Decision unless extended by the Board. On September 19, 2007, the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals extended the variances granted on October 18, 2006 for six (6) months to April 18, 2008. On March 19, 2008 the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to extend the variances for another six (6) months to October 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, and voted unanimously on an extension through June 30, 2010. On May 19, 2010, the Board met to discuss a further request by North River Canal, LLC to extend the variances, and voted unanimously on an extension through December 31, 2010. The Board understands North River Canal, LLC intends to go forward with the project, though additional time is needed to put in place the necessary funding to begin construction. A COPY OF THIS DECISION TO EXTEND HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK. p V - • Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 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 District Registry of Deeds. • 2 ��°tTA9 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS • � '1, BOARD OF APPEAL 3�1 ail 120 WASHINGTON S CREET♦ SALEK MASSACi IUSI'.I'IS 01970 ltNE ,- '15aLE::978-619-5685 UAx:978-740-0404 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,May 19,2010 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: SANDRA MEUSE Location: 19 ORCHARD STREET (R-2) Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from side yard setback and lot coverage to allow for the construction of a second-floor deck at the rear of the existing two-family home. Decision: Approved— filed with City Clerk on June 2,2010 Petition of COLLIAM,LLC/LUKE FABBRI Location: 19 ORCHARD STREET (R-2) • Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit sought to alter and extend an existing nonconforming structure by adding a 600 square foot addition as a second floor over a portion of the existing roof Decision: Approved— filed with City Clerk on June 2,2010 Petition of AN HUI T.ANG Location: 3 HENRY STREET (R-1) Request: Variance Description: Variance sought from number of stories to allow for the construction of two dormers on an existing single-family home. Decision: Approved— filed with City Clerk on June 2, 2010 Petition of: MICKEY L. BENSON Location: 150 NORTH STREET (R-2) Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit sought to convert an existing historic carriage house into one dwelling unit. Decision: Approved— filed with City Clerk on June 2, 2010 Petition of: CABOT STREET GROUP, LLC Location: 24 CABOT STREET (R-2) Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit sought to convert an existing historic carriage house into one dwelling unit. Decision: Approved— filed with City Clerk on June 2,2010 (over) Page 1 of 2 �4,�e( F}bnvHerS �r3�t� Petition of: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Location: 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (NRCC) Request: Variances Description: Variances from building height (feet),buffer zone width, and number of parking spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space. Decision: Approved— filed with City Clerk on June 2, 2010 This notice is being sent in compliance zvitb the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 dam'15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeab, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed witbin 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • Page 2 of 2 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, May 19,2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 in the thud floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 7:20 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair),Becky Curran,Beth Debski (arriving 7:30), Rick Dionne,Annie Harris (arriving 6:45),Bonnie Belau (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner. Stein opens the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes The minutes of April 14, 2010 are reviewed. There being no comments, Dionne moves to approve them, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0. Public hearing: Petition of SANDRA MEUSE requesting Variances from side yard setback and lot coverage to allow for the construction of a second-floor deck at the • rear of the two-family home on the property located at 19 ORCHARD STREET (R- 2). Ms. Meuse presents her petition, explaining she wants to add a deck to the second floor of her house. Curran asks if there would be anything underneath it;Meuse says no, it would just be open. St. Pierre explains that we treat second floor decks as a structure, unlike a first floor deck. Stein asks if the Board has questions;no one does. Stein opens up the issue forpublic comment;no one is here to speak, so she closes the public commentportion. Stein says this is a minimal dimensional variance, there is plenty of lot area left, and the deck would still be within the setbacks. Curran verifies that this is a 2-family and Meuse owns both;Meuse says she does. Stein says the request is de minimus, consistent with our bylaw, and there would be no negative impacts on neighbors. Dionne moves to approve the petition with six (6) standard conditions, seconded by Stein, and passed 5-0 (Tsistinos, Dionne, Stein, Curran,Belau in favor, none opposed). The applicant for 14 Hubon St. is notyet hen, so Stein invites the nextpetitioner to present. Public hearing: Petition of AN HUI T.ANG requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of two dormers on the single-family home at 3 HENRY STREET (R-1). Mr. Ang presents his petition. He shows the Board a sketch of interior. Belau asks if the stairs are internal;Ang says yes`Curran and Stein ask if the dormers run the whole length of the house;Ang says yes. 1 Curran: Aesthetically it looks better if there's an indent in there...I have no problem with the • dormer, though. It does change the look of the building if it runs all the way to the end...if it can be indented that would be better. Stein: we should craft language making it clear this is a dormer. St. Pierre: We should say it comes in two feet on either side. Mr.Ang agrees to this. Stein opens up the issue for public comment. No one is ben to speak;Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Curran moves to approve the application with seven (7) standard conditions and one (1) special condition, that the dormers be set back from the edge of the roof at least 2 feet. Stein seconds, and the petition passes 5-0 (Harris,Belair, Curran, Stein, Dionne in favor, none opposed). Request of RIVERSIDE REALTY TRUST for extension of Variances granted to 24 SAUNDERS STREET for an additional six months. Attorney Scott Grover requests an extension for the variances granted in June of last year to allow two remnant pieces left at the end of Saunders St. to be built upon. He says the development involved extensive cleanup, primarily of lead, and they are very close to being able to build, but probably not by one year from the date the variances were granted. Curran asks if there are any changes to the plans; Grover says no, the only change is the timing, and the project has been continually worked on. He says DEP is involved, and it's.a reportable site. • Stein says a 6-month extension is fair. Belair moves to extend the Variances to June 6, 2010, subject to all the original conditions. Curran second and the petition passes 5-0 (Stein, Curran, Debski, Harris and Belau in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of MICKEY L. BENSON requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 150 NORTH STREET (R-2). Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition and shows photos to the Board of the property. He says there has been a lot of work done to restore the property. Dionne asks where the parking is, and how many units are currently on the property. Arty Grover says there's currently just a single family house, though this is the R-2 zone. Grover explains how the house's living space was extended to behind the garage. Parking will remain up front, the first floor of the carriage house would remain, and they would complete the second story of the carriage house, and then create a wall. Harris asks if the second floor is finished— Grover says no. He presents a floor plan showing what the first floor looks like—half is a garage and half is part of the house. Curran: and there are no dimensional changes? Grover: no, and no exterior changes —just upgrades. • 2 Curran asks for the size of the proposed unit—Grover says about 1695. Grover shows a • photo from the mid 1800s showing the structure before the carriage house was added, but also says he has documentation showing the carriage house is historic—he presents a plate from the 1897 atlas of Salem showing this lot has a carriage house. He says the ordinance requires the carriage house date back to 1900. He distributes these records to the Board. St. Pierre asks where he found the information—owner Mickey Benson says at the public library. Grover says he asked the Bensons to talk to neighbors—he consulted all immediate abutters —and he has two short letters in support,which he reads to the Board. To demonstrate consistency with the character of the neighborhood, Grover indicates on the Assessor plate of the neighborhood, showing many two-family properties surrounding it. He says there are no adverse effects, and would add to the city tax base. Harris asks about other neighbors —Grover says the Bensons spoke with them. He says many surrounding properties are larger properties converted to condos or rentals with absentee landlords. The Bensons plan to live in the back house, away from the street. Mr. and Mrs. Benson say they have no immediate plans to sell now, but it's too much space for just two of them, and they want to modernize the rear part of the property and live in it. Stein opens up the public comment portion of the hearing. • Kathy O'Leary, 7 Riverbank St.,Danvers, representing her mother,who lives on Stoddard Place, asks about how parking would be dealt with, especially during winter. She says any additional parking on the street would be difficult. However, she doesn't oppose the project. Stein says the zoning normally requires 3 spaces for 2 units, so they do comply with that. In a snow emergency, the Bensons say they could squeeze in another car. There are no farrther comments;Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Stein: they certainly have demonstrated compliance with the bylaw. Curran: they meet the parking. Stein: it's not a detriment to the neighborhood. It's nice to see carriage houses preserved when we can. Curran moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Harris,Belair, Curran, Stein, Dionne in favor,none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of COLLIAM, LLC/LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to alter and extend an existing nonconforming structure by adding a 600 square foot addition as a second floor over a portion of the existing roof on the property located at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2). Luke Fabbri presents the petition. He says he was recently before the board to change the previous non-conforming foundry use to a light manufacturing use. He now wishes to add an addition above the building to use as office space. He says the first floor is dirty and they've taken out a lot of material. Building on the second floor would allow them to create • a clean, new office space. He says they would continue to use the downstairs base for light 3 manufacturing and storage area. They have applied for a building permit to make structural changes to the building. St. Pierre says the building is steadily improving. Fabbri says he's spoken to neighbors, who like the plan. Curran asks if the addition hangs over the building. Fabbri clarifies where it sits on the building and says the architect is trying to line it up over existing structural components. The existing concrete block has some structural issues. He took down 3 windows, and the concrete block was taken up to one corner and repaired (indicates plans). He says the middle window used to be a door. Stein opens up the issue for public comment;no one is here to speak, so she closes the public comment portion. Curran asks if they need to go to the Conservation Commission. Fabbri says no earthwork is proposed. St. Pierre says he doesn't think they need an RDA. He says Fabbri is an LSP and is familiar with the Con Com process. Debski arrives at 7:20 PM. Fabbri: we're not doing any excavation. Stein: I think this is a benefit to the neighborhood, not a detriment -people will appreciate having the building fixed up. Dionne: are you doing anything to the facade block itself? Fabbri—we'll paint it. We've repaired it. Belair moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions, seconded by Stein • and passed 5-0 (Dionne, Stein, Curran,Belair, Harris in favor, none opposed). Continuation of public hearing: Petition of CABOT STREET GROUP, LLC, seeking a Special Permit to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 24 CABOT STREET, Salem, MA (R-2). Attorney James Mears. Rick Dionne states that be is a direct abutter to the property, mcuses himself and says be will sit in the audience on his own behalf. Attorney James Mears presents the petition. He says at the last meeting, there were questions raised about the parking. He hands out a revised parking plan and a letter from his engineer. The previous plan had shown 2 spaces on first floor of carriage house; this plan now shows 4 spaces. He says the plan shows 7 spaces are available for parking, and the plan now exceeds the required 1.5 spaces per unit. He says questions were raised about access into and out of garage;what wasn't clear on the plans is there is depth of 1 in garage, and vehicles would be able to pull in and out without having to pull over for each other. He says there is plenty of clearance coming in and out of garage, as shown on the new plan. He says they would be taking space that would have been allocated to the unit in the carriage house and giving it to the parking area. He addresses spot 7, at the front of the lot, saying there was a question about whether they had a 5 foot setback—it was not depicted on previous plan, but is now on this plan. They believe they now adequately addressed not only the parking requirements but issues of whether they would have • appropriate space for turning radius, etc. for getting out. 4 • Arty Mears gives a brief history of the property. The owner doesn't have any plans to do anything to the exterior of the carriage house itself—he says if there was any concern about structural modifications to be able to use first floor level for parking, his engineer has stated they do not need to put any additional supports in—there is sufficient support for the second floor, where the dwelling unit would be. The property was acquired in fall of 2009 — plans are for condos, already filed with the Registry. The plans will require modification, but their intention is to go forward if permitted and market as condos. Stein asks about changes to the living space. Mears says they went from 1400 to about 1000 square feet. When they acquired the property,it was illegally being used for 2 apartments; they were directed to remove the kitchen facilities from the first floor. In the carriage house plans, Curran indicates the stairway and says she's having difficulty because of that—how would you maneuver into spaces 3, 4 and 5? She doesn't see how someone could get into 5? What if someone was in 6? Mears says they are not asking for affirmation of the 7 spaces—they would take those the Board found acceptable—if space 5 wasn't usable they wouldn't rely on that. Curran: you need six spots, and I'm questioning 5 and 4. Stein: if you into the garage far enough—because of the depth,you'd be able to get in. Mears: there's an extra 6.5 feet there to allow the cars to pull in. Debski: the space marked 7 —can they have parking there? Isn't that considered the front yard—didn't we talk about that last meeting? St. Pierre: it's unclear but it could be argued that that is the front yard setback. Mears: we had our engineer look at it again, and it shows a 5 foot setback. Stein: does this constitute parking in the front yard? St. Pierre: it's a gray area in our zoning, but if we said that that was a front yard setback, everyone with a driveway in front would be in violation if they didn't park 15 feet back from property line. If there's 19 feet from the house to pavement, that will work, and it appears there is. Mears: we went out and looked at parking at different times during the day, took photos of how congested the area is —our intent is not to be parking on street. There are a number of multi families using the street for parking, but it's not our intent to do that. We're making sure we can stay off the street. Curran: will this be a one or two bedroom? Mears: the new unit would be a 1 bedroom. Stein opens the issue up forpublic comment Richard Dionne, 23 Gardner St., speaking as an abutter, says he is not opposed to this as long as it will be turned into condos, and not have an absentee landlord situation as it's been. He says it would be nice to see a carriage house picked up. If these are condos, he thinks the owners will take care of them. Mears says they've already "condo-ed" the main residence,but the plans will have to be amended to address these changes. He says there's no question that when they received the • property, they were immediately notified that property was not in compliance and they took steps to satisfy requirements. 5 Dionne asks about the parking in front of house—would they have to take the small front • yard to make parking? Mears says he believes that's true. Dionne notes that there would then be no green space. St. Pierre asks if the Board wants to tie to the parking changes to the plans. Stein says yes, the plan should not include space 5. Curran says this area could be used for maneuvering. Stein says the Board doesn't want to count that as a space. Mears says they will have deeded parking as well. Debski: we talked last time about snow removal. Stein: that would leave space for snow storage,if 5 isn't used. St. Pierre: you could condition that if they are willing to accept it. The Board discusses the possibilities. Belair says she is conflicted over all the carriage house petitions —her issue is the increase in density. She says every month now there is one— some are clear that they're a good idea, others are very borderline to her— this is one she is really struggling with wanting to approve - based on the density, she feels the petitioner is trying to make it work in any way, but given the area it doesn't work really well for her. St. Pierre points out that there were 2 illegal units there before, which was a higher density than what's proposed now. Stein says there's tension in the bylaw between the density increase and the interest in keeping carriage houses —the Board wouldn't be able to do this by variance, but the carriage house special permit is a way to make them feasible to keep. She's more in favor of these applications when the cars can be kept off the street. Belair : but you have four units, that means visitors, etc., and others on the street. • Stein: the drafters of the ordinance must have waived increased density, knowing it would increase. Harris says people were losing the carriage houses because they couldn't afford to save them — she was involved in the drafting of that ordinance. Curran: we don't have plans on how this will be changed, the exterior, etc. - how do we ensure it remains carriage house-y? Mears: no exterior changes are proposed. Curran: there are real windows,wood will remain wood, not vinyl? Mears: there are no plans to change exterior,which is one of the reasons we wanted the opinion from an engineer on the structural integrity of garage. Curran: we can tweak our usual condition on exterior changes to address that. Tsitsinos says he's okay with the petition, as long as they keep the historic character of the carriage house. Curran moves to approve the petition with nine (9) conditions (including the provisions that parking space 5 is not to be considered a legal space, and the carriage house is to maintain its appearance as a historic carriage house,including wood doors, siding, and windows). The motion is seconded by Stein and passes 4-1 (Stein, Curran,Debski and Tsitsinos in favor,Belair opposed). Request of NORTH RIVER CANAL LLC for extension of Variances granted to property at 28 GOODHUE STREET to December 31, 2010. Attorney Joseph Correnti. Arty Correnti represents Mr. Roberto, saying they have been here several times for • extensions. He reminds the Board this is a four-story, multi-use building, the project was 6 fully permitted by Con com, Planning, ZBA, and Hist Com on demo delay. It was a factory • building in extreme disrepair, on fire watch for 6 months. Anthony Roberto purchased it in 2005-6, the factory was demolished, and new plans put forward. The plans were running simultaneously with the new NRCC regulations, and this was the first project permitted under it, which allowed for this mixed use building. The units are part market rate, some affordable. The Variance issued was for square footage of units to land area. He introduces Mr. Roberto, who says the advice from realtors is there is still a lot of inventory on the market, and given the difficult financial market, they'd need at least another 6 months. He says the bank is still with them,which shows faith in what they'll be doing. Curran asks if there are been any appeals on this; Correnti says no. Stein says she's sympathetic about the economy as it applies to the housing market. Harris moves to approve the request to extend the variances for six (6) months, seconded by Curran and passed 5-0 (Debski, Harris,Belair, Curran, Stein in favor, none opposed). Public hearing: Petition of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC requesting Variances from building height(feet), buffer zone width, and number of parldng spaces to allow the construction of a 2-4 story professional office building with retail and municipal space on the property located at 44 BOSTON STREET and 401 BRIDGE STREET (NRCC). Arty Correnti presents the petition. Members of the development team - David Sweetser, Harry Gundersen (architect), and Peter Blaisdell (engineer) are also present. Corrend explains this is the old Sylvania Site. He says this has been before the Planning Board for the last several months. The Design Review Board has also reviewed it. Recently they received a positive recommendation from the DRB to the Planning Board. Tomorrow they are going • back to the Planning Board with the full expectation of receiving a decision. He says Gundersen has redone the plans as a result of working with those boards. He says what makes the property difficult is its shape—it's narrow, the Federal Street neighborhood is right behind it, the church is at one end and the storage facility at the other, and the linear park. He says this property has been a challenge from day one in trying to figure out the layout with appropriate parking, and trying to meet the NRCC ordinance. Atty Correnti says this is a four-story, multi-use building; he shows the rendering and explains the site. The building is the result of a lot of input from neighbors, the Planning Board and the DRB. He says they are very pleased with how it's ended up. Atty Corrend explains that in the NRCC, four stories are allowed,but it's a 50 foot limit— it's not story relief they need,but the height. They are going to between 55 and 60. They are asking for relief up to 60 feet,which they know they won't exceed. He says the height is due to the particular uses.involved in this building. The City has signed a P&S for a condominium - more than half the first floor of entire building. It will be used as community life center/senior center. The use requires particularly high ceilings. The idea is to create an open and spacious environment,including a stage area, and areas for a variety of activities that call for higher ceilings. The three stories above that are intended for medical office space. He says they don't have tenants signed yet, but the developer has committed to going forward—this is unusual in this environment. There is a retail use in the other part of the first floor, which will be a fitness facility. This leaves 90,000 square feet of uncommitted • upper floor space. They know we want to see a medical office, and there's been some interest expressed. If they do attract medical offices, higher ceilings are also required 7 because of the needed equipment and technology. 'raking into account these needs, they exceed the 50 feet maximum allowed. • Atty Correnti explains they also need relief from the buffer. The NRCC requires a 50 foot buffer zone to residential properties. Gundersen points out the buffer area on the plans. Corrend says if this had to be followed, there would be no project—he says it's shown on the plan where the 50 foot buffer line would be— they would lose 80-90 parking spaces if they had to follow it strictly. He says this property has sat fallow because there's no reasonable way to develop this property without using that parking. He says they have met extensively with the Federal Street neighborhood over the last months, and most neighbors are satisfied. He explains concerns about shielding to the neighborhood, and says they have worked on a landscaping plan for 6 months. Abutters toward Boston St. are on grade with the lot, so they will see more. On the other side, there's a steeper vertical grade change. He says if they lost all that land, it would create a tremendous hardship. He says the project would not visually impact houses that sit on a different grade. He points out where 7 parking spaces were eliminated and added to the buffer area,requested by residents of Federal Street. He says most people during PB hearings asked why they had so much parking, yet they still need a variance from the ZBA. He says the third variance needed is parking—this is tricky, because while they know they have two tenants committed (the municipal use—the City took the lead and required a minimum of 80 parking spaces for senior center use). They started off knowing 80 are allocated there; then added the retail space next to the senior center,which required about 109 spaces for a total of 189 total for the first floor. He says currently there are 95,000 SF of • space not rented,but targeted for office use—professional includes medical, there's also business, and another medical office use in the zoning—all use different formulas. He says they had to make certain assumptions based on what they hoped to get. While all have separate formulas,they took averages, and most came to about 400 spaces. Some calculations came out higher, some lower, but all were more than the 367 spaces they have planned on the lot. They need the variance to go forward with financing, stating zoning compliance, etc. Curran: what's the building total SF? Gundersen: 140,700. Stein: how tall is the storage across the street? Corrend: 40 feet. Stein open'the issue up forpublic comment. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., asks if all variances must be exposed at this time or can they come back with more? Stein: you can always come back and ask for more relief. Treadwell says the landscaping is subject to approval and points out parts of the Zoning Ordinance that require landscaping in the NRCC. He asks if the Board is considering relief from those requirements. Stein says the Board has not been asked to give relief from that. • 8 Treadwell gives a history of the NRCC plan. He says the buffer is included in teh requirements for the transitional area only, abutting a residential district along the property boundary. This zoning based on the NRCC plan calls for a buffer of 50 feet to try to create development compatible with adjacent parcels. He points out there's no 50 foot buffer between the parcel and the St.James property. He doesn't know if those owners have a problem with the plan. He says there is a detriment to the public good—he thinks it could set a precedent that would create a detriment. He says there is too much parking, more than what the MBTA has. He says the buffer is an important element of the zoning ordinance and is based on the plan. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., says the idea of using the senior center use to justify the height doesn't make sense, since there are other neighboring communities whose senior centers are one floor. Ken Wallace, 172 Federal St., says the developers have communicated a lot with the Federal Street neighborhood. He says if the buffer is maintained and used the way it's planned it will be sufficient—and there will also be a fence— there will be very dense shrubbery in the buffer, and all in all they have done enough work to make it almost impervious to visual impact. He says the building is on the far side of the lot—the buffer just protects the neighborhood from parked cars. He points out that the building has no "back" and the neighbors would be seeing a front of a building. He commends the developers for redoing this many times. There being no further comments, Stein closes the public commentportion of the hearing. Harris: have the landscape plans changed from what we have here? Stein: the latest plans would be helpful given we're asked for buffer relief. Gundersen shows the landscape plan. He says an issue they've struggled with is that the four properties are at grade level, and the grade rises dramatically toward Federal St. The buffer is at widest at those four. He describes the combination of evergreens and deciduous trees of varying heights. He says there is already a canopy of large trees. He explains the various plantings proposed. He says they are planting heavily in the parking island and street trees —there is a lot of landscaping. Correnti addresses the height of the fence—in the NRCC, the Planning Board has Special Permit granting authority for this. He says the two special permits they applied for from the Planning Board is for the height of the fence and size of the retail space. The height of the fence is 6 feet unless a Special Permit allows it to be 8. He says some neighbors want 6 feet, others 8—they will ask for relief from 8 and then do what the neighborhood prefers. However, he says that's not relief that comes back to the Board of Appeals. Harris asks where the fence is; Gundersen shows it on the plan. Corrend notes that Michael Blier of the DRB had a lot of input into this plan as well. Harris asks about the Planning Board requirements for maintaining plantings. Correnti says there will be a condition in the Planning Board decision that it's to be maintained. He says • they intend to maintain it—this will be a showcase property. 9 St. Pierre says a Planning Board decision is part of getting a building permit, and noncompliance with the decision has consequences up to and including revocation of a • Certificate of Occupancy if it's bad enough. Stein says part of the point of the NRCC was to improve our entrance corridor— she's concerned about the height— she knows it's not the whole length of bldg, but she's having a hard time picturing it in comparison to the storage facility. Harris says that at most it's 10 feet above what's allowed. She thinks for the use—at the jail, the really neat units are the ones with the height. Having that height makes it more usable. Stein: it's nice, possibly not a necessity for a senior center. Curran asks about interior ceiling heights. Gundersen says there is 18 feet floor to floor on ground floor, then 13 feet in successive stories. He says both the senior center and health club need high ceilings. They have performance, meeting spaces, and 10 foot heights would be restrictive. Windows on ground will be very high, there will be 10-12 foot ceilings. Curran: are there fixed awnings? Gundersen: yes Belair: Is there a basement in this building? Gundersen—no. Stein: the irregular rectangular shape of lot is the difficulty. I'm happy to see everything oriented toward the corner. Correnti: the 2 story corner is nearly 30 feet, more typical of a three story building. He explains considerable effort went into making the corner. Curran: as to the buffer—I think for a narrower buffer, the same effect can be achieved with • landscaping,but clarify what's happening along wall? Gundersen shows on plan where retaining walls are, where they step up. Shows a 14 foot high masonry wall. There is some planting up there, but.they can't do trees up there,it would destroy the wall. Correnti says the fence would be available for neighbors on top of the wall. Harris: they're already looking over top of everything. She says they will have a better view. Stein: supporting hardship issue—the property has been undeveloped for as long as it's been —if it wasn't so hard to develop economically,it would have been done. Debski says that 50 foot buffer requirement makes it hard— that's a lot of land. Stein: it's because the lot is narrow. Curran is more comfortable giving 57 feet, not 60, based on what it is planned now. As to the parking, the health club will be in use at night, offices during day; the parking is okay with her. Stein agrees. Correnti: these aren't construction drawings,just rough calcs, that's why we asked for 60 feet. Gundersen: that's floor to roof level. It's a very flat property, not a lot of variation. It's not 57 from grade to roof, it's slightly more than that, but not in excess of 60. Belair: 3 feet is so minimal for a project of this size. Dionne: 3 feet is not a problem. Curran: total relief would be 10 feet. Belair: it's attractive, such an improvement. Stein: it's an improvement as far as the entrance corridor goes. • Debski: it's an important project for the city, the Senior center finally has a place to go. 10 Stein: I won't quibble over 3 feet—if you think it's necessary, OK. Correnti: I wish we knew what the exact finished height would be. Stein: I don't want you to have to come back for 7 feet. But don't go over 60. Harris moves to approve the petition— she reviews the hardship arguments: Height: the reasons for this relief are the kinds of uses going in the building;it's difficult to accommodate the uses. There is the social benefit of having the senior center, and their need for flexibility of space is important, as is accommodating potential medical office space. We need to consider the probable need for equipment,want to make sure the project is economically feasible, not limited because of height. Stein: the irregularly shaped lot also applies the number of parking aisles available limits overall use options. Harris : The thin shape of the lot makes the buffer difficult. The parking relief is justified. This has been a very prominent site in the city that's been vacant for a long time;a number of people have tried to develop it, but in the meantime the property hasn't been paying taxes, etc. Harris moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions and one (1) special condition (the buffer zone is to be maintained as per the final landscape plan submitted and approved by the Planning Board). The motion is seconded by Curran and passes 5-0 (Debski, Harris, Curran,Stein, and Dionne in favor, none opposed). Dionne moves to close the meeting, Stein seconds and the motion is unanimously approved. 1 Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 6/16/10 11 City of Salem — Meeting Si In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 6� / �c�/ ) Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail g)\tL(Y);u Z, 7 3 < / n178"--7 �5, 6zi� PY Page of QTY OF SALEM MASSAC HUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL a 120 WASHINGTONSTREET* SALEM,MAssAcxttsETT501970 t/hJe� . TELE:978-745-9595 + FAx:978-740.9846 KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL MAYOR r-; MEETING NOTICE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING -_ April 14, 2010 - 6:30 P.M. San FLOOR,ROOM 313- 120 WASHINGTON STREET w SALEM,MA Robin Stein,Chair 4 i AGENDA o L Approval of Minutes -March 1,2010 and March 17,2010 meetings. 2. Petition of MAUREEN BUCK requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of a roof deck over one unit,and the addition of two gable dormers and one shed dormer to the second unit on the two-family home at 11 CURTIS STREET (Residential Two-Family Zone). 0- 3. Petition of CHRISTOS AND ELENI LIRANTONAKIS requesting Variances from lot size and lot width/frontage in order to subdivide the existing property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE into two lots (Residential One-Family Zone). 4. Petition of CABOT STREET GROUP, LLC,seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 24 CABOT STREET, Salem,MA(Residential Two-FamilyZone). 5. Petition of LEE and MAUREEN DAVIS,seeking Variances from lot coverage and side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition onto the existing single-family home on the property located at 22 EDEN STREET,Salem, MA(Residential One-Family Zone). 6. Adjournment '":ti r,Cj /rlfMJ 31 e261 C) ry , Alt � k'�.. !/6 Pi7k $3 41 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 2 Jo DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KwmRus.Y DlascoLL NIAYOR 120 WASHING'I'ON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSEM 01970 'n.,11x:;:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIREcrm MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: April 8, 2010 RE: Meeting Agenda—April 14,2010 Board Members, Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Agenda ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 3/1/10 and 3/17/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Petition of MAUREEN BUCK requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of a roof deck over one unit, and the addition of two gable dormers and one shed dormer to the second unit on the two-family home at 11 CURTIS STREET (Residential Two- Family Zone). The number of stories allowed in R2 is 2.5—the proposed addition would create a third story. Petition of CHRISTOS AND ELENI LIRANTONAKIS requesting Variances from lot size and lot width/frontage in order to subdivide the existing property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE into two lots (Residential One-Family Zone). The petitioner wants to subdivide the property, creating another single-family house lot. Splitting the lot as proposed would require relief from lot area (7,125 square feet for Lot A and 7,154 square feet for Lot B is proposed; 15,000 is required) and from lot width/frontage (71.54 feet for each lot is proposed; 100 feet is required). A rendering of the proposed new house is included in the application. (over) • _1_ Petition of CABOT STREET GROUP,LLC, seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 24 CABOT STREET, Salem, MA (Residential Two-Family Zone). • The petitioner has included property data cards from the Assessor's office to show the estimated age of the primary structure and carriage house, since in order to qualify for the Special Permit, the carriage house must have been built in 1900 or earlier. The property record card shows the carriage house dates back to 1870. Petition of LEE and MAUREEN DAVIS, seeking Variances from lot coverage and side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition onto the existing single-family home on the property located at 22 EDEN STREET, Salem, MA (R-1). For the proposed addition, the petitioner requests relief from lot coverage (42%is proposed, 30% maximum is allowed) and side yard setback (4'is proposed, 10'is required). New plans are included in the packet to replace those sent last month. A • -2- amorr CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR K y SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Q J TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 -,... FAx: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL - N MAYOR -O V - N April 28, 2010 w 0 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of LEE AND MAUREEN DAVIS, seeking Variances from lot coverage and side vard setback to allow for the construction of an addition onto the existing single-family home on the property located at 22 EDEN STREET, Salem, MA (Residential One-Family Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 14, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on April 14, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). • Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: I. The petitioners, Lee and Maureen Davis, represented themselves at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated February 23, 2010, petitioners requested dimensional Variances in order to construct an addition onto their single-family home. 3. After discussions with the Building Inspector about their plans, petitioners submitted revised plans, dated 4/5/10, to the Board of Appeals. At the hearing the Building Inspector stated that the original plans had more closely resembled a second unit than an addition, due to the placement of the entrances and exits, and that the newly reconfigured plans showed more clearly that a second unit was not proposed. 4. Petitioners submitted a Statement of Hardship with their application, stating that they wished to construct the addition so that Maureen's parents, the one of whom is disabled, could live there. 5. At the hearing, petitioners submitted to the Board a petition with 14 signatures • from neighbors supporting the project. G. At the hearing, Board members noted the large yard on the property and felt that a • sufficient amount of green space would be left on the property even after construction of the addition. 7. No member of the public spoke in opposition or support of the petition at the hearing. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: I. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant, due to the disability of Maureen Davis's mother. 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 dimensional relief requested is minimal, and the property would contain a reasonable amount of green space after construction of the addition. 3. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family Zoning District to construct the addition as proposed on the plans dated 4/5/10, 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: I. Variances are granted to allow for the proposed addition, as shown in the plans submitted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Dionne, Tsitsinos and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: l. 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. t 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 is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission havingjurisdiction including, but not limited, to the Planning Board. 8. The property is to remain a single-family residential use. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals • A COPY OP I I IIS DECISION IIAS BEEN FILED Willi l'IiE PLANNING BOARD AND Tlil:':CH Y CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be 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�,�O CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR • . - SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 D� FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL r' co MAYOR - �7 N April 28, 2010 Decision =- Iv w City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals C Petition of CHRISTOS AND ELENI LIRANTONAKIS requesting Variances from lot size and lot width/frontage in order to subdivide the existing property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE into two lots (Residential One-Family Zone). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 14, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on April 14, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning • Ordinances. Statements of fact: I. Attorney Scott Grover represented the petitioners at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated March 25, 2010, petitioner requested dimensional Variances in order to subdivide the property at 20 Maple Avenue into two (2) lots. 3. Current use of the property is a single-family home. Petitioners propose to construct a new single-family home on the newly created lot. A shed is also present on the property, which petitioners propose to remove. 4. At the hearing, Attorney Grover presented y p ted a locus map of the neighborhood and showed that the majority of properties in the vicinity were of the same size or smaller in area than petitioners propose the two newly created lots to be after subdividing them. 5. At the hearing, Attorney Grover explained that due to the large size and configuration of the buildings on the property, enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would create a hardship for the petitioners, since most of the land is unusable. • G. At the hearing, Councillor-at-Large Arthur Sargent I11, 8 Maple Street, spoke as an abutter and on behalf of the neighborhood, expressing support for the petition. He stated that the size of the lots to be created were in keeping with the • neighborhood. '7. At the hearing, Attorney Grover presented a petition signed by five neighbors in support of the proposal. S. At the hearing, Board members agreed that the proposed lot areas were consistent with the neighborhood. Board members also noted that the size of the house proposed was of an appropriate scale for the street, and that setback relief would not be required because the house would not be overly large. 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, since the lots being created would be of a size similar to or larger than most in the neighborhood, and the house proposed is of an appropriate scale compared to surrounding homes. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family Zoning District to subdivide the property into two lots and construct a new single- • family house, as shown in the plans submitted, 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. Variances are granted to subdivide the property into two lots and construct a new single-family house, as shown in the plans submitted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. • 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. i 3 • 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 havingjurisdiction including, but not limited, to the Planning Board. X"� Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN PILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND 1'Iir CITY CLERK • Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • I oA�eJ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n � 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR .� • y ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 -< o O TELEPHONE: 978-74$-959$ r- .... FAX: 978-740-9846 '^ _a KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL - N MAYOR -00 N April 28, 2010 CD Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MAUREEN BUCK requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of a roof deck over one unit, and the addition of two gable dormers and one shed dormer to the second unit on the two-family home at 11 CURTIS STREET (Residential Two-Family Zone). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 14, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on April 14, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Rebecca Curran, Beth Debski, Bonnie Belair (alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). • Petitioner seeks a Variance pursuant to Section 4.0 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: I. Daniel Skolski, project architect, presented the petition at the hearing. Petitioner was also present. 2. In a petition dated March 23, 2010, petitioner requested a Variance to allow for the addition of a shed dormer and two gabled dormers on her two-family home. The petition and plans also proposed the removal of a gabled roof and its replacement with a flat roof with a roof deck. I. No member of the public spoke in opposition or support of the petition at the hearing. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel or building, which do not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district, • and literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would involve Substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant, since the lot is very small and there are limited means of expanding indoor space. 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, since the proposed changes to the house are minimal. 3. 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. 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. A Variance is granted to construct the proposed addition, as shown in the plans submitted. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Curran, Debski, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: • 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure. 6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission havingjurisdiction 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 3 • the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent(50%)of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN PILED WI H"rHI_:PLANNING BOARD AND rHB CI"rY CLERK Appeal fiom 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 • "/g� "` BOARD OF APPEAL s \ � ti L A 120 WestuNGTON STREET SALFM MAssgcnussr[s 01970 nLE:978-619-5685♦ FAX:978-740-0404 KMBERLEY DRTscOTL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,April 14,2010 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: LEE AND MAUREEN DAVIS Location: 22 EDEN ST, Salem,MA (Rl) Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from lot coverage and side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition onto the existing single-family home. Decision: Approved—filed with City Clerk on April 29,2010 • Petition of: MAUREEN BUCK Location: 11 CURTIS STREET (R-2) Request: Variance Description: Variance sought from number of stories to allow for the construction of a roof deck over one unit, and the addition of two gable dormers and one shed dormer to the second unit on the existing two-family home. Decision: Approved— filed with City Clerk on April 29,2010 Petition of: CHRISTOS AND ELENI LIRANTONAKIS Location: 20 MAPLE AVENUE (R-1) Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from lot size and lot width/frontage in order to subdivide the existing property into two lots. Decision: Approved—filed with City Clerk on April 29,2010 This notice is being.cent in comph'ance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A,Sections 9&15 and does not require action by the recipient Appeals, if any,shall be madepursuant 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 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,April 14, 2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 in the third floor conference room(314) at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair),Becky Curran,Beth Debski,Rick Dionne,Bonnie Belair(alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Those absent were: Annie Harris Also present were: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner. Stein opens the rrmting at 6:30 p.m Approval of Minutes The minutes of March 1, 2010 are reviewed. There being no comments,Debski moves to approve them, seconded by Curran and approved 4-0. The minutes of March 17,2010 are reviewed. There being no comments,Debski moves to approve them,seconded by Stein and approved 4-0. • Petition of MAUREEN BUCK requesting a Variance from number of stories to allow for the construction of a roof deck over one unit,and the addition of two gable dormers and one shed dormer to the second unit on the two-family home at 11 CURTIS STREET (Residential Two-Family Zone). Dan Skolski, architect for 11 Curtis St.,presents the petition. He explains they are proposing to add roof dormers to increase attic space. Stein asks St. Pierre for his opinion on the relief needed for the roof deck. St. Pierre says that once removed,they do need to ask relief for the third story. Belair asks about the interior configuration of the addition. Skolski refers to sheet A3 of the plans and explains the interior- a home office, sewing room, and bathroom are planned for the attic space. Stein reads aloud the statement of hardship. Stein opens the public onri t portion of the hearing no one is here to speak;she loses the public mnvrent P Stein asks St. Pierre if it's a variance needed, or a Special Permit. St. Pierre explains that in the old zoning, a variance from number of stories was required, not just a Special Permit to • increase nonconformity. Curran asks about their hardship- how big is the lot? Dionne notes that the lot is 2600 SF 1 • Stein: it's a minimal dimensional variance,the neighbors don't object, it's appropriate, and it's not going outside the footprint of the house. Skolski: again,we're not getting taller. Curran: I also think it's minimal, and I don't think they have any other option to expand. Stein: this won't be a detriment to neighborhood. Dionne moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions,seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Belair,Debski, Curran, Stein and Dionne in favor, none opposed). Petition of CHRISTOS AND ELENI LIRANTONAKIS requesting Variances from lot size and lot width/frontage in order to subdivide the existing property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE into two lots (Residential One-Family Zone). Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition. He introduces the owner and his daughters, who are present. He explains this was once known as 18 Maple Ave., but because of assessor changes,it's now 20 Maple Ave. He indicates the property on a locus plan. He explains the owner resides there in his single family house. The property consists of three legal lots,it was subdivided in late 1800s, at some point it was held in common ownership, and now the lots have merged for zoning purposes into a single lot and has been used as a • single lot for many years. The owner now would like to divide the lot into two separate, buildable lots. He indicates lots A and B on the plot plan. They are proposing to remove the garage and split the lot exactly in two. Each lot would be just over 7000 SF. In order to do this,they need two areas of relief: lot area (this is Rl,minimum 15K SF) and frontage/lot width requirement,which is 100 SF. Arty Grover shows a rendering of the single family house the owner wants to build on lot B. He says there is no dimensional relief required other than what he mentioned. To give the Board a sense of how this fits into neighborhood, he shows the assessor plate and indicates the size of the neighboring lots; every lot he put a check mark on is smaller than the proposed new lots he proposes to create. He says it's in keeping with the character of neighborhood. Many surrounding properties are checked. He says this lot is almost 3 times as large as most of the surrounding properties. He says it has unique characteristics that qualify it for the variance requested. He says the hardship is that this is a large piece of land for neighborhood, a large part of it is unusable - the house is in one comer, and the rest of the yard is unusable. The owner,Mr. Lirantonakis, wants to make a separate building lot to be used by his daughter. Belair asks if the house will have a garage or driveway;the owner says it will have a driveway. He says there will be parking,indicates the location of two parking spaces on the plan. Belair says people in neighborhood might object if street parking is increased. Mr. Lirantonakis says the neighbors support the project. Atty Grover hands the Board a • petition showing the support of 5 neighbors,and notes that the parking complies with zoning. 2 • Stein opera the public w mpnt portion('the hearing Councillor Arthur Sargeant, 8 Maple Ave. says he is a direct abutter and secondary abutter- he owns two properties in neighborhood. He came to strongly support the petition. He knows the lot and the neighborhood very well,and this is a case where there are typically 5000 SF lots on street, they'll have 7000 SF lots and that's in keeping with the neighborhood. He says there is no opposition, and strong support in neighborhood. He says this family will get to stay neighbors. There is already a house there, and that was a shack and Chris did a tremendous job fixing it up. He says petitioners often make claims, but this family has been great neighbors and friends to street and have earned the support for this. There being m f nther conrwz, Stein doses the public m mor portion q'the baznng Curran says the size is in keeping with neighborhood,she just wonders about the hardship statement and asks Arty Grover to articulate what the hardship is again. Arty Grover says it's the size of the lot itself- it's three times the size of any lot around it but can only be used for one dwelling. He says the hardship isn't related to the Rl district as a whole, but this neighborhood in particular- this lot just doesn't fit with rest of it. Stein says the thing about the project that pleases me is they are not asking for setback relief -they are proposing a reasonable-sized house, set back appropriately,not a huge house. The scale is appropriate. Tsitsinos agrees and says it will be a good project. • Debski moves to approve the petition with seven (7) standard conditions,seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Belair,Debski, Curran, Stein and Dionne in favor, none opposed). Petition of CABOT STREET GROUP,LLC, seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 24 CABOT STREET, Salem,MA (Residential Two-Family Zone). Dw,vr nurses himself because he is a direct abutter and sits in the audience Attorney James Mears presents the petition. Mr. Bates,the owner,is also present. Arty Mears explains the history of property. Prior to current ownership of this property, a prior owner impermissibly used the carnage house for two units. He says his client has come in and corrected a number of violations including replacing defective stairs and removing the improper use in the carnage house. No exterior changes are proposed. He says the parking spaces are not yet designated for particular units, but the spaces are there. Debski asks St. Pierre to comment on the parking plan. Space numbers 4 and 5, and then 1 and 2 look problematic - there appears to be no setback or anything. St. Pierre says two of those spaces are in a garage. Stein says it's just 4 and 5 she has questions about. St. Pierre says those spaces aren't legal • because they are tandem spaces. 3 • Mears: if we need to move one of the spaces,we could move space 5. I thought tandem spaces were legal. Debski notes the width of space #6- is it 16 feet across? Stein says 9 jogs in a little,so it's probably more like 12 feet. She asks St. Pierre what the width of driveway has to be. St. Pierre checks the zoning ordinance,and says he generally uses 9 feet with a 2 foot buffer to neighbors. 9 feet is workable. Debski: is there fire access to the carriage house? St. Pierre: they would have to run a hose down,they can't bring a truck off the street. Curran: if theyproposed this with one less space,would that require a variance? St. Pierre says yes,they'd be one short. Stein: do they need 6 spaces since there's already an existing residence that didn't have parking requirements? Or just enough for the new use? St. Pierre: I'd say they're asking for something new,so we'd look at the site. This property petitioned the board in the 80's for the third unit,so there should have been parking there then. Curran: in the 2 car garage, it looks like a single entrance door- would that change? Mears: we hadn't planned to make exterior changes, but we can widen that drive. Stein: I have no problem with carriage house being used that way, but we are concerned that this should be usable parking. Curran: if you request less parking than required,you'd need a variance. St. Pierre: based on the assessor photo, it looks like the garage door could be altered. How • do you want to treat the parking,do you want to ask for relief? Mears: we would like to request relief from the additional parking space and get rid of#5. Stein says this makes everything else more usable,though still tight. Stein opens the public m vvit portion grthe hearing Richard Dionne, 23 Gardner St., speaking as an abutter, says right now there's a van parked in the 4`h spot- he can't see where they have any parking. As far as putting cars in the garage,they wouldn't be able to fit 2. Stein says we would condition that they had to put in a 2 car garage. Dionne says this was once a 2 family,then got a variance for a 3 family,then the carnage house became an illegal 2 family. Will this be maintained as rental, or sold as condos? He says it's too dense from Cabot St. from Hancock up,where there are 1 and 2 family homes, primarily, but no 4 units. On Gardner St.,there's not enough parking. He isn't convinced parking areas will be used. The carriage house does need repair, but he thinks it's too dense for neighborhood. Belair: will these be condos or apartments? Mears: the plan is condos. The point of the plan is to preserve the carriage house. The • carriage house has been improperly used and left in disrepair,they prefer to use both buildings. They want to provide parking to keep residents off the street. They acquired a property that clearly was in violation- building and zoning- and they are interested in 4 preserving the historical site and improving the neighborhood. The history was renters who didn't take care of properties. The new owner wants to provide more permanent residency with owners rather than renters. Mr. Bates says the van that was parked there is now gone, and only one unit is occupied on the fast floor. We'll happily widen the garage space. The surveyer said there would be enough room for cars. There being no furtber mrrarerrts, Stein doses the public ow ern portion of bbe bwnng. Stein: I'm concerned about the tightness of the site and parking, but 1 don't have an issue with the petition. Debski: where would snow go? I'm really concerned about space 6,how would someone get around that? Curran: Have you considered putting parking in the carriage space? Stein: You have 4 legitimate spaces on the site, and I don't see where 5`h and 6 h spaces would come from. Curran: this seems more suited for proper maneuvering to 3 spaces. Stein: 4 would work- this has been complicated by the property's history and the density has increased already. Belair: we granted relief for carriage house recently, and I like to be consistent. Stein: but that had parking. Curran: Space 3 - you have to back around the corner- that's very difficult. • St. Pierre:would you consider continuing and working on the parking? Stein: it's worth an effort. Arty Mears agrees to continue. Curran move to continue the hearing to May 19, seconded by Debski and approved 5-0. Petition of LEE and MAUREEN DAVIS, seeking Variances from lot coverage and side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition onto the existing single- family home on the property located at 22 EDEN STREET, Salem,MA(Residential One-Family Zone). Mr. Davis introduces his father in law,John Walsh,who will be moving in with them, and also introduces the builder. Lee explains the 2-story addition would consist of a 2-car garage which would allow them to keep 4 car parking. There is storage and upstairs a large family room, bedroom, bathroom, laundry room,wet bar,and entrance from the kitchen. McKnight explains board has received revised plans in their packets since the original submittal. Belair:you're not adding a kitchen? Walsh: no. St. Pierre: they reconfigured entrances and exits because that was a concern- they were separate before. Stein asks about the 4 parking spaces, does someone have to move car to leave? St. Pierre: Yes, but they're only required to have 2 spaces. • Curran: 46 is the dimension of the addition? What's existing? Lee: 21X42. 5 • Stein: The yard is very large. I like to see lots continue to have green space. Stein opera public mrmrent portion;no one u here to cmwrrr,dose public mrrarent pomon. Ms. Davis gives the Board a petition with signatures from supporting neighbors. St. Pierre says he spoke to petitioner last year, and encouraged them to talk to neighbors, which they clearly did. Ms. Davis says her next door neighbor is in Iraq and those who live there rent, but they tried to get in touch with the owner. Curran asks if they can we condition that no kitchen be installed? St. Pierre says they can't dictate the interior, but they can condition that it remain a single family house. Stein: I just want to be careful not to cut it into 2 units. St. Pierre: our concem last month was that it looked like a second unit, so we talked and they reconfigured it,which is why they continued. Lee: our house is the smallest in the neighborhood. He passes around new statement of hardship. Stein: I think the statement of hardship is appropriate, and minimal dimensional relief is requested. • Curran moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions and one (1) special condition: the property is to remain a single family residential use, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0 (Belair, Curran, Stein,Dionne, Tsitsmos in favor,none opposed). Dionne moves to close hearing, seconded by Stein and approved 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:35. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner 6 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date (z / 16 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 9T9� �7� `71L� . /�P1 TAww? 6i �c.,carT. Grp cenB�ckf ��ardl3ulloc,�_ 11 Gi/✓�T S� � 7�-7-f1-17�'Z (luck©e�✓t� l �� ose lr d l Lt/r./�e�i�� ?BI-?,g?Ad25,�TL . „fie k''rS /�1./NLd/i�S r�`�� N c N ra r t f 14APt-aftt1, -7 5z/4 ` .ScoTTCtr,tia., /S 78'7ys- &Oi N s 8L SN,� ,+s-zj LPL • Page-(Page—L of t1NDf'�A�, CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSE7TS s" BOARD OF APPEAL d 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAta-IUSETIS 01970 N[St7��N� TELE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740.9846 KIMBERLEY DRtscoLL '- MAYOR c a O REVISED MEETING NOTICE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING March 17, 2010- 7:30 P.M. (NOT 6:30 AS ORIGINALLY POSTER_J 3an FLOOR,ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET N SALEM,MA w sdttZ' /,&Mk o Robin Stein,Chair AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes -March 1,2010 meeting. 2. Old/New Business - Request of PAUL FERRAGAMO(represented by Attorney George Atkins) to extend the Variances granted for the property located at 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE for six(6) months to November 3, •- 2010. 3. Petition of MICHAEL SHEA(represented by Attomey George Atkins),seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 31 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH,Salem,MA(R 2). 4. Petition of 315-317 ESSEX STREET SALEM LLC(represented by Attorney George Atkins),seeking a Special Permit to change the current nonconforming uses in the building(13-room lodging house and office space) to another nonconforming use (six two-bedroom residential units),and seeking a Variance from height (number of stories) to construct two dormers on the propertylocated at 315-317 ESSEX STREET,Salem,MA(R-2). 5. Petition of MAUREEN GOODRICH seeking Variances from minimum lot area,side yard setback and frontage on 60 PROCTOR STREET,in order to move the propertyline between 60 PROCTOR STREET and 58 PROCTOR STREET,Salem,MA(R-1). No construction is proposed. 6. Petition of LEE and MAUREEN DAVIS,seeking Variances from lot coverage and side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition onto the existing single-family home on the property located at 22 EDEN STREET,Salem, MA(R-1). 7. Petition of DIONISIO and 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 single-family house on the property located at 12 WILLSON STREET,Salem,MA(B1) to a two-family house, and to allow for the addition of an emergencye.Yit at the rear or the house. • 8. Adjournment F``{))Yfi 7711 +`1�1" ' �?�" `i C11 '[ofilCi�o vo.o. 4 � 'ao/Q Pl�1y t,I,,5 � 19Y1;� a1 ".:�: a'',�"o With ;c lmR QTY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET S BOARD OF APPEAL j j �S : ' NV n $4 120 WASHINGTONSTREET♦SALIM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEtE:978-745-9595 + FAx:978-740-9846 KIMRERLEY DRISGOLL MAYOR m AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING March 17, 2010 - 6:30 P.M. = 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET= ,, SALEM,MA O Robin Stein, Chair n IV 1. Approval of Minutes - March 1, 2010 meeting. 2. Old/New Business - Request of PAUL FERRAGAMO (represented by Attorney George Atkins) to extend the Variances granted for the property located at 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE for six (6) months to November 3, 2010. .- 3. Petition of MICHAEL SHEA(represented by Attorney George Atkins), seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 31 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH, Salem,MA(R-2). 4. Petition of 315-317 ESSEX STREET SALEM LLC (represented by Attorney George Atkins), seeking a Special Permit to change the current nonconforming uses in the building (13-room lodging house and office space) to another nonconforming use (six two-bedroom residential units), and seeking a Variance from height (number of stories) to construct two dormers on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA (R-2). 5. Petition of MAUREEN GOODRICH seeking Variances from minimum lot area, side yard setback and frontage on 60 PROCTOR STREET, in order to move the property line between 60 PROCTOR STREET and 58 PROCTOR STREET, Salem, MA (R-1). No construction is proposed. 6. Petition of LEE and MAUREEN DAVIS, seeking Variances from lot coverage and side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition onto the existing single-family home on the property located at 22 EDEN STREET, Salem,MA (R-1). 7. Petition of DIONISIO and 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 single-family house on the property located at 12 WILLSON STREET, Salem,MA(B1) to a two-family house, and to allow for the addition of an emergency exit at the rear or the house. 8. Adjournment Alt k i ii4.P 3"fltt", P`AZS h -`? -7lt-qrt. ll, o1U /0 yy Anpg A 0 fi•'1 f V•`.q F 1�., oF. l� P✓Y) t� tyyp!l�u.l�'!i.+a"�.�s.a nuo�'a �.._y�z 6w'� ,'�,.,.. e�,a 'w'wsii;�i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET"TS % t DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KI MB6.RLPY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,KV SSACHUSETIS 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: March 10, 2010 RE: Meeting Agenda—Match 17,2010 Board Members, • Please find the following in your packets: ➢ Planner's memo ➢ Meeting minutes of 3/1/10 ➢ Materials for new agenda items Danielle Old/New Business—Request of PAUL FERRAGAMO (represented by Attorney George Atkins) to extend the Variances granted for the property located at 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE for six (6) months to November 3, 2010. The Planning Board review of this petition took approximately six months to approve, due mostly to a long civil engineering peer review process during which the drainage system was completely redone. The property is also registered land,which has required additional work from the applicant. Without an extension, the Variances issued will expire in May 2010. Petition of MICHAEL SHEA(represented by Attorney George Atkins), seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 31 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH, Salem, MA (R-2). The petitioner proposes converting an existing 2-story historic carriage house to a one-unit dwelling. • Proposed exterior work is shown in the accompanying elevation plans and includes new doors and 4- windows. There is also an existing 3-unit apartment building on the property. The project is currently before the Historical Commission. Petition of 315-317 ESSEX STREET SALEM LLC (represented by Attorney George Atkins), seeking a Special Permit to change the current nonconforming uses in the building (13-room lodging house and office space) to another nonconforming use (six two-bedroom residential units), and seeking a Variance from height (number of stories) to construct two dormers on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA (R-2). The Board approved a petition to convert the first-floor office space on this property to three residential units in April 2009. That decision was appealed by abutters. The petitioner is back before the Board with a new proposal: converting the entire building (including the existing lodging house use on the second and third floors) into a total of six residential units (full apartments). Exterior work will involve the addition of two dormers, raising the number of stories from 2.5 to 3; this will require a Variance from height requirements (2.5 stories is the limit in the R-2 zone). Petition of MAUREEN GOODRICH seeking Variances from minimum lot area,side yard setback and frontage on 60 PROCTOR STREET,in order to move the property line between 60 PROCTOR STREET and 58 PROCTOR STREET,Salem,MA(R-1). No construction is proposed. 58 and 60 Proctor St. are owned by the petitioner, Maureen Goodrich and her brother, Brian Cohn. Years ago, their father had installed a parking area that straddled the property line between the two, so that today, part of the parking area used by Ms. Goodrich of 58 Proctor St. is actually located on the property of Mr. Cohn of 60 Proctor St. The applicant wishes to move the lot line 12 to 13 feet south so that her lot (#58) gains 1109 square feet from#60 and would include her parking area. Both Ms. • Goodrich and Mr. Cohn(who will be losing 1109 square feet)have signed the application. All the requested relief is for#60, which will be decreasing in size. The proposed alterations of the lots will require relief from lot area— while#58 gains 1109 square feet for a total area of 4101 SF, #60 loses 1109 SF for a total area of 4918 SF. Required area in the R-1 zone is 15,000 SF. Also required is relief from side yard setback (8.1 feet proposed, 10 feet required) and frontage/lot width (57 feet proposed, 100 required). Assuming the petitioner is granted the requested relief, she will be coming to the Planning Board for an ANR to move the lot line. Petition of LEE and MAUREEN DAVIS,seeking Variances from lot coverage and side yard setback to allow for the construction of an addition onto the existing single-family home on the property located at 22 EDEN STREET, Salem, MA (R-1). For the proposed addition, the petitioner requests relief from lot coverage (42%is proposed, 30% maximum is allowed) and side yard setback (4'is proposed, 10'is required). Petition of DIONISIO and 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 single-family house on the property located at 12 WILLSON STREET, Salem,MA (B1) to a two- family house, and to allow for the addition of an emergency exit at the rear or the house. The petitioner is returning after withdrawing this project without prejudice in October 2009 and is now represented by Attorney Steve Zolotas. The same relief is requested: side setback (127' proposed, 20' required), rear setback (22'10" proposed, 30' required), and lot area per dwelling unit (2,500 SF proposed, 3,500 SF required). • -2- �osnrr�.� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ���, BOARD OF APPEAL c' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR '♦ ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 • -TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 0o FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Z01� FI/tR 3 P3: f0 MAYOR March 31, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MICHAEL SHEA, seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to convert a historic carriage house into one (1) dwelling unit on the property located at 31 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH, Salem, MA (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 17, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on March 17, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Beth Debski. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.1.2 of the City of Salem Zoning • Ordinances. Statements of fact: 1. Attorney George Atkins represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. The property is owned by Judith Doering. Petitioner Michael Shea has the property under agreement to purchase. 3. The principal structure on the property at 31 Washington Square North is a three- family house. 4. In a petition dated February 23, 2010, petitioner requested a Special Permit to convert a historic carriage house into one (1) dwelling unit. 5. At the March 17, 2010 hearing, Attorney Atkins presented a petition with four abutters' signatures in support of the project. Also at the hearing, resident Martha Chayet, 26 Winter Street, and At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Avenue, spoke in support of the petition. No one spoke in opposition. 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. 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 provides sufficient parking, makes aesthetic improvements, and preserves a historic carriage house. Additionally, the Board finds that the neighborhood can sustain the density increase caused by the new unit. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to convert the historic carriage house into one (I) residential dwelling unit, 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. A Special Permit is granted to allow for the conversion of a historic carriage house to one (1) dwelling unit. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor(Stein, Debski, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a • Special Permit and a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: ' . I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. 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 number so as to be visible from the street. • 3 8. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission • having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 9. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent(50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OFT[I IS DECISION I[AS 13EEN 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 Perm t granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been tiled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • conolrA�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 973-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 200 MAR 3 1 0 3: 10 MAYOR CITY March 31, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of DIONISIO and 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 single-family house on the property located at 12 WILLSON STREET, Salem, MA (Bl) to a two-family house, and to allow for the addition of an emergency exit at the rear or the house. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 17, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on March 17, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Beth Debski. • Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: I. Attorney Stephen Zalotas represented the owners and petitioners, Dionisio and Reimer Cabrera. 2. In 1994, previous owner Cecile Berube obtained relief from the Board of Appeals and a Waiver of Frontage and endorsement of an Approval Not Required plan from the Planning Board in order to divide the property into two lots, 12 and 18 Willson Street. The Waiver of Frontage contained a condition that the property be used for "a residential use." 3. In 1996, the house at 12 Boston Street was moved to 12 Willson Street. 4. In a decision dated September 23, 1997, the Board of Appeals denied the request of then-owner Joseph Reither for an administrative ruling to overturn the Zoning Officer's finding that the legal use of the property was a for a single-family house. This finding was based on the language from the Waiver of Frontage requiring the property to be used for "a residential use." • 5. In 1997, Mr. Reither appealed the.Board's decision denying his petition; the Court asked the City of Salem to enter into mediation with him. While in mediation, the parties agreed that Mr. Reither would apply to the Board of Appeals for a Special Permit to allow the building to be used as a two-family house. • 6. In a decision dated November 25, 1998, the Board of Appeals denied an application of Joseph Reither for a Special Permit to allow the property to be used for a two-family dwelling. Mr. Reither appealed the decision. In 2000, the Massachusetts Appeals Court stated in its ruling that relief from the dimensional requirements of the B-1 zone had never been sought, and so while Mr. Reither was not entitled to use the property for a two-family house, as he argued, neither had the Board of Appeals expressly denied dimensional relief. 7. In the 2000 ruling, the court further noted that the use of the Planning Board's language, "a residential use," provided some support that the intent was to restrict the property to a single-family use. However, the court stated that this was "not dispositive," and that if the Planning Board had intended to make such a, restriction, its language ought to have been clearer. 8. In an application dated September 23, 2009, the current owner and petitioner, Reinier Cabrera, requested the dimensional relief that had never previously been sought for this property: relief from minimum rear and side yards and from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert the single-family house on 12 Willson Street to a two-family house and construct an emergency back stair. The petition was withdrawn without prejudice. 9. In an application dated February 24, 2010, petitioner again requested relief from • minimum rear and side yards and from minimum lot area per dwelling unit, in order to convert the single-family house on 12 Willson Street to a two-family house and construct an emergency back stair. 10. At the March 17, 2010 hearing for this petition, the applicant submitted a letter in support of the proposal from Mark and Heather Leclerc of 5 Horton St. and a petition signed by 60 neighbors in support of the proposal. Additionally, Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier submitted a supporting letter and spoke in favor of the petition, citing the large size of the house and adequacy of parking. 11. At the hearing, At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Avenue, spoke in opposition to the petition, since he felt the house and property were too small for a two-family use. The Board received a letter from At-Large Councillor Joan Lovely, 14 Story Street, in opposition, since she felt the petitioners could not show legal hardship, and since several neighbors who opposed the petition in the past were still opposed. Neighbors Stavros MoutsOnlas, 11 Willson Street, and Alma Pelletier, 3 Horton Street, also spoke in opposition, citing concerns about density and drainage. 12. At the hearing, Board members expressed concern that work had already begun, without building permits or Board relief, to convert the upstairs into a second unit. • 3 13. Some Board members also expressed the view that the petitioners could not claim • hardship if they knew the house was a single-family house when they purchased it: 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. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would not involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant. 2. The applicant may not vary the terms of the Business Neighborhood Zoning District to convert the single-family house at 12 Willson Street to a two-family house; the petition is not consistent with the.intent and purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. Variances from minimum side and rear yard setbacks, and minimum lot • area per dwelling unit, to allow for the conversion of the single-family house to a two-family house and for the construction of an emergency back stair, are not granted.. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, two (2) in favor (Stein and Dionne) and two (2) opposed (Debski and Belair), to grant petitioner's requests for Variances. The petition is denied. Robin Stein, Chair Salem 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. DNDIT� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL e 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3Ro FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS O 1970 ���� TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Doi FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL March 31, 2010 Z010 MIR 31 P 3: 11 MAYOR Decision CI Y City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of 315-317 ESSEX STREET SALEM LLC, seeking a Special Permit to change the current nonconforming uses in the building (13-room lodging house and office space) to another nonconforming use (six two-bedroom residential units), and seeking a Variance from height (number of stories) to construct two dormers on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA (R-2). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 17, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on March 17, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Beth Debski. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.3.2 and a Variance pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. Statements of fact: • 1. Attomey George Atkins represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. Stephen Morris is the owner of the property. Raymond Young, Manager of 315- 317 Essex Street Salem LLC, has the property under agreement to purchase. 3. The property at 315-317 Essex Street currently contains thirteen (13) licensed rooming house rooms on the second and third floors and office space on the first floor. Both uses are nonconforming uses in the R-2 zoning district. 4. In a decision dated April 17,2009, the Board granted petitioner's request for a Special Permit to convert the office space on the first floor to residential units (petitioner had requested five units; the Board granted the Special Permit for three). This decision was subsequently appealed and remains under appeal as of the writing of this decision. 5. In a petition dated February 26, 2010, petitioner requested a Special Permit to convert the entire building to six (6) residential units and a Variance for dimensional relief to construct dormers. 6. At the March 17, 2010 hearing, Attorney John Carr spoke in support of the petition, noting that he represented the abutters who had brought forward the appeal of the previous Special Permit. He stated that the abutters he represented had been working with Raymond Young, the property owner, and Attorney Atkins to work out an acceptable solution, and this petition was the result. He also stated his opinion that this project would be less detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use. Attorney Carr further stated that the appeal • would be withdrawn if the current petition passed. 7. Also at the March 17 hearing, Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier, 7 Lawrence Street, and resident Ted Richard, 10 Summer Street, spoke in support of the petition. No one spoke in opposition. 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 residential density would be reduced from its current level, the non-conforming commercial uses currently allowed would be replaced by residential only, and sufficient parking is provided. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to convert the lodging house and office space to six (6) residential units, and to construct the proposed dormers, all of 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: I. A Special Permit is granted to allow for the change in use from a lodging house and office space to six (6) residential units. 2. A Variance is granted to allow for the construction,of two dormers. 1n consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor(Stein, Debski, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a Special Permit and a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. Submitted plan is titled, • "315-317 Essex Street Condominium— Six 2 Bedroom Units," dated 3 2/10/10, and prepared by SDA/Schopf Design Associates, One Cambridge Street, Salem, MA 01970. 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 Planting Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of • its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. This decision takes precedence over any decisions previously granted by the Board of Appeals. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF TFIIS DECISION HAS 13EEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TILE 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 tiled with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. • oonTlr�„to CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 poN FAx: 978-740-9846 •KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Z010 I�1. 4 31 P 3: 10 MAYOR March 31, 2010 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of MAUREEN GOODRICH seeking Variances from minimum lot area, side yard setback and frontage on 60 PROCTOR STREET, in order to move the property line between 60 PROCTOR STREET and 58 PROCTOR STREET, Salem,MA (R-1). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 17, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on March 17, 2010 with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Robin Stein, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair, and Beth Debski. Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to Section 4.1.1 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • Statements of fact: t 1. The petitioner and owner of 58 Proctor Street, Maureen Goodrich, represented herself at the hearing. 2. 60 Proctor Street, the property in need of dimensional relief as a result of the proposal, is owned by Brian Cohn, who provided his written consent for the application. 3. 58 Proctor Street is the site of a single-family house, and 60 Proctor Street is the site of a garage with an apartment above it. 4. In a petition dated February 9, 2010, petitioner requested Variances from lot area, side yard setback, and frontage in order to move the lot line between 58 and 60 Proctor Street. No construction is proposed. 5. At the March 17, 2010 hearing, Tim Homan, speaking on behalf of Dorothy Flynn, 10 Looney Avenue, and the Shea family of 12 Looney Avenue, spoke in opposition to the request because of alleged building violations on the property at 60 Proctor Street. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public • hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: I. Special conditions and circumstances exist affecting the parcel, which do not generally affect other land in the same district, including a steep slope between 58 and 60 Proctor Street. 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 two lots are already nonconforming, and the petition involves no construction and would not allow any new construction by right. 3. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential One-Family Zoning District to change the placement of the lot line between 58 and 60 Proctor Street as shown on the submitted plans; the petition 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: I. Variances from lot area, side yard setback and frontage are granted to • allow for the movement of the lot line between 58 and 60 Proctor Street, as shown on the submitted plans. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor (Stein, Debski, Dionne and Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for a 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. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. A.t< , zbw.x Robin Stein, Chair Salem Board of Appeals A COPY OF TIIIS DECISION FIAS BEEN FILED WITH THE•PLANN INC,BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK • . 3 Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. • Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. i' • Q Y OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET TS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WAsHNGFoN STREET♦ SALEM,MASSAaMSETI'S 01970 AEfA7fN £�il^a.P., 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,March 17,2010 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: 315-317 ESSEX STREET SALEM LLC Location: 315-317 ESSEX STREET,Salem,MA(R2) Request: Special Permit and Variance Description: Special Permit sought to change the current nonconforming uses in the building (13-room lodging house and office space) to another nonconforming use (six two- bedroom residential units), and Variance sought from height (number of stories) to construct two dormers. Decision: Approved - filed with City Clerk on March 31,2010 Petition of: MAUREEN GOODRICH Location: 60 PROCTOR STREET and 58 PROCTOR STREET(R-1) Request: Variances Description: Variances sought from minimum lot area,side yard setback and frontage on 60 PROCTOR STREET,in order to move the property line between 60 PROCTOR STREET and 58 PROCTOR STREET Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on March 31,2010 Petition of: MICHAEL SHEA Location: 31 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH(R 2) Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit sought to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit Decision: Approved- filed with City Clerk on March 31,2010 Petition of: DIONISIO AND REINIER CABRERA Location: 12 WILLSON STREET(B1) 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 to a two- family house, and to allow for the addition of an emergency exit at the rear of the house. Decision: Denied- filed with City Clerk on March 31,2010 • This nice is being sem in con pliance Frith the Masadmetts Gereral Lazes, Chapter 40A, SeliOrb 9 Pr 15 and does not wire aaion by the 7wTier2 Appeals, if arty,shall be nu&pun uam to CAV ter 40A,Section 17,and sbuall be filed wthin 20 dads from$re date vbn the dew ion Baas filed with the City Clerk. City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, March 17, 2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 7:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein (Chair), Beth Debski, Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Rick Dionne. Those absent were: Annie Harris, Rebecca Curran, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner. Stein opens the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes Stein suggests that approval of the minutes of 3/1/10 be postponed to the next month's meeting, since not enough members are present from the last meeting to vote. • Stein announces that since there are only four members in attendance tonight, any petition would need a unanimous vote to pass, so if any applicant wished to continue to the next meeting, they could do so. No applicants indicate that they wished to continue. Stein mentions that April 21, the date of the next scheduled meeting, is a difficult week for some; the other members agree that this meeting date should be moved to April 14. McKnight says she will check with the other members and post a change notice. McKnight also announces that the 22 Eden St. petition can't go forward tonight, since not enough members who are eligible to vote on the item are present. Stein says this will be heard at April's meeting. Old/New Business—Request of PAUL FERRAGAMO (represented by Attorney George Atkins) to extend the Variances granted for the property located at 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE for six (6) months to November 3, 2010. Atty George Atkins, representing the applicant, says the Planning Board approval of this project was just received in February, so he is asking for 6 month extension for acting on the Variances previously granted. Stein asks the Board if they have any questions; there are none. Debski moves to grant the requested extension of the Variances to November 3, 2010, seconded by Dionne and unanimously approved. Petition of MICHAEL SHEA (represented by Attorney George Atkins), seeking a Special Permit under Section 3.1.2 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to convert a historic carriage house into one dwelling unit on the property located at 31 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH, Salem, MA (R-2). 1 • Any George Atkins presents the petition on behalf of Mr. Shea. He says Shea has an agreement with the current owner to purchase the principal dwelling and historic carriage house at the rear of the dwelling; the sale is conditioned, among other things, on relief requested from this Board. He introduces Richard Griffin, the architect who designed the changes, and Mr. Shea. Any Atkins says the carriage house has deteriorated, and the proposal is to make it a single family home. He says the lot is large and there is parking provided for carriage house and principal dwelling. He says abutters have asked if there will be any subdivision of the property; there will not, it will remain as shown on the plot plan. He says if there were any effort to subdivide, the petitioner would need to come back to the ZBA, and also would have to come to Planning Board. He says the project has been before the Historical Commission and they have approved it—he shows the Board his Certificate of Non-Applicability letter. Concerns of the Historical Commission included the clock on current building, which currently does not work. They have agreed to maintain the clock, but they may not be able to make it operational. Also, he says some neighbors wanted wooden shutters on both buildings—the shutters have been stored in the carriage house. He says Mr. Shea has obtained signatures from abutters with regard to proposal, and shares these with the Board. Stein asks if the Board has any questions. Atty Atkins adds that of the exterior changes proposed, none change the footprint. . Stein states the petition Atty Atkins gave her has signatures from four abutters in support of the project. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. At-large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Ave., speaks in favor of the petition. Martha Chayet, 26 Winter Street, has a question about the lot— right now it's a 3 family, and this would now be four units. She asks if the remaining land could change its use without coming to the Board? As part of his application, would Mr. Shea be willing to say this property would be limited to 4 units? Stein: there's nothing in our zoning right now to allow them to increase number of units by right beyond four on this lot. Any other use would have to come back for review. St. Pierre adds that this is a carriage house special permit under the old definition, even though it didn't carry through in the recodified document. The old zoning specifically said the carriage house could not be separated from main lot. Stein: The minimum lot area requirement in this zone is 15,000, so they could not further increase the number of units without relief. Atkins points out that you can only have one use on the lot. 2 Chayet asks what exactly the current use is. Stein says the current use is a 3 family house. Chayet asks if there could be any other use on this land, such as boat storage, etc. St. Pierre: There are city ordinances regarding the storage of recreational vehicles. The owner can use it for what's allowed currently. Any boats have to be registered to someone living there. Anything that's lawful under zoning, it can be used for. As Robin says, this can only be used residentially. Any new parking has to be auxiliary to the residences. Chayet says she loves the fact that the property will get attention, and it's a great plan. She is supportive of the project. There being no further comment from the public, Stein closes public comment portion. Belair: Was this before us before for any other relief previously? Atkins is unsure, but does not think there has been any decision issued since 1969. Belair: No, I recall more recently that someone was going to do work on the main house and live there temporarily. Stein: There was another project like that, but a different property. Atkins: I didn't see anything else in the files. . Stein says the reason we allow this is to preserve carriage houses. She thinks it's a good plan, a good project, and consistent with the zoning bylaw. She says it's not putting more cars on street, and for all these reasons, it's not more detrimental to neighborhood. She says it's a good sized lot, and the neighborhood can sustain the density. Debski says it's a great plan, the Board is familiar with the applicant's other work on Boston and Essex Streets, and these are also great projects. There being no further public comments, Stein closes the public comment portion. Belair moves to approve the petition with nine (9) standard conditions, seconded by Stein, and passed 4-0 (Stein, Belair, Debski and Dionne in favor, none opposed). Petition of 315-317 ESSEX STREET SALEM LLC (represented by Attorney George Atkins), seeking a Special Permit to change the current nonconforming uses in the building (13-room lodging house and office space) to another nonconforming use (six two-bedroom residential units), and seeking a Variance from height (number of stories) to construct two dormers on the property located at 315-317 ESSEX STREET, Salem, MA (R-2). Arty Atkins says this property has been before the Board more than once. He represents • Raymond Young, manager of an LLC that has this property under agreement. According to the agreement, the sale is dependent on the decision of Board. The building was once known as Gainsborough Studios, and there were a number of commercial uses on the first 3 • floor. Upstairs was a 13 room lodging house. He says he came before the Board in April of 2008 to change the use on the first floor from a photography studio to offices. Within a Year he says the owner couldn't find tenants so they came back in 2009 and requested to change the office to four units on the first floor. The Board reduced the number to 3 and granted the petition. Atty Atkins says in those cases, the lodging house was upstairs. That decision was appealed by abutters. He says they have reached what they think is an agreement to resolve all of that. The petition tonight is to use the 3 floors for 6 residential condominium units. He says if the Board grants this.approval, the current occupants would be out of the building, the owner would return his lodging license to the city, and building would be renovated as shown on plans. He says the project's architect could not be here, but they do have an approval from the Historical Commission; he passes out copies to the Board. He says the Historical Commission approved the project with minor matters, listed in the approval, which they need to come back with. Arty Atkins says on the second page of plans, 10 parking spaces are shown, and the requirement is for 9. There will be brick pavers on either side, 6 inch granite curbs, a landscape buffer to the rear and west, and another from the parking area to the building, and decorative fencing and landscaping to the east. The entry will be a replica of a historic entryway typical of this district. He also added that the window detail and right entryway will be historically accurate. He says that eventually, if they get the Board's approval, a reconstruction would take place, there will be no more lodging house, no more commercial uses, and the building will be more in keeping with the R2 neighborhood. He says there will be no change to the footprint of the building at all,just the facade and dormers, which the building inspector determined give the building a full story, not half. Debski asks if access to parking is impacted; Young says no. The Board has no further questions. Stein opens the issue up for public comment. John Carr, 9 North St., says he is here on behalf of several neighbors—all plaintiffs who appealed the last Special Permit which would have allowed apartments on the first floor. He says they have been working with Mr. Young and Mr. Atkins, and this has resulted in the application now before the Board. He says the appellants will withdraw the appeal if this is passed. He says this is would be converting one nonconforming use to a new, less detrimental use. He notes that they also support the requested Variance. He says they have a technical conflict of interest—Morris Schopf, an appellant, is also the architect for the new petition. Mr. Carr says this is a clear conflict, but the best thing for the property. Ted Richard, 10 Summer St., speaks in support of the petition. Councillor Jean Pelletier, Ward 3, says he supported the last petitioner with great reservations, but wants to thank Mr. Young for bringing this forward—it is a much better project for neighborhood. 4 • There being no further public comments, Stein closes the public comment portion of the hearing. Belair: I've been strongly opposed to previous petitions because I felt they were too dense. I still think this is too dense, but this is attractive, and actually will improve the neighborhood and provide enough parking, so taking everything into consideration, I'm changing mind and considering it. Debski: I liked last petition, but this is much better for the neighborhood, and it will be nice to see the building all residential. I love the front. Dionne: I'm familiar with Mr. Young's work— it's very good, I definitely support the petition. This will fit into the neighborhood. Stein says it's consistent with the neighborhood and zoning bylaws. She asks Atkins for clarification — if the request here is to go from office to the new proposed use—what does this do to the permit that's out there, under appeal? Atkins says this would take precedence over the previous special permits, and therefore would be the controlling set of plans and decisions. Stein says she is going to put language to that effect in the decision so that they won't need to comeback hereto clean anything up. She just wants to be sure there are no alternatives to the plan they are approving tonight. • Debski moves to approve the petition with eight (8) standard conditions, seconded by Stein, and approved 4-0 (Debski, Stein, Dionne and Belair in favor, none opposed). Petition of MAUREEN GOODRICH seeking Variances from minimum lot area, side yard setback and frontage on 60 PROCTOR STREET, in order to move the property line between 60 PROCTOR STREET and 58 PROCTOR STREET, Salem, MA (R-1). No construction is proposed. Maureen Goodrich presents her petition. She says her brother owns the lot next door. She says she and her brother want to change the property line, moving it closer to 60 Proctor St. —the driveway has been there for many years. At one time both lots were her father's. She says she is not doing any construction. Stein says the issue is that his lot is going to get smaller and will have a setback issue. 58 Proctor won't have any problems. 60 needs the relief. Belair notes that the lot is already nonconforming. Dionne notes the two properties and the buildings on them have been there a long time. The Board has no further questions. 1 Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Tim Homan, speaking on behalf of Dorothy Flynn, 10 Looney Ave., speaks in opposition to the project. He says the Sheas of 12 Looney Ave. were also going to be there but were unable to because of tonight's meeting time change. 5 . He says he is opposed to any variance that would allow any change in lot size. He says the current boundary doesn't prevent Goodrich from selling her property. He says she wants to maximize her property value. He calls the structure at#60, which Goodrich's father put up, a "monstrosity." He shows picture of this structure, with a living unit above a garage. He says it has a basement unit which is currently occupied, he assumes by renters, and there is a note on the sketch that it's not to be rented because of water damage. Stein: I have a feeling you have issues with property, but how does changing the lot line change anything? Homan: Because the lot line allowed it built in the first place, and we want to go back. Now, she wants to sell the property and maximize her value. Dorothy's value (of 10 Looney) was diminished. Stein: Ms. Goodrich has a right to sell her property. Debski indicates the plans and asks if this area is open, and what is behind the parking? Goodrich says it's grass, a yard. Debski asks if she could put cars in her backyard. Goodrich says she doesn't think so, there's a wall and patio. Stein: all you really need is this rectangle, you don't need whole lot line? Belair: it's still a minor change, that lot is 800 square feet less anyway. Stein asks if the structure at#60 needed relief to be built; St Pierre says yes, it got relief. Stein says the argument has been made that it could have been built differently—but relief was granted for this. Goodrich says she's not doing this just to increase the property's value. Belair: You have every right to sell your property. Stein notes the natural topography of the land, and how steeply it slopes down. St Pierre says he is troubled by the info brought forward about #60, but this is an inopportune time to bring it up. He would investigate a complaint of a violation at any time. Homan says there's a violation. Stein: You need to follow up with Tom St. Pierre on violations. What's before us is a minimal change, it won't change anything on the ground. St. Pierre and Stein both confirm that one could not build anything more as of right in the setback without relief. Debski notes that it's minimal relief is being requested. Stein agrees that it's minimal, says the topography of the property supports it, given the grade sloping down, and the location of the retaining wall seems like the natural property line anyway. She does not have a problem granting the petition. 6 • Belair says both lots are nonconforming, and they would need to come back for anything new anyway. She also doesn't have problem with the petition. Stein says she understands there may be other issues with the property at#60, but these are issues for St. Pierre to follow up on and are not relevant to what's before the Board. Dionne moves to approve with three (3) standard conditions, per the plans submitted, seconded by Stein, and approved 4-0 (Stein, Dionne, Belair and Debski in favor, none opposed). Petition of DIONISIO and 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 single-family house on the property located at 12 WILLSON STREET, Salem, MA (B1) to a two-family house, and to allow for the addition of an emergency exit at the rear or the house. Attorney Steven Zalotas represents the petitioners. He says this project was before the Board in November 2009, and was withdrawn without prejudice. He says they want to construct a second means of egress from second floor down to a parking area behind the building—this would allow any potential new tenants from the upstairs second unit to exit—with the Board's approval for second unit. He says this is a unique property; it was • moved from 12 Boston St. to 12 Willson St. At that time, variances were granted by this Board. He says they're proposing that there is a substantial hardship for the Cabreras and other potential future owners—it's a large building, with 2 large floors with full basement. In order to properly maintain the building, he says it requires a second unit. There is currently no second unit income coming in. Also, he says this is any different from many houses in this neighborhood—there are four other 2-family homes, all on the same or smaller lot sizes as the Cabrera's home. He says there are also other single family homes, many of whom have signed a petition in favor of the proposal, and presents it to the Board. He says it's signed by 60 of neighbors in the immediate neighborhood that agree with this petition and have no problem with it. Several are on Willson St., some on Horton, abutting the back side of property. He says a resident of 5 Horton couldn't be here, but he has a letter from the resident, which Atty Zalotas gives to Board. He explains the dimensional relief required for the back stair. Arty Zalotas says the petition requests relief according to the residential dimensions required by R3, since it's a residence in the B1 zone. He says according to St. Pierre, the intent of the zoning is to make any residential property in B 1,which this is in, comply with R3 zoning regs. He says that next to the Cabreras' home, there is a day care and an auto body shop. He says there are many businesses typical of the B1 zone nearby, bars, etc., and that this wouldn't change the look of the neighborhood. Debski: you mentioned the second unit is in place? Zalotas says it is. Debski asks what is in it. 7 it • Zalotas says there is a bathroom, which looks several years old, and also there before the Cabreras owned it, is a kitchen — originally this was a laundry facility, countertop and cabinets. He says the Cabreras have refinished and upgraded the cabinets, changed the sink, and when they upgraded the downstairs appliances, they brought the old ones upstairs. He apologizes that this work was done without permits. He says the Cabreras didn't know they were needed. He says they are willing to have inspectors come in and to pull the permits. Debski asks when this work was done; Zalotas says in November. Debski: So they lied to us when they came in in November about there being a second unit. They need more than permits—they need permission to put in a second unit. I don't appreciate you coming back asking for relief after the fact. I think you're wasting everyone's time being here. I'm very opposed. Zalotas says the appliances were brought in after November's meeting. Debski says they didn't have permission to do that. Stein asks St. Pierre if this is a full unit. St. Pierre says he has not been in the building yet. Stein says there is currently only one egress. Also, she is still struggling with the R3/B 1 issue. St. Pierre explains that the zoning for residential in Bl was worded subject to R3 restrictions. But the recodified document isn't clear on that. It's on the list of zoning items to be corrected since the re-codification. • Stein says that density-wise, in R3, you could have 2 units if you had a 7000 SF lot. She says this is not a use issue, but a density one. Dionne notes the dimensions and says it's not exactly a large house. Zalotas says he brings up the size because several other houses in the neighborhood are almost identical. Belair asks what the hardship is. Zalotas says as the house exists right now, the Cabreras have no way of using the second floor, the property will be struggling financially with no upstairs tenant, and they'll have difficulty making payments on the house. Belair: From my perspective, that doesn't meet the standard for hardship—they knew what they were buying—a single-family house. Zalotas cites Joseph v. Brookline in support of his hardship argument. Stein says that generally speaking, she doesn't have a problem with the dimensional relief — but she can sympathize with members of the board who feel they were misled. Zalotas says the Cabreras didn't mean to mislead the Board. Debski says their withdrawal was done with the Board's recommendation—they consulted with St. Pierre, they knew about the conditions on their property. She says she can't support the request. Zalotas says the written condition in the Planning Board decision at the time the house was moved was "a residential use"—the SJC interpreted that to mean single family— only with records of the court's decision could the Cabreras have known it restricted to a one family. • Dionne: so they thought they were buying a 2 family? Zalotas: Bl zoning was what they thought the use was for. 8 Stein opens the issue up for public comment. Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier says he was around when the house was moved—the house had wiring on the first and second floors because it was used for a business on Boston St. He says in reading the court's decision, there is some evidence that "a residential use"was not clear, and that ZBA should have restricted it to a one-family in their decision; though this language was "not dispositive." He said the Board could decide tonight what should be done. He says the old language referred to the use as a business versus residential, not a single or 2 family. He supports the petition. Board members ask for records from the previous Planning Board and ZBA decisions; McKnight leaves the room to get them and returns. Stein: The appeals court says there's nothing in the decision that says it CAN'T be more than one family, but they still need to come in for the relief. The court has interpreted that we have not, to this date, limited the use to a single family, and also says the owner is not entitled to use as a two-family. If a two-family house is allowed and can get proper relief, they can do it. I'm going with the court's decision—that they're subject to all present dimensional requirements—if they don't meet them, they need relief. At-large Councillor Steven Pinto agrees with Belair that the hardship issue is nonexistent; . he says a hardship can't be justified based on finances. He does not think the dimensional relief requested is reasonable—he thinks the lot is too small and the house is too small at 2000 square feet. He opposes, thinks it's bad for the neighborhood and for property. He also says that they've gone forward and done the second unit, and they've not been straightforward. He says these issues were addressed at the last meeting. Stavros Moutsoulas, 11 Willson St., says he likes his neighbor, but business is business, and he says his lot is much bigger than the house across the street, contrary to what Atty Zalotas stated. He has concerns about parking, especially during snow bans. Also, he says it's a residential neighborhood—the businesses referred to were done a long time ago. His house is 3 family, was grandfathered, and was built a long time ago. He refers to the day care center in neighborhood and asks if it is an in-home day care, and is this allowed? St. Pierre says yes, it is an exempt use. Moutslas addresses Councillor Pelletier —the applicant says the building was wired for commercial when they moved it, so now we have to let them do a two family? Wiring has nothing to do with it. He says that every time previous owners have come in to have this converted to a 2-family, they have been denied. Alma Pelletier, 3 Horton St., speaks in opposition. She says there,have been violations with too much paving, and she now has water in her yard. She says there have been contractors there, in and out. Also, the Cabreras have shoveled snow against her fence. She also says the quality of life in the area has decreased. She shows the Board pictures • showing damage to her property from water. There being no further public comment, Stein closes the public comment portion. 9 Zalotas says the Cabreras were within their rights to pave and shovel snow. Also, he says the land area of I l Willson is identical to 12 Willson and produces the Assessor's records. He says the snow shown in pictures was put up to fence line, it was never shifted to Pelletier's property. Stein says the snow and paving are private issues not relevant to the Board. Dionne says he understands the Cabreras' situation, and can appreciate what they are trying to do—he's not really opposed to it. Stein says there have been issues along the way that put this in a negative light, and she doesn't agree with Councillor Pinto that 2000 SF is a small house. She doesn't think as a matter of law that the city has prohibited this from being used as a 2 family. She doesn't think the request is out of line, though the hardship is not as high a standard as usual. She is torn, but doesn't have a huge problem with granting the relief. Debski says she has shared her views. Belair says she is torn; she sympathizes with everyone's financial hardship, but just because an owner wants to divide up their house isn't a good reason—she'd be opposed. Debski moves to approve petition with 6 standard conditions, Seconded by Stein. The Board votes 2 in favor (Stein, Dionne) and 2 opposed (Belair, Debski). The petition fails. There being no further business before the Board, Dionne moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Stein and unanimously approved. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Approved by the Board of Appeals 4/14/10 • 10 fir CITY OF SALEM 4 �{a -� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,;,htVe Uo KBIBERLLY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASln xcroN S'I QB GT♦ SA11M,NLuSAQ 1USer1X 01970 Trr:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN Ci(X)NIN DL:yT]vN,AICP DIRBCI'OK March 24, 2010 S Attorney George Atkins Ronan, Segal & Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Request for extension 405-427 Highland Avenue JJ 00 Dear Attorney Atkins: On March 17, 2010, the Salem Board of Appeals met to discuss a request by Paul Ferragamo to extend the Variances granted in a decision dated May 4, 2009, from minimum lot • area, minimum lot width, and minimum depth of front yard to allow for the property locate d at 405-427 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA. The Board voted 4-0 (Debski, Stein, Belair and Dionne in favor, none opposed) to extend the Variances to November 3, 2010, due to the amount of time the Planning Board approvals have taken for the project. Sincerely, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk t � City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet <, ;;; cMirie �'` Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 3 /mil o I Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Page l of J_ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSE'TTS BOARD OF APPEAL g S y '� 120 WASHNGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSAaiUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRisooLL MAYOR -< '>7 AGENDA - rM BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING March 1, 2010 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET L SALEM,MA C? co Robin Stem, Chair 1. Approval of Minutes - December 16, 2009 meeting. 2. Petition of LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert an aluminum foundry to an office and light manufacturing use (environmental sampling devices/equipment repairs) on the property located at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2). • 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 (R-2). Petitioner seeks 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. Attorney John R. Keilty. 4. Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting to modify previously granted variances in order to achieve Planning Board compliance. Modifications are proposed from the following previously granted relief: minimum lot area, lot width, frontage, depth of front yard, width of side yard, depth of rear yard, and lot coverage. The modified project includes constriction of a proposed public roadway, with certain private amenities, ending in a cul-de-sac and fifteen single-family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (R-2). Attuiney John R. Keilty. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment lea 16 a/D v, ,Say Kit 19i1 • Lei CONUI�,q�`' CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS �$ �c DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ,�,� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMMRLEY DRIScOLL MAYOR 120 WASFUNGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSAC HUSETIS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 LYNNGOOMNDuNi CAN,AICP DImcroR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: February22, 2010 RE: Meeting Agenda- March 1, 2010 Board Members, • No new agenda items have been added since we canceled February's meeting- all the materials were included in your packets from January, as well as the minutes from December. If anyone is missing any materials,please let me know. Danielle • -1- OONDI ,A CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Q�, BOARD OF APPEAL n 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR 1t C SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �?n TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 16 A 10: 5� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR March 15, 2010 Decision 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 (R-2). Petitioner seeks 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. A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 15, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members being present: Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Petitioner seeks to amend a Special Permit granted on April 22, 1981. 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. Attorney John R. Keilty represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition date-stamped November 3, 2009, the petitioner requested to remove a clause in the April 22, 1981 decision requiring the Neylons to occupy the property in order for a third unit to be allowed—upon sale of the property, the building would revert to a two-family use only. 3. At the hearing, Attorney Keilty explained that the building is currently used as a three-family house, and that the Neylons currently reside there. 4. At the hearing, no members of the public commented on the petition. 5. At the hearing, Board members commented that if the third unit presented a problem to neighbors, they would have expressed opposition to the petitioner's request. They also noted that it did not make sense to allow one owner to have a third unit, but not another owner of the same building. They further stated they did not believe owner occupancy should be required to allow for the third unit. 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 r y - • I. The petitioner's request for an amendment to the previously issued 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. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to keep a third unit in the building, 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, four(4) in favor (Belair, Harris, Tsitsinos and Debski), none (0) opposed, to grant the petitioner's request for a Special Permit, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. The conditions of the Special Permit issued on April 22, 1981 shall remain in effect, except for the one pertaining to owner occupancy. • C�_QiotJt ,�__0,��,t19m}l. Elizabeth Debski Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. 2 T e} . ONDIT�,�Q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • � . TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 poi FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 20M MAR I b A 10: Sl MAYOR March 15, 2010 CITY Decision Petition of Luke Fabbri seeking a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use (aluminum foundry) to another nonconforming use (office and light manufacturing) on the property located at 14 Hubon Street (R-2) A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 15, 2010 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members being present: Annie Harris, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair and Jimmy Tsitsinos. Petitioner seeks a Special Permit under Section 3.3.2: Nonconforming Uses, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Appeals, after careful.consideration of the evidence presented at the public inllow • hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following g findings of fact: l. Luke Fabbri, the owner and petitioner, represented himself at the hearing. 2. At the hearing, Mr. Fabbri stated that his petition lists the owner of the property as Brian Tamilio, but that since the application was filed, he has acquired the property. 3. 1n a petition date-stamped December 31, 2009, the petitioner requested to change the property's current nonconforming use, an aluminum foundry, to another nonconforming use, an office and light manufacturing use. 4. At the hearing, Mr. Fabbri explained that his company manufactures environmental sampling devices and makes equipment repairs, but that the larger portion of the business was consulting. He stated that no external work is proposed, though he may do some internal repairs. 5. At the hearing, no members of the public commented on 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: • l • 1. The proposed new use is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use. 2. The petitioner may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to change the use as proposed, 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. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor (Belair, Harris, Tsitsinos and Debski), none (0) opposed, to grant the petitioner's request for a Special Permit, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. • 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. E izabeth Debski Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. 2 � I I t` OND17 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ;Q 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 poi FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL A 10: SH MAYOR n CITY March 15, 2010 Decision Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting to modify previously granted variances in order to achieve Planning Board compliance. Modifications are proposed from the following previously granted relief: minimum lot area, lot width, frontage, depth of front yard, width of side yard, depth of rear yard, and lot coverage. The modified project includes construction of a proposed public roadway, with certain private amenities, ending in a cul-de-sac and fifteen single-family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (R-2). A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 1,2010 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11. The following Zoning Board members were present: Elizabeth Debski,Annie Harris,Bonnie Belair, and JimmyTsisinos. The petitioner, Shallop Landing at Collins Cove Partnership, LLC, sought amendments to • Variances issued by Board of Appeals on September 16, 2009 from minimum lot area, lot width, depth of front yard, width of side yard and depth of rear yard to construct fifteen (15) single family residences on land between Szetela Lane and Fort Avenue, Salem in the Residential Two Family(R-2) zoning district. Dimensional changes to the originally approved plan were proposed in order to comply with changes required by the Planning Board. 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. Attomey John R Keilty represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated January 7, 2010,petitioner requested changes to the dimensions of the originally approved plan. New plans and dimensions accompanied the petition. The revised plans were dated January 2,2010. 3. Attorney Keilty explained that the petition is before the Planning Board for subdivision approval, and that the changes in dimensions were necessary in order to widen the roadway, making it compliant with City standards, at the request of the Planning Board. 4. The dimensional changes would result in the decrease in area of four of the lots, • and the increase in area of the remaining eleven lots. J On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public heating, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 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's amendments to the originally approved plan are minimal. 2. The applicant may vary the terms of the Residential Two-Family Zoning District to construct the proposed project according to the amended plan,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. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, four(4) in favor(Debski, Harris, Belair, Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed to grant the requested amendments to the Variances issued on September 16, 2009 from minimum lot area, lot width, depth of front yard, width of side yard, and depth of rear yard,subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards: 1. All conditions required by the September 16, 2009 decision shall remain in effect. • 2. All construction shall be done as per the submitted plans and dimensions dated January 4, 2010. .4atA- Elizaheth Des i Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. QTY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET TS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASEENGTON S7REET+ $ALEM,MASSAC7-IUSETCS 01970 :j'-...._. ,. TELE:978-619-5685 ♦FAX:978-740-0404 KiMUERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR Notice of Decisions At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board held on Wednesday,March 1, 2010 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: TERRANCE NEYLON Location: 10 GARDNER STREET,Salem,MA(R2) Request: Amendment to Previously Granted Special Permit Description: Amendment of a decision of April 22, 1981 requiring owner occupancy for a three-familyuse. Request to remove owner occupancy clause. Decision: Approved - filed with City Clerk on 3/16/10 • Petition of: LUKE FABBRI Location: 14 HUBON STREET, Salem,MA (R2) Request: Special Permit Description: Special Permit sought to change one nonconforming use (aluminum foundry) to another nonconforming use (office and light manufacturing). Decision: Approved - filed with City Clerk on 3/16/10 Petition of: SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC Location: LAND BETWEEN FORT AVENUE AND SZETELA LANE, Salem,MA (R2) Request: Amendment to Previously Granted Variances Description: Amendment of a decision of September 16, 2009 granting relief from minimum lot area, lot width, frontage, depth of front yard,width of side yard, depth of rear yard, and lot coverage. Alteration to Variances sought to accommodate changes to plan required by Salem Planning Board. Decision: Approved - filed with City Clerk on 3/16/10 This notice zs leing sent in ow phanx with dx Massao�wetts Gemral Law, Chapter 40A, Seam 9 fr 15 argil dcg not nqu re aam by the razpre t Appeals, z any,shall be nude pursuant to Chapter 40A,Setzon 17,and shall be filed within 20 da,is frwn the date uhz&the deacon teas fdsl with the City GY yk. 1 of 1 • City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,March 1, 2010 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Salem ZBA") was held on Wednesday, March 1, 2010 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Becky Curran, Beth Debski (chairing the meeting in Robin Stein's absence), Annie Harris, Bonnie Belair (alternate) and Jimmy Tsitsinos; (alternate). Those absent were: Robin Stein (chair) and Rick Dionne. Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Thomas St. Pierre,Building Commissioner. Debski opens the mwting at 6:32 p.m Approual cfMimw: The minutes of 12/16/10 are reviewed. Curran moves to approve them as is, seconded by Debski and unanimously approved. Petition of LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert an aluminum foundry to an office and light • manufacturing use (environmental sampling devices/equipment repairs) on the property located at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2). Luke Fabbri presents his petition, explaining that the business he is proposing for this location is the manufacture of environmental sampling equipment, mostly tool plastic, and repairs. He adds that he may do some interior work to address the building's structural integrity, but there is currently no external work proposed. Curran: any odor associated with the equipment manufactured? Fabbri says no - they make groundwater sampling parts from food grade plastic, and it's very clean. Curran asks if there will be any heating in the manufacturing process. Fabbri says no,just tooling with a C&C machine. He says the manufacturing is a smaller percent of his work- most of the work is consulting. Harris asks if he rents the properly. Fabbri clarifies that he is now the owner, not Brian Tamilio as listed on his petition,since he has closed on the property since he was originally supposed to appear in January(the January and February meetings were canceled). St. Pierre adds that neighbors and City Council were a little concerned at first about the proposal, but the applicant has spoken to them and now he believes their concerns have been addressed. He notes that aluminum foundries (the previous use) are particularly dirty, and the newly proposed use is much cleaner. 1 • Debski opem the issue up for public mrrormt. No one in dx public is present to speak on the mutter, so Debski doses the public cor ywa portion St. Pierre: we've also addressed parking - there's an area to put vehicles. This was important to the neighbors. Debski asks if the applicant had a meeting with the neighborhood. St. Pierre says the applicant went around and talked to them. Fabbri: there were questions, but people were generally happy we weren't going to be generating the same noise and dust there is now. We also don't take or make many deliveries - most go out by mail, and the pans are small. Occasionally there's a truck delivery of plastic tubing, but things generally go by UPS. There being no further comment, Curran moves to approve the petition with six (6) standard conditions,seconded by Hams and approved 5-0 (Curran, Harris, Tsitsinos, Debski, Belair in favor, none opposed). 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 (R-2). Petitioner seeks 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. Attorney John R. Keilty. • Attorney Keilty presents Terrance Neylon's petition. He explains there has been a third floor apartment in the building. He says the Special Permit had a condition in it that if the building was sold to another owner, the third floor unit could not remain. He is here to amend this and request taking out the condition. Curran asks what the reason was they made it owner occupied to begin with. Arty Keilty says he doesn't know, but he thinks it was common practice at the time this Special Permit was issued. St. Pierre notes that it was to avoid absentee landlord problems. Hams asks if there has been any correspondence from neighbors about the petition; McKnight says there has not. Curran says she tends to think that's an odd condition anyway- she thinks if there were still an issue, the Board would have heard from the neighbors. Hams notes the condition has been in effect since 1981. She says she hates the condition- it's crazy. The building should be either 2 or 3 family, regardless of ownership. Tsitsinos says he doesn't see any issues with revising the Special Permit. There being no further comment, Belair moves to approve the petition with one (1) standard condition and one (1) special condition- that all other conditions of the original Special . Permit decision remain in effect. 2 . Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting to modify previously granted variances in order to achieve Planning Board compliance. Modifications are proposed from the following previously granted relief: minimum lot area, lot width, frontage, depth of front yard, width of side yard, depth of rear yard, and lot coverage. The modified project includes construction of a proposed public roadway, with certain private amenities, ending in a cul-de-sac and fifteen single- family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (R-2). Attorney John R. Keilty. Arty Keilty presents the petition,explaining they were here about a year ago,when the Board voted to extend the Variances previously issued on the property. He says that since the original approval, the plans have changed slightly, because when they presented to the Planning Board,they wanted them to make the roadway wider to comply with city standards. The roadway went from 20 to 24 feet of pavement, and in so doing, he says they moved some of the units back slightly to have room to park in the driveways and keep all cars off the street. At the Planning Board, he says they also developed the notion that the two lots on Fort Ave. would be two stories, Garrisons or Colonials. However, all living space in others will be on first floors, and so the footprints of all the other homes are bigger. In some cases, the gable areas won't be finished- people will have a choice as to whether or not they want the gables. He says they also tried to address concerns of the neighbors by moving a wall which was directly on one neighbor's property line and is now shown directly on the Shallop Landing property. He says they also moved some catch basins to the development's property, and they will pick up stormwater that currently heads across the • property and settles in low spots - the water will now be directed to the Shallop Lane drainage system. He says that all this has been presented to the Planning Board and Conservation Comrnission. He explains that they have started over at the Planning Board because with schedules and other matters,eligible voters are limited. He says they will be back at the Planning Board to open the petition again on April 1, and it's this plan that's being presented. He says some lots are bigger, some smaller. He says when they widened the road, some of the frontages got smaller, and that's what triggered their being back before the ZBA. Debski notes that McKnight gave the Board members a chart showing the changes in what was approved and what's before them now. She notes that some of the lots actually got larger- four are smaller, but most increased. Hams: how did you get them larger? Keilty: we took from larger lots, gave to smaller lots. They end up now being pretty uniform. AttorneyKeilty: The neighbors have asked for a fence,which we will supply. There's a wall that runs along here [indicates the plan]. As part of the capping plan, the grade will be raised. Some neighbors have asked that a fence be placed along the wall. Harris: why raise the land so much? Arty Keilty: Because of the capping plan- we're putting in 3 feet of clean fill on top of the • contaminated part. 3 • Debski asks if the City Engineer has already looked at this. Arty Keiltysays he has, and has done a drainage analysis. Debski asks if the street will become a public way. AttyKeilrysays yes, but the stormwater management system will be maintained and snow removed through the Homeowner's Association (HOA). St Pierre: what would the snow plan be? Arty Keilty: I'm not sure, but it probably would have to be removed from the site. We will probably keep easements over certain areas so the snow can be stacked. Dehski opera the issue up far public mm7rm Amity Van Doren, 1 Essex St., lives adjacent to the parking lot. She asks what will happen to the grade of the parking lot between her property and the lot? Arty Keilty responds that the elevation is flat. Van Doren asks about the drainage there; Arty Keilty says the lot will drain to Essex St. Van Doren: What is the overall lot coverage now in terms of paving and building compared to the original ZBA decision? Arty Keilty. it's increased, because the roadway and building footprints have increased. In • the new drainage analysis, we used.a wider roadway and resubmitted the plan with the increased percentage. Harris notes that buildings now take up 900 square feet more total than they did before and says that's minimal. St. Pierre notes that's about a 1% increase. Van Doren asks if the neighbors were notified for this hearing. McKnight responds that they were, but they were notified about the originally scheduled meeting in January,which was canceled. She explains that when a hearing is continued, abutter notices don't go out again for subsequent meetings, but they are posted. St. Pierre asks if the parking lot will be constructed as part of this; Keilty says yes, it will be used by HH Propeller, and will be graded, etc. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asks about the SESD easement on the property— has a plan been submitted to Council? AttyKeilry says yes, but he is unsure of what the status of the matter is now that it is in committee. Goggin asks if the developer is leasing or buying the HH propellor land. • AttyKeilty says they are buying it, but leasing it back with an easement. Goggin asks about the roadway changes; Keiltysays they City wouldn't accept street without them Goggin asks what happens if the HOA doesn't keep up with snow removal? Keilty says they would 4 have to get another service provider. He says this HOA system is similar to a condo association, but also notes that cluster developments often take these on. Goggin says she worries about this, since the condos on Highland Ave. were supposed to have their own trash pickup, but the residents found out that because they were paying taxes, the city now has to do the pickup. Keilty says the trash pickup will be done by the city. Goggin says she was talking about the snow removal. Debski says that may be an issue that comes up down the road, but that's an issue for City Council; the ZBA can't control that. She says she believes the Planning Board will put a condition addressing that in their decision. She then asks Keilty about the property s closing schedule. Keilty says it is dependent upon the Planning Board's approval. Board members have no further comments. Harris moves to approve the petition and plans as amended on January 4, 2010, with all the previous decision's conditions in effect, seconded by Belair and approved 4-0 (Harris,Belair, Tsitsinos and Debski in favor, none opposed). Harris moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Belair and unanimously approved. The nwtirtg is ad1'ourreed at 7:15 pm Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner • Approved by the Board of Appeals 4/14/10 5 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date 3 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail ,c 1c AA t�lc��s I Lcs�x se �f Page of CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS �o M BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WFlSHINGTON STREET+ $ALEM,MASSAQ-IUSETtS 41-970 1 TELE:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISGOLL c:S MAYOR r n, —0 rl r-;r NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION .= co You are hereby notified that the Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for February 10, 2010 at 6:30 P.M., 3RD Floor, Room 313 - 120 Washington St., Salem,MA has been canceled due to a city-wide parking ban and inclement weather predicted for 2110110. All agenda items will be moved to anew meeting date,still to be scheduled and posted. Robin Stein, Chair • Hail ,( ,r r; • �Nn r�11 � ��� ko a a' r. a nn"'ray, CITY OF SALEM, N ASSAC IUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL p rt _ 2010 FEB - I P 120WASFUNGTONSTREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETT501f970r bill ii a�KLvmERLEv DwscoLL TELE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-Aa9946!_i H ,MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING February 10, 2010 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MA JA'IAM Robin Stein, Chair 1. Approval of Minutes - December 16, 2009 meeting. 2. Petition of LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert an aluminum foundry to an office and light manufacturing use (environmental sampling devices/equipment repairs) on the property located at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2). • 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 (R-2). Petitioner seeks 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. Attorney John R. Keilty. 4. Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting to modify previously granted variances in order to achieve Planning Board compliance. Modifications are proposed from the following previously granted relief: minimum lot area,lot width, frontage, depth of front yard, width of side yard, depth of rear yard, and lot coverage. The modified project includes construction of a proposed public roadway, with certain private amenities, ending in a cul-de-sac and fifteen single-family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (R-2). Attorney John R. Keilty. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment I W10 f'fr 1•' �9 �� ��.+l:s°i'S.» kai>� iJ'sk r:ti�,rr,r ;y49:} �rF,-.p. • �. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMRERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120WASHINGTONSTREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETIS 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: February 1, 2010 RE: Meeting Agenda - February 10, 2010 Board Members, • No new agenda items have been added since we canceled Januarys meeting- all the materials were included in your packets from last month, as well as the minutes from December. I am, however, adding the original plans the Board approved for Shallop Landing in 2008 (for those who are eligible to vote on this item), because I neglected to include them in January's packet. Danielle • -1- y�L nnrrgy�� QTY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL • rO �£ 120 W'ASHINGTON STREET'* SALEM,MASSACHUSEiTS 019� p ALE:978-745-9595 ♦FAx:978-740-9846 KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL MAYOR } l> NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATIONS cj w YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 20, 2010 AT 6:30 P.M. HAS BEEN CANCELED DUE TO LACK OF A QUORUM. THE AGENDA ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING WILL BE HEARD AT A MEETING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 10, 2010 AT 6:30 P.M., . 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASFIINGTON STREET, SALEM,MA. THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FOR FEBRUARY 17, 2010, WILL ALSO BE CANCELED. Robin Stein, Chair • iS t '" fit n : qra 1y aafD /a•53pr In I°r.4��." Ju ,eyt Qt* tee u' 1936 .Y QTY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ft Ro 2010 JaN t 8' 28 ➢j F9 yC" q 120WASHNGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MAssA0i1USETr501970FILL ;r ''HNP;r1 ALE:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-N'6Y Cll itii , S;-.LEt'„ i j•y;;j KIMRERLEY DRiscoLL MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING January 20, 2010 - 6:30 P.M. 3RD FLOOR, ROOM 313 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MA / RobinStein, c air Jkm 1. Approval of Minutes - December 16, 2009 meeting. 2. Petition of LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert an aluminum foundry to an office and light manufacturing use (environmental sampling devices/equipment repairs) on the property located at 14 HUBON STREET (R-2). • 3. Continued from December 16, 2009: 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 (R-2). Petitioner seeks 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. Attorney John R. Keilty. 4. Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting to modify previously granted variances in order to achieve Planning Board compliance. Modifications are proposed from the following previously granted relief: minimum lot area, lot width, frontage, depth of front yard, width of side yard, depth of rear yard, and lot coverage. The modified project includes construction of a proposed public roadway, with certain private amenities, ending in a cul-de-sac and fifteen single-family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (R-2). Attorney John R. Keilty. 5. The following petition has been withdrawn and will not be heard. Petition of JOSEPH SALAMONE, seeking relief from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, and lot width/frontage to construct a single-family home on the property located at 20 ALBION STREET, Salem, MA (R-1). 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment y loa `�E p fJ9N t2�. bolo s Pv��o ��ls CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS AA `y ! DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGfON STREET ♦ SALEM,iVL1SSACIIUSB'1"rS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP - DIRECPOR MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: January 11, 2010 RE: Meeting Agenda—January 20, 2010 Board Members, • Please find included in your packet the following: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes of December 16, 2010 ➢ Petitions and Materials for new Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: 1. Petition of LUKE FABBRI requesting a Special Permit—14 HUBON STREET (R-2). The applicant is requesting the Special Permit to change one nonconforming use to another in order to convert an aluminum foundry to an office and light manufacturing use (environmental sampling devices/equipment repairs). 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. Attorney John R. Keilty. The original decision was included in your packet from last month;Attorney Kellty continued it last month because only four members were present. • 4- 3. Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP, LLC requesting to modify previously granted variances in order to achieve Planning Board • compliance. Modifications are proposed from the following previously granted relief: minimum lot area, lot width, frontage, depth of front yard,width of side yard, depth of rear yard, and lot coverage. The modified project includes construction of a proposed public roadway,with certain private amenities, ending in a cul-de-sac and fifteen single-family residences on land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE (R- 2). Attorney John R. Keilty. We will not have enough members present at the 1/20 meeting to hear this item., but I am enclosing the materials for a potential special meeting the following week. Relief was granted in September 2008 from lot area,lot width, front yard setback, side yard setback, and rear yard setback for the 15-lot subdivision. When the project came before the Planning Board in November,we noticed the plans were not exactly the same as those the ZBA . had approved (the position of the lot lines, and therefore the exact dimensional relief needed- most notably,lot area-had changed). Attorney Keilty has agreed to return to the ZBA to amend the previously granted relief to reflect the updated plans. The Planning Board has not yet closed this hearing. I have included the table below to show how the current submission differs from the one the ZBA originally approved: ZBA approved Lot plan PB submission Difference • 1 4,285 4,451 166 2 3,750 4,131 381 3 3,750 4,131 381 4 3,767 4,131 364 5 4,794 5,384 590 6 7,670 7,581 -89 7 4,389 5,412 1023 8 9,110 5,778 -3332 9 8,405 6,571 -1834 10 6,210 6,479 269 11 4,239 4,135 -104 12 3,750 4,131 381 13 4,330 4,668 338 14 4,551 6,389 1838 15 5,133 5,670 537 Average 5,209 5,269 Total 78,133 79,042 909 Range 3,750 to 9,110 4,131 to 7,581 I am including both the old (approved) plan and the new submission in your packets. _2. 4. The foliowingpetition has been withdrawn and will not be heard.•Petition of JOSEPH SALAMONE, seeking relief from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, and lot width/frontage to construct a single-family home on the property located at 20 ALBION STREET, Salem, MA (R-1). This project was recently before the Historic Commission,requesting a demolition delay waiver, which was denied. Mr. Salarrone has withdrawn the application for now, but we expect it to be submitted again after the 6-month demolition delay period is over. 5. Old/New Business • -3-